You don't actually think he could hold down a job do you Terry? You know what normal people do when they see mental patients mumbling on about conspiracy theories.
Maybe he takes his tin foil hat off before he goes out.
![]()
You don't actually think he could hold down a job do you Terry? You know what normal people do when they see mental patients mumbling on about conspiracy theories.
Maybe he takes his tin foil hat off before he goes out.
![]()
^ Ya still haven't got the brain to contribute logically and constructively, eh, sand groper?

You well know that he has....you just circle around with this same accusation whenever someone makes fun of you.
Boring twat.
Come up with some really earthshaking proof of HOODUNNIT, ya stupid maggot.
How's yer toe?

what a nice example of what i mean. calculating how much air you would need to burn 60 tonnes of fuel is not that hard. its the kind of chemistry you lean at secondary school in the uk and well if they didn't teach that in east germany... its not hard to find out how to do it with a little bit of goggling.
but why bother with all that hard learnin stuff, when gut instinct is all you need. 50 tonnes of oxygen sounds right and that's good enough for railfall.
it took me all of ten minutes to work out that you actually need about 150 tonnes of oxygen to completely burn 60 tonnes of fuel and atleast half that to burn to soot. and how much air do you need... 500,000 cubic meters. and you have you have to have a decent amount of mixing between the air and the feul to get that burn. which is why oil tank fires tend to burn for hours/days rather than seconds.
so put it bluntly the burn in seconds assertion fails the basic sanity check.
As for melting the iron. well that don't happen in fires, something blacksmiths discovered back in the iron age, and something missed truthers with their modern education, before iron gets to me;lting temperatures it starts to burn in the air and the balcksmith needs to be careful about this as it will quickly ruin their work. don'e belive me go and ask a blacksmith.
You see the only people why talk about iron melting are the truthers, nobody else. you see don't need steel to melt for the building to fail, just too weak to support the weight upon it. and steel starts to weaken significantly well below temperatures caused by fire. infact rapid and sudden failure of steel strut structures and an area of great concert to firebrigades.... if you bothered research beyond your gut instinct.
As for the moltern metal that was seen. well there was all that aluminium which will melt at temperatures well below those in the wtc fire, and it will glow orange when its contaminated with aluminium oxide and carbon. hell on some plane fires the aluminum shell has melted just from the fire of the furniture inside the aircraft without the aid of any of the aviation fuel.
This is ignored by the truthers as this does not help their case. they want it to be iron because then they can say fire not hot enough.... must be thermalite.... must be a conspiracy.
As for what happends with wings with thing aluminium walls and tonnes of fuel hit steel gurders and 3-500km/hr. well at these speeds the fuel is not going to just move out of the way of the gurder, its going to push into the gurder.... just like water hushing against an boat paddle. so the aluminum of the tank will be pushed in by the gurders and pushed out by the fuel.... essentially strengthening it. sometimes with fuel will win and the gurder will fail and at other times the wing will.
One thing that is certain is that my and our instinct as to what will have happened will be no more accurate than your guess at how much oxygen would be needed to fuel the fire. Fortuity there were people who respected the truth enough, to go beyond gut instinct and to find out by using a very powerful modeling technique called finite elements to model what happened on a very large super computer. you will find the results in the 911 report, along with a complete absence of the truthers strawman claims of molen steel, plain impacts causing the collapse or even the avivation fuel or even their freefall bollocks
rainfall remember faith and dogma belongs to religion; science and engineering are about physical evidence and observations. If you think the 911 report is wrong, show us the phsical evidence don't continue to give us faith and dogma; expecting to be treated seriously.
Teakdoor CSI, TD's best post-reality thinkers
featuring Prattmaster ENT, Prattmaster Dapper and PrattmasterPseudolus
Dedicated to uncovering irrational explanations to every event and heroically
defending them against the onslaught of physics, rational logic and evidence
500,000 cubic metres? A wind of only 20 m/s pushes 500,000 cubic metres against the facade of one WTC tower, it's actually far more at the height the planes hit. 1 second. Ok, thanks for debunking your rubbish yourself. Too good I didn't have to go to British schools.![]()
Ya see hazz, ya waffle out so much cottonwool to wrap something up in, you're one of the most proficient spin doctors out.
But you're still a monumental liar and duck shuffler.
From your post above for example;
"As for what happends with wings with thing aluminium walls and tonnes of fuel hit steel gurders and 3-500km/hr. well at these speeds the fuel is not going to just move out of the way of the gurder, its going to push into the gurder.... just like water hushing against an boat paddle. so the aluminum of the tank will be pushed in by the gurders and pushed out by the fuel.... essentially strengthening it. sometimes with fuel will win and the gurder will fail and at other times the wing will."
You claim here that aluminium gets strengthened by what?!!
"the aluminum of the tank will be pushed in by the gurders and pushed out by the fuel.... essentially strengthening it. sometimes with fuel will win and the gurder will fail and at other times the wing will."
What sort of voodoo magic is that dopey? Steel is harder than aluminium, and aluminium will fail on impact with steel. Idiot.
Then you say;
"so put it bluntly the burn in seconds assertion fails the basic sanity check."
Now c'mon hazz, the kerosene almost completely vapourized on impact at the supposed speed of 500mph claimed by you official theory dipshits.
No way did it flow around and pool then run down the central column shaft,...it fekin BLEW UP ya idiot!! Didn't ya watch the videos?
Guess why? Because it got blasted all over the show on impact, down the outside walls, across floors, into the air, scattered and sprayed around EVERYWHERE,......IF the aircraft was in fact an airliner with fuel tanks in its wings as normal.
IF it was the case, then there would have been one big bang which would have consumed most of the fuel in seconds, then the rest would have burned off in minutes after, not hours, ya dope!
The firefighters on the spot reported the fires largely out within less than an hour after impact, ya dreamer. Only what were described as small office fires remained, fueled not by kerosene, but by paper, wood etc.
Then ya go on as if ALL THE STEEL IN THE TOWERS got softened by a fire that was way up in the top floors!!!
Are you another one of those TERRY57 IDIOTS who thinks that the fires up in the 80th and 90th floors of the towers somehow magically transferred heat DOWNWARDS by CONDUCTION to soften the base of the towers causing their collapse?
Well if so, ya stupid twat, go sit on a hot poker or something then tell me that heat goes downwards faster than it'd burn your arse!
Those pics of the Oriental hotel burning in China were of a steel and aluminium clad building, completely engulfed in flames, and guess what, idiot?
The damned thing didn't collapse!

Did it have a plane fly into it ?
And as for WTC7, the fires burned for hours. Did you watch the vid where you can see the beams buckling ?

Losing its strength gradually through fire would have created an asymmetrical collapse.Originally Posted by hazz
What a load of old twaddle.Originally Posted by hazz

Was that before of after it fell symmetrically into its own footprint at freefall speedOriginally Posted by Latindancer
![]()
^^^^ That harrybarracuda halliburton man has to be stark raving cuckoo! WTF???![]()
It's as plausible as any of your other fairy stories, bENT
![]()
WOOOWOOOO!!!
HARRY"S GONE CWWWWKWWWW!!!
![]()
Anyway harry, tell us about yer halliburton connection.
How much sand do ya have to shift (or beans ya have to count) to get a free upgrade whenever ya have to periodically escape that oil laden sandpit ya exist in?

He's Prince Bandars cheif Eunoch and TD's head debunkerOriginally Posted by ENT
![]()
The guy's a twat, to boot!
Why doesn't Terry, Harry and LD just go watch the vids? Then all their questions will be answered. I doubt there'll be a question the vids won't answer. As I say I was a 'debunker' before I watched. May be that's what they're scared of?

Scared? - they're shitting itOriginally Posted by Pragmatic
![]()
I think so.
Plus the fact that they've got vested interest in Halliburton et al via jobs, pensions and so on, and eating Halliburton's coolaid, fluoride.
Notice how hazz only jumped into the thread after Halliburton got high profiled as the #1 fluoride merchant providing all of USA's Australia's and NZ's fluoride doses to the populace?
Well, hazz was the main pro-fluoride champion a few months ago on this website.
The sh*te is useless for hardening enamel in the teeth after a child is about 4yrs old, when all the enamel has formed on the pre-eruptive secondary teeth.
After that time, any one drinking fluoride cool-aid water only dumbs down, the centremost part of their brain (the outer layer of the pineal gland) turns into the hardest possible form of bone.
The result is premature death after a long drawn out pre-terminal phase characterised by senile dementia, the unique fingerprint of this past century's leading indicator of final demise.
Great stuff, eh?
Go read about it. Google is your friend.

Why the fuck would a war company supply drinking water?Originally Posted by ENT
To keep the troops under control.
All ready told ya shit head.
Trouble is ya can't read the instructions.
There are currently 11 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 11 guests)