Look at this collapse

[Docker]

Look at this simple gravity driven collapse. The steel simply weakened. There are no explosions involved. The concrete wasn't turned to dust.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/stokie292/site1106.jpg


Now as an analogy look at this posterior. It is certainly not an elbow and has no characteristics of an elbow.

http://web1.d25.k12.id.us/home/hhs/sportsmed/elbow%25201.gif

[Arus808]

omg. are you now christophera's twin?
Why aren't you addressing questions you left in the other threds.

before moving on to make a new thread, you may want to first address those threads you've abandoned, as you have yet to provide evidence, sources and facts to back your claims.

[LashL]

omg. are you now christophera's twin?
Why aren't you addressing questions you left in the other threds.

before moving on to make a new thread, you may want to first address those threads you've abandoned, as you have yet to provide evidence, sources and facts to back your claims.

Docker has made 270 posts in a day and a half. He could not be nearly so prolific if he ever provided evidence, sources or facts to back up his claims.

No, this is all a game to him.

My suggestion: let this thread die.

[Docker]

Docker has made 270 posts in a day and a half. He could not be nearly so prolific if he ever provided evidence, sources or facts to back up his claims.

No, this is all a game to him.

My suggestion: let this thread die.

Rough translation: oh dear, docker has a point

[firecoins]

Rough translation: oh dear, docker has a point
thank god your not a translator.

[beachnut]

why not state your ideas

simple ideas on how you think 9/11 happened

you have had five years to think of something

what about your burnt cars, how did that turn out?

now you have still frame showing every thing falling down

you will not offer facts, just questions, even though the CT truth movement boast the top minds, all they have are questions, lucky the Apollo program was not run by these truth experts we would still be questioning the program, oops is this another CT?

good luck closing your burnt car issue,

[Arus808]

Rough translation: oh dear, docker has a point


your translation skills are atrocious.
real translation: docker in an attempt to troll this board, continues to post without addressing questions and concerns he has raised with his wild claims. So he creates new threads, hoping that the users/members here will forget that he didn't answer our questions.

[beachnut]

dead insect

[stateofgrace]

Rough translation: oh dear, docker has a point

Precise translation :Lashl is correct, you should not been indulged in your paranoid games.

[firecoins]

we already have enough ongoing threads about the collapse and concret cores and general stupidity. Untils Dockers provides more infor on his thoughts or his backround its best not to reply.

[Pardalis]

Look at this douchebag.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886453e89ed57aef.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2200)

I see a narcissistic megalomaniac.

[Docker]

dead insect

I challenge you all to look at that photograph and then tell me with a straight face that it collapsed. The camera never lies.

[alexg]

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p255/imeggman/ats25069_bowing1.jpg


1. What is causing the walls to bow inward?

2. Since we know the floor trusses are connected to the exterior walls it follows that the floors are sagging, no?

3. Now tell me why this isn't about to collapse?

[Docker]

Look at this douchebag.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886453e89ed57aef.jpg

I see a narcissistic megalomaniac.

I see a man with a good body which you envy.

[defaultdotxbe]

The camera never lies.
but peopel sure misinterpret the hell out of it

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Look at this douchebag.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886453e89ed57aef.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2200)

I see a narcissistic megalomaniac.

Is that Alex Jones' head photoshopped onto a bodybuilder?

[Docker]

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p255/imeggman/ats25069_bowing1.jpg


1. What is causing the walls to bow inward?

2. Since we know the floor trusses are connected to the exterior walls it follows that the floors are sagging, no?

3. Now tell me why this isn't about to collapse?

Where is the bowing?

[Docker]

but peopel sure misinterpret the hell out of it

Have some common sense man.

[firecoins]

Where is the bowing?
your blind too, no wonder why cameras never lie!

[Wowbagger]

Rough translation: oh dear, docker has a pointEven Rougher Translation: Oh dear, Docker has no evidence to back up his claims. So, when someone points out that his posts are merely Arguments from Repetition, he endorses it as a score for his side.

[defaultdotxbe]

Where is the bowing?
floor 95-97, columns 321-11 is the most obvious to me

[firecoins]

another useless thread.

Docker, why don't you post some more pictures of Manhattan so that us natives can debunk them?

[alexg]

between 95 and 99. Go ahead, tell me that isn't bowing. I dare you. I double dare you.

[firecoins]

between 90 and 95. Go ahead, tell me that isn't bowing. I dare you. I double dare you.
I triple dare you!

[Docker]

another useless thread.

Docker, why don't you post some more pictures of Manhattan so that us natives can debunk them?

Living in manhattan makes you an expert on building collapses? Maybe I should move there.

[Arus808]

Living in manhattan makes you an expert on building collapses? Maybe I should move there.

it surely dones't make you an expert since you dont live there.

and thanks for quoting me (out of context btw) in your sig. Its not appreciated one bit.

[Dog Town]

I see a man with a good body which you envy.

Hey look his number two tell! Sound familiar? This guy sure sounds like, the new improved version of someone banned from here. Hmm, same hero, same pet phrases...

[Docker]

There is a small amount of bowing. Now tell me how that bowing leads to the huge explosions shown in my photo.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I challenge you all to look at that photograph and then tell me with a straight face that it collapsed. The camera never lies.

It collapsed.

[alexg]

I trust you have seen the bowing by now? Why isn't that building about to collapse? It's still burning. How much more sagging can those trusses take before they go?

[Arus808]

There is a small amount of bowing. Now tell me how that bowing leads to the huge explosions shown in my photo.

cameras can lie; anyone who's used a telephoto lens can tell you how much is loss by taking pictures with it.

[Docker]

Hey look his number two tell! Sound familiar? This guy sure sounds like, the new improved version of someone banned from here. Hmm, same hero, same pet phrases...

Show your proof or retract your assertion.

[stateofgrace]

Where is the bowing?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

Please watch this video. About 4 to 5 seconds in the building buckles inwards.

If you miss it the first time round watch it again and if you missed what I said the first time round the building buckles inwards.

Explosions do not cause steel to buckle inwards.

I quadruple dare you.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Look at this douchebag.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886453e89ed57aef.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2200)

I see a narcissistic megalomaniac.

Ok, look again at the above picture.

Now look at Jones in this video:

http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/showbiztonight2_2.jpg

Compare the chiseled features on the above picture with the real Jones in the video clip. The real Alex Jones has a much rounder face indicating a much higher body fat content.

The only weightlifting the real Alex Jones does is burritos and beer mugs. :p

[Docker]

I trust you have seen the bowing by now? Why isn't that building about to collapse? It's still burning. How much more sagging can those trusses take before they go?

At worst the top portion should break of. That beautifully vertical demolition wave would not occur.

[Dog Town]

Show your proof or retract your assertion.

Ummm... that was proof!

[Arus808]

docker, remove my quote from your sig. Its out of context, and like a CT'er you quote mined it to suit your conclusion. REmove it, as you are presenting it as it means a totally different thing.

[Wowbagger]

Look at this simple gravity driven collapse. The steel simply weakened. There are no explosions involved. The concrete wasn't turned to dust.
I agree. There are no explosions in the photo. Not all the concrete turned to dust, but there sure was a lot of other material that did (although I am sure at least some of that dust is concrete). Gravity, in an atmosphere such as ours, could easily cause a plume of smoke and material to billow like that, even in a gravity-driven collapse. You can't see the steel from here, but knowing that the building was hit by a passenger jet full of fuel, I'd say it would be dang likely much of that steel must of weakened.

So, what's your point, again?


Oh, right, the elbow analogy. Well, that picture wasn't even a good photo of an elbow, anyway.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ok, look again at the above picture.

Now look at Jones in this video:

http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/showbiztonight2_2.jpg

Compare the chiseled features on the above picture with the real Jones in the video clip. The real Alex Jones has a much rounder face indicating a much higher body fat content.

The only weightlifting the real Alex Jones does is burritos and beer mugs. :p

Attack the argument, not the poster.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

At worst the top portion should break of. That beautifully vertical demolition wave would not occur.

If there are no lateral forces being applied to the portion of building above the impact points, why would it "break of(sic)"?

[alexg]

There is a small amount of bowing. Now tell me how that bowing leads to the huge explosions shown in my photo.

SMALL amount? How do you judge it small. Because the picture fits on your screen?

The steel is rubbery, the floors are sagging, it is about to collapse.

How does it lead to your picture?

I'm happy to admit I don't know enough about srtuctural mechanics, or whatever the proper field is, to answer that question, but if we clearly see the building is about to colapse before your picture is even taken then your picture is moot.

[Docker]

Show your proof or retract your assertion.

If I am someone who has been banned how am I here?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Attack the argument, not the poster.

I actually am attacking an argument, I'm waiting to see if Docker picks it up. ;)

[firecoins]

Living in manhattan makes you an expert on building collapses? Maybe I should move there.
you filled you last thread with pictures of burned out cars not even at ground zero as proof of something weird.

[defaultdotxbe]

At worst the top portion should break of.
break off and go where?

oh, right...it would go down

[Docker]

SMALL amount? How do you judge it small. Because the picture fits on your screen?

The steel is rubbery, the floors are sagging, it is about to collapse.

How does it lead to your picture?

I'm happy to admit I don't know enough about srtuctural mechanics, or whatever the proper field is, to answer that question, but if we clearly see the building is about to colapse before your picture is even taken then your picture is moot.


Steel does not turn to rubber in a hydrocarbon fire.

Thanks for admitting you have no clue why my picture shows huge explosions

[Wowbagger]

docker, remove my quote from your sig. Its out of context, and like a CT'er you quote mined it to suit your conclusion. REmove it, as you are presenting it as it means a totally different thing.
Appealing to one who is intellectually dishonest, to stop their underhanded trickery, is a challenge. I applaud your efforts! But, grant you little hope.

[Arus808]

Steel does not turn to rubber in a hydrocarbon fire.

You have a problem with analogies? A comparsion?
Seems so

Thanks for admitting you have no clue why my picture shows huge explosions

again putting words into people's mouths.

[defaultdotxbe]

Steel does not turn to rubber in a hydrocarbon fire.

strawman, a heck of a lot more than just hydrocarbons were burning in the world trade center

[beachnut]

we already have enough ongoing threads about the collapse and concret cores and general stupidity. Untils Dockers provides more infor on his thoughts or his backround its best not to reply.

it would be unique if he had something new

[Arus808]

Appealing to one who is intellectually dishonest, to stop their underhanded trickery, is a challenge. I applaud your efforts! But, grant you little hope.


it also is a means for me to complain to the forum admins for his conduct here. When someoen request that he remove something because he is presenting it as something else entirely, is fraud.

[fuelair]

Is that Alex Jones' head photoshopped onto a bodybuilder?

My eyes are acting odd - what is this about Alex Jones , head, and a bodybuilder ?

[Wowbagger]

Steel does not turn to rubber in a hydrocarbon fire.

Thanks for admitting you have no clue why my picture shows huge explosions
I can address this! The pictures show a huge billow of material, because there was still a freakin' passenger jet, loaded with fuel, in there! What did you think it was going to look like? A squashing soda can?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Steel does not turn to rubber in a hydrocarbon fire.

Standard house/office fires reach sufficient temperature to weaken steel.


Thanks for admitting you have no clue why my picture shows huge explosions
Please, do elucidate as to what elements of the picture indicate explosions.

[beachnut]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2034175&postcount=1

[Docker]

strawman, a heck of a lot more than just hydrocarbons were burning in the world trade center

Such as?

[stateofgrace]

There is a small amount of bowing. Now tell me how that bowing leads to the huge explosions shown in my photo.

What Hugh explosion?

The one the size of a small atomic bomb that rang out across New York? Oh wait, it was a quiet one wasn't it?

The building is collapsing and generating a massive dust cloud as it goes.

[Docker]

Standard house/office fires reach sufficient temperature to weaken steel.


Please, do elucidate as to what elements of the picture indicate explosions.

Erm could it be the huge orbital ejection of dust and debris, the steel flying out horizontally.

[firecoins]

Steel does not turn to rubber in a hydrocarbon fire.

Thanks for admitting you have no clue why my picture shows huge explosions
Your obviously not materials expert, chemist, physist or an engineer. You can't mention your backround because you know one would believe a scientist could be so stupid.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Erm could it be the huge orbital ejection of dust and debris, the steel flying out horizontally.

Why is this precluded from occurring from a gravity driven collapse?

[alexg]

Steel does not turn to rubber in a hydrocarbon fire.

Thanks for admitting you have no clue why my picture shows huge explosions


But the steel IS turning to rubber.

And I have plenty of clues. And since you ask for them I'll share them with you.

These are not explosions. Some debris would go up if they were and as the screen capture from this bogus 'physics' video shows, the debris only goes sideways.
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p255/imeggman/collapsecrap.jpg

It's steel snapping under pressure beyond our comprehension. Concrete smashing concrete with an astounding force.

[Docker]

it also is a means for me to complain to the forum admins for his conduct here. When someoen request that he remove something because he is presenting it as something else entirely, is fraud.

I have not misquoted you. That is what you said. People quote me all the time and I don't complain.

[Docker]

But the steel IS turning to rubber.

And I have plenty of clues. And since you ask for them I'll share them with you.

These are not explosions. Some debris would go up if they were and as the screen capture from this bogus 'physics' video shows, the debris only goes sideways.
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p255/imeggman/collapsecrap.jpg

It's steel snapping under pressure beyond our comprehension. Concrete smashing concrete with an astounding force.
That picture shows debris shooting upward

[firecoins]

Why is this precluded from occurring from a gravity driven collapse?
because if air forced it out than you can't claim explosives did.

[fuelair]

Steel does not turn to rubber in a hydrocarbon fire.

Thanks for admitting you have no clue why my picture shows huge explosions

Steel doesn't turn into rubber in any kind of fire - where did you learn your chemistry?

[Docker]

Your obviously not materials expert, chemist, physist or an engineer. You can't mention your backround because you know one would believe a scientist could be so stupid.

That has such power coming from an economist.

[firecoins]

I have misquoted you. That is what I said. People quote me all the time and I complain.

well you should stop misquoting people and complain when people misquote you. Maybe you would make better arguents.

[firecoins]

That has such power coming from an economist.
I am honest about my backround. Whats yours again? Oh right! you can't discuss it. Its top secret!

[alexg]

That picture shows debris shooting upward

No it does not.

You see an apparent upward arc, correct? This is because the collapsing building is sucking, drafting, the cloud downward where it is still close to the collapse. Watch that video and you will see this is true. The video purports to show just what you said but they use the big horizontile plume as evidence. They just paused it moments after I did. Same applies to the stuff above.

[Docker]

Docker please stop using logical arguments to refute our junk science.

Anyone can be that childish

[Rob Lister]

:popcorn1

[beachnut]

Such as?

well you started this, such as is a good question for you to answer

[Docker]

I am honest about my backround. Whats yours again? Oh right! you can't discuss it. Its top secret!

If I told you you would simply declare that I am lying. Such as was done to pdoherty

[alexg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5gMAHnm0UA

Watch and then pause the film at 1:46. The picture speaks for itself.

[defaultdotxbe]

Such as?
do i honestly have to answer this? weve already discussed desks, there were also chairs, carpet, papers, computers, and (sad to say) people

as arkan said, normal office fires (without jet fuel) get hot enough to weaken steel, the role the jet fuel played was the spread the fire across 4 entire floors almost instantly, even if the fire supression systems int eh WTC were working they were never designed to combat a fire that large

[Garb]

Docker, as much as I appreciate your immaturity to attack me in your sig, it doesn't make you any smarter, nor does it prove any of your theories correct.

And where do you see these explosions?

[firecoins]

Docker can't give his opinion. He can't give us his backround. He can't back up his claims.

[Pardalis]

What are your credentials in physics M. Jones?

[Docker]

do i honestly have to answer this? weve already discussed desks, there were also chairs, carpet, papers, computers, and (sad to say) people



Everything you list there is a hydrocarbon. Is this really the level of scientific knowledge I am up against?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Such as?

Computer monitors/cases, polyester fabrics (carpets, curtains, etc), cleaning products, various plastics, to name a few.

ETA: The hydrocarbon claim is a red herring anyway. The temperatures are sufficient. QED

[Docker]

Docker, as much as I appreciate your immaturity to attack me in your sig, it doesn't make you any smarter, nor does it prove any of your theories correct.

And where do you see these explosions?

Attack you? Hey, if I can attack you by simply quoting your own words then your in trouble.

[beachnut]

Anyone can be that childish

but what are your background besides asking questions and posting CT ideas on out of context photos of falling WTC?

are you an engineer?

a software salesman?

a failed radio show host with a bull horn?

or the only CT guy left without facts cause you left them with Charlie Sheen to defend against all odds?

It would be interesting what you are so we understand how you are better equipped to understand physics than any other patent clerk is?

[defaultdotxbe]

Everything you list there is a hydrocarbon. Is this really the level of scientific knowledge I am up against?
i woudl hardly classify wood and flesh as hydrocarbon

and as far as hydrocarbon effects on steel....what does acetylene do to steel? says alot about your level of scientific knowledge

[beachnut]

Attack you? Hey, if I can attack you by simply quoting your own words then your in trouble.

quibbling about your sig is kind of indicative of your likeness to Alex Jones

[Docker]

"Docker: huge explosions shown in my photo.

Seriously Docker, if you want to play this game, you are going to lose..."

Interesting that you view this as winning and losing.

Could we have a game of my dad is bigger than your dad?

[Arus808]

I have not misquoted you. That is what you said. People quote me all the time and I don't complain.

No you quote mined it. I stated that i read parts of the report that interested me and RE-READ other parts when I wanted to prove a point or fact.

Again, you miquoted me. So, REMOVE that quote from your sig. YOU took my quote out of context, and are now presenting it as to mean something else entirely.

I do not appreicate people who put words into my mouth. Im perfectly capable of speaking on my own behalf, and I dont need kooks like you to miquote me.

So, You are asked for a final time before I report you to the mods, to remove my quote.

[beachnut]

Attack you? Hey, if I can attack you by simply quoting your own words then your in trouble.

yet your quibbling is more indicative of your expert research and facts presented on this thread

[firecoins]

If I told you you would simply declare that I am lying. Such as was done to pdohertyyou post pictures of "ground zero" that aren't and I and other native New Yorkers have picked that up quickly.

you seem to have a problem with the tests NIST used but can't give us better experiements that would satisfy you. We have no idea what backround you to qualify you to disagree with their experiments. Nor have you suggested what they should do that would satisfy you.

You seem to be afrain to be called a liar if you mention your backround. Ill call you a liar without knowing it. It doesn't matter. If you have a legit science backround or at least something better than my economics degree you should at least put it foward.

[Garb]

Attack you? Hey, if I can attack you by simply quoting your own words then your in trouble.

Well, the fact you completely misinterpreted it shows a lot.

In mine, I'm only trying to prove a point.

[Docker]

i woudl hardly classify wood and flesh as hydrocarbon

and as far as hydrocarbon effects on steel....what does acetylene do to steel? says alot about your level of scientific knowledge

Would and flesh are indeed hydrocarbons.

So , in summary, you cant give me an example of a non hydrocarbon that was burning and, in fact, you don't know what hydrocarbons are.

Your making this too easy for me.

[Wowbagger]

If Docker can see the explosives, can he please point to where they are? I can't see them amid the plane-crashed wreckage.

[Pardalis]

What evidence do you have that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions?

I think it's a fair question, since you brought it up.

[fuelair]

If I told you you would simply declare that I am lying. Such as was done to pdoherty
Only because the data he presented was checked and was found invalid. We would happily check yours, and if valid, not problem. I assume from your posts that I have seen that you have degrees (from accredited institutions of higher learning) and /or certification (from agencies accredited and entitled to issue said certificates) in explosive demolition, civil engineering, firefighting, chemistry (specializing in the chemistry of incendiary and explosive materials), metallurgy [well, cover those for now and we might give you a pass on the others]. With no offense, but complete certainty, I admit that I am suspicious that you have a background in any of these, but I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong.:)

[Garb]

Explosions Docker?

[beachnut]

"Docker: huge explosions shown in my photo.

Seriously Docker, if you want to play this game, you are going to lose..."

Interesting that you view this as winning and losing.

Could we have a game of my dad is bigger than your dad?




look at this collapse, no facts,

did you mean this collapse or what?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Would and flesh are indeed hydrocarbons.

So , in summary, you cant give me an example of a non hydrocarbon that was burning and, in fact, you don't know what hydrocarbons are.

Your making this too easy for me.

Do you acknowledge that run-of-the-mill hydrocarbon-based fires, such as occur in homes and offices, can reach sufficient temperatures to weaken steel? Yes, or no?

[Docker]

No you quote mined it. I stated that i read parts of the report that interested me and RE-READ other parts when I wanted to prove a point or fact.

Again, you miquoted me. So, REMOVE that quote from your sig. YOU took my quote out of context, and are now presenting it as to mean something else entirely.

I do not appreicate people who put words into my mouth. Im perfectly capable of speaking on my own behalf, and I dont need kooks like you to miquote me.

So, You are asked for a final time before I report you to the mods, to remove my quote.

I copied the quote directly from your post.

[defaultdotxbe]

Would and flesh are indeed hydrocarbons.

So , in summary, you cant give me an example of a non hydrocarbon that was burning and, in fact, you don't know what hydrocarbons are.

Your making this too easy for me.
so, whats the chemical formula of the cellulose in wood?

[Garb]

I copied the quote directly from your post.

EXPLOSIONS???

[Crazy Chainsaw]

There are explosions movement of air under pressure, explosions are only the rapid movement of air caused by a shock wave, the Shock wave this time is created by the air being forced from the building by the debris.
There are Explosions just no explosives necessary to cause them, all you need is compressed air.
Try Putting 1000 psi in an inter-tube from a car tire and you will see the same effect. Air can cause explosions without explosives.
Buildings are built for the air spaces they contain not for the solid walls that surround them.

[Arus808]

I copied the quote directly from your post.

You copied one sentence out of an entire paragraph. That is quote mining.

My exact quote:
I've read about half of the report *(only the sections that i was interested in, and re-reading to read other sections when I feel the need to prove something).

You even edited the context of it:
"I've read about half of the report (only sections that I was interested in)." - as it was in your sig.

Tell me how this is not quote mining.

[Garb]

There are explosions movement of air under pressure, explosions are only the rapid movement of air caused by a shock wave, the Shock wave this time is created by the air being forced from the building by the debris.
There are Explosions just no explosives necessary to cause them, all you need is compressed air.
Try Putting 1000 psi in an inter-tube from a car tire and you will see the same effect. Air can cause explosions without explosives.
Buildings are built for the air spaces they contain not for the solid walls that surround them.

Fine....


EXPLOSIVES DOCKER???

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

so, whats the chemical formula of the cellulose in wood?

I'll take this one. Cellulose is a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon, as it contains oxygen in addition to hydrogen and carbon.

[Pardalis]

What are your credentials, Docker?

[Docker]

You copied one sentence out of an entire paragraph. That is quote mining.

I have removed your quote. Contrary to what you think, my intention is not to upset people. As you really wanted it removed I have done so.

Quotes in sigs are just meant as a bit of fun, like pardalis using an alex jones picture with a tin hat on.

I laugh when I get misquoted.

[defaultdotxbe]

I'll take this one. Cellulose is a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon, as it contains oxygen in addition to hydrogen and carbon.
:)

although his notion that hydrocarbon fires cant hurt steel was flawed to begin with

hey docker, you never did tell me what acetylene does to steel

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

:)

although his notion that hydrocarbon fires cant hurt steel was flawed to begin with

hey docker, you never did tell me what acetylene does to steel

I think (s)he has me on "ignore" anyway.

[Docker]

What are your credentials, Docker?

Am I being asked a serious question by a man who has bothered to photoshop my avatar with a tin foil hat?

This gets worse.

[Arus808]

I laugh when I get misquoted.

I dont when you are taking something I stated, out of context, to mean something entirely.

This is not a game, Docker; but it that all this has been to you.

[Garb]

Am I being asked a serious question by a man who has bothered to photoshop my avatar with a tin foil hat?

This gets worse.

So you are going to ignore him because of a moot subject?

What's next? Are you going to ignore my questions because I wear green shoes??

[Pardalis]

You're implying that controlled demolitions brought down the towers, which that makes it a very huge claim. What makes your assessment valid? What are your credentials?

[Docker]

so, whats the chemical formula of the cellulose in wood?

CH2O, notice it contains hydrogen and carbon. Need I say more.

[Docker]

So you are going to ignore him because of a moot subject?

What's next? Are you going to ignore my questions because I wear green shoes??

These shoes, are they very long at the front?

Do car doors ever fall off when you open them?

[Piggy]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Please watch this video. About 4 to 5 seconds in the building buckles inwards.

That pretty much kills the OP.

First, an obvious inward bowing. Then the collapse. No boom.

Worth repeating: No boom.

No explosion.

Obvious collapse.

QED

Or does this camera lie?

[defaultdotxbe]

CH2O, notice it contains hydrogen and carbon. Need I say more.
congratulations, you have officialy lost all credibility as far as im concerned, you shoudl at least make sure you know soemthing before talking about it

C6H10O5

note the oxygen, making it a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon

[Pardalis]

Am I being asked a serious question by a man who has bothered to photoshop my avatar with a tin foil hat?

You just said it yourself that avatars and sigs were just for fun.

Why don't you answer my serious question to your serious claim?

[Stankeye]

Steel does not turn to rubber in a hydrocarbon fire.



How do you think they melt steel anyway? Maybe Hydrocarbons?


Hint: Think Oil or Gas products

[Garb]

These shoes, are they very long at the front?

Do car doors ever fall off when you open them?

Yes and no.


So... EXPLOSIVES??!?!?!?

[Docker]

congratulations, you have officialy lost all credibility as far as im concerned, you shoudl at least make sure you know soemthing before talking about it

C6H10O5

note the oxygen, making it a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon

CH2O(s) + O2(g) -----> CO2(g) + H2O(g)

here is the equation of wood burning in oxygen

you are wrong

[defaultdotxbe]

CH2O(s) + O2(g) -----> CO2(g) + H2O(g)

here is the equation of wood burning in oxygen

you are wrong
hey, even your formula has oxygen, so its still a carbohydrate, lol

[Docker]

How do you think they melt steel anyway? Maybe Hydrocarbons?


Hint: Think Oil or Gas products
Burning in perfect combination with oxygen to produce blue flames. Did you see any blu flames at the trade centre?

[defaultdotxbe]

Burning in perfect combination with oxygen to produce blue flames. Did you see any blu flames at the trade centre?
did you see any goalposts moving?

[Docker]

hey, even your formula has oxygen, so its still a carbohydrate, lol

Carbohydrates are still hydrocarbons.

Now admit you are wrong and know nothing about hydrocarbons.

P.S. Where did you get your ridiculous formula for cellulose?

[Pardalis]

Docker, why have you left the other threads you have started, are you really after the truth?

[beachnut]

Am I being asked a serious question by a man who has bothered to photoshop my avatar with a tin foil hat?

This gets worse.

we are posting to a someone with an Alex Jones avatar

you know the term "Alex Jones" is the universal debunking phrase, like Denny Crane on Boston Legal, a phase of meaning, universal in being powerful in its very meaning of bunk

what is your post and why are you unable to present facts to support your position?

[Docker]

:)

although his notion that hydrocarbon fires cant hurt steel was flawed to begin with

hey docker, you never did tell me what acetylene does to steel

What does acetylene have to do with jet fuel fires?

Can anyone see the goalposts moving?

[alexg]

Denny Crane!

LOL

[defaultdotxbe]

Carbohydrates are still hydrocarbons.

Now admit you are wrong and know nothing about hydrocarbons.

P.S. Where did you get your ridiculous formula for cellulose?

In chemistry, a hydrocarbon is any chemical compound that consists only of the elements carbon (C) and hydrogen (H). They all contain a carbon backbone, called a carbon skeleton, and have hydrogen atoms attached to that backbone. (Often the term is used as a shortened form of the term aliphatic hydrocarbon.) Most hydrocarbons are combustible. Although the term carbohydrate sounds similar, carbohydrates contain oxygen.


for cellulose:

Over half of the total organic carbon in the earth's biosphere is in cellulose. Cotton fibres are essentially pure cellulose, and the wood of bushes and trees is about 50% cellulose. As a polymer of glucose, cellulose has the formula (C6H10O5)n where n ranges from 500 to 5,000, depending on the source of the polymer.

http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/carbhyd.htm

so where did your rediculous formula come from?

[defaultdotxbe]

What does acetylene have to do with jet fuel fires?

Can anyone see the goalposts moving?
your statement was that hydrocarbon fires cannot "turn steel to rubber" which i guess taken literally is true, if you meant that literally i will concede my point

however, if you meant is a indication of strength, then it is false, hydrocarbon fires can in fact weaken and even melt steel, if you meant jet fuel cannot weaken steel, you shoudl have said jet fuel

[R.Mackey]

Carbohydrates are still hydrocarbons.

Now admit you are wrong and know nothing about hydrocarbons.

P.S. Where did you get your ridiculous formula for cellulose?

In case anybody's looking for signature material, this might qualify.

;)

[beachnut]

Denny Crane!

[Docker]

for cellulose:



http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/carbhyd.htm (http://www.cem.msu.edu/%7Ereusch/VirtualText/carbhyd.htm)

so where did your rediculous formula come from?

My formula is the formula for cellulose in wood. Which is what you asked for.

[Piggy]

Regarding the alleged upward plume, take a look at your picture again, Docker, especially the relative heights of the buildings. The tower has fallen out from under the debris cloud.

The issue of lateral projection of materials has already been addressed -- collapse of floors necessarily generates lateral expression of air.

[firecoins]

According to NIST, the heat of the fires, whether from fuel or office supplies was hot enough to weaken steel, not melt it.

[Docker]

your statement was that hydrocarbon fires cannot "turn steel to rubber" which i guess taken literally is true, if you meant that literally i will concede my point

however, if you meant is a indication of strength, then it is false, hydrocarbon fires can in fact weaken and even melt steel, if you meant jet fuel cannot weaken steel, you shoudl have said jet fuel

The melting point of steel is much higher than the maximum temperature of jet fuel.

QED

[beachnut]

In case anybody's looking for signature material, this might qualify.

;)

see if you noticed this guy would answer your call but he does not seem he is interested in the fact you won, as he proves he was lost and is the definition of lost

[Docker]

According to NIST, the heat of the fires, whether from fuel or office supplies was hot enough to weaken steel, not melt it.

According to NIST? The same people that think 767s are shotguns.

[Piggy]

So, Docker, are you working your way around to explaining why your explosions didn't go BOOM?

[maccy]

Carbohydrates are still hydrocarbons.

Now admit you are wrong and know nothing about hydrocarbons.

P.S. Where did you get your ridiculous formula for cellulose?

OK I'll join the fun. I'm not a scientist but I can use Wikipedia


In chemistry, a hydrocarbon is any chemical compound that consists only of the elements carbon (C) and hydrogen (H).

Cellulose (C6H10O5)n is a long-chain polymeric polysaccharide carbohydrate, of beta-glucose

[defaultdotxbe]

My formula is the formula for cellulose in wood. Which is what you asked for.
you may be right, im not sure, regardless, its still a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon

The melting point of steel is much higher than the maximum temperature of jet fuel.
true

Steel does not turn to rubber in a hydrocarbon fire.
false

unless of course you literally meant "steel does not transmute into rubber in a hydrocarbon fire"

[Docker]

So, Docker, are you working your way around to explaining why your explosions didn't go BOOM?

Who said they didnt? Dozens of people reported explosions

[beachnut]

The melting point of steel is much higher than the maximum temperature of jet fuel.

QED

garb is right, in your sig, garb is right twice, and truthful twice

you seem to be wrong, no one said melt, they said weakened

and if you had the ability to, you could actually post these point first

you may not be a chemist.

are you a LC guy who likes alex jones?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Why are you guys auguring with Docker you know he is right my hydrocarbon fueled acetylene torch can not heat steel enough to bend it.

http://chainsawsanders.com/Sparking.jpg

http://chainsawsanders.com/natural.JPG

Docker obviously has worked with a lot of steel, he knows so much about it!
:rolleyes:
I wonder if he even knows what exactly is burning in the first picture?

[Piggy]

Who said they didnt? Dozens of people reported explosions
You know darn well that in my original post on the topic I referenced the previously posted video shot in real time at the scene.

Look and listen.

See the building bow inward. See the building collapse downward.

You do not hear any explosions, just a rumbling.

[Pardalis]

According to NIST? The same people that think 767s are shotguns.

What do you mean?

What makes you better than the NIST scientists?

[defaultdotxbe]

oh, and if anyone is wondering why im being so anal about details, its because if docker had any scientific background he wouldnt be making such mistakes

[Docker]

You know darn well that in my original post on the topic I referenced the previously posted video shot in real time at the scene.

Look and listen.

See the building bow inward. See the building collapse downward.

You do not hear any explosions, just a rumbling.

And you know all the details of the cameras microphone?

[beachnut]

Who said they didnt? Dozens of people reported explosions

sounds like explosions

but no cigar, there were no RDX type unique sounds on 9/11. you lost

and if you are a bomb on every floor guy, it would take a year to do it, and the cords would be all over, just fact

so what is your idea on the collapse, since you ignore the PE (potential energy stored in the building equal to, as in like 248 tons of TNT) of the building, what is your idea?

[kookbreaker]

Carbohydrates are still hydrocarbons.


Phhhttt!

Thank you Doctor Velikovsky.

:hit:

[Docker]

Why are you guys auguring with Docker you know he is right my hydrocarbon fueled acetylene torch can not heat steel enough to bend it.

http://chainsawsanders.com/Sparking.jpg

http://chainsawsanders.com/natural.JPG

Docker obviously has worked with a lot of steel, he knows so much about it!
:rolleyes:
I wonder if he even knows what exactly is burning in the first picture?


So you admit oxyacetalyne torches were used in the world trade center. Thankyou

[Pardalis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1oRLWlvGbg

I don't see any explosions.

[Docker]

and if you are a bomb on every floor guy, it would take a year to do it, and the cords would be all over, just fact



Source?

[kookbreaker]

So you admit oxyacetalyne torches were used in the world trade center. Thankyou

Wow. You really are only seeing what you want to see.

[Piggy]

And you know all the details of the cameras microphone?

So let me get this straight....

You're willing to make an outrageous claim based on a still image you weren't present at the taking of, even though this photo is perfectly explained by a collapse (including the debris cloud above the then-state of collapse, and the lateral debris).

And yet you're also willing to question the mic setup of a bystander video, claiming that it somehow -- inexplicably -- could have picked up people's voices and the rumble of the collapse but missed the sound of an explosion?

You're also willing to ignore the obvious inward bowing just before the collapse?

Is that what you're saying?

Seriously?

[Arus808]

According to NIST? The same people that think 767s are shotguns.

according to several papers on the subject.
and no, they dont think that a 767 is a shotgun
however, they do think the amount of force by a 767 colliding with a building, is equal in scale to the force of a shot gun.

something you have trouble understanding, which is no surprise, since it seems you can't comprehend what a 3rd grader can.

[fuelair]

CH2O(s) + O2(g) -----> CO2(g) + H2O(g)

here is the equation of wood burning in oxygen

you are wrong

As a technicality D. is right here, but his way of expressing it and the way the formula is written implies (especially since he gave no further data) that he does not have the chemical knowledge but merely quickly looked up enough info to put this together (that is not an accusation, it based purely on the data available to me). CH2O is generalized hydrocarbon and can be used to represent cellulose, but it is actually any of many long chain molecules that make up wood. The key to my assumption of quick look up is the use of (g), (s) to indicate solid or gas (water is (aq) liquid generally, not water, is (l)). These are often used in low level texts to indicate to students the state of matter and are, I suspect used in many wikipedia and equivalent level sources on the net (I am not wikipedia fan for reasons I have given here in other locations but suspect what I suggest is correct.)

[defaultdotxbe]

http://chainsawsanders.com/natural.JPG


that appears to be a MAPP gas cylinder, which burns a bit cooler than acetylene, perhaps thats why you are having troubel working with steel ;)

[beachnut]

And you know all the details of the cameras microphone?

there were no CD type explosive sounds during the collapse of the WTC, you would hear the RDX/dynamite explosive sounds miles away, and they would have been very evident next to the building, as they sounded off

you have zero facts here, you could of posted all your junk stuff at the beginning this is old stuff you are painfully flailing as you fall in 9.3 seconds or in your case we will throw in a rocket pack so you can do the 1100 yard dash in 1 second at 760 KIAS

why do I know you will leave before we learn anything you think about 9/11

you are on another thread yet you LC mole, sort shots with no research evident

you lost as you posted your first photo

[DavidJames]

Source?
You pathetic troll

You have over 300 posts and have failed to provide evidence or sources for any of the claims you made and you have the balls to ask others for source.

You start threads and run away,

Run away, back under the bridge you looser (doherty).

[beachnut]

Source?

I got it from a source you use to post on your sig, but now you post how that other guy was right twice, truthful twice and showed how you quibble over little tiny questions and never look up anything

It is a fact, my post is a fact, your posts are questions and the proof is self critiquing

I have found most CT lemmings are debunked by their own sources

Alex Jones! Or was it Denny Crane! Soon to be Docker!

[alexg]

You still offer no explanation for the bowing. But I am not surprised you avoid this one. What could cause the bowing but sagging floor trusses, trusses made of steel, attached to bowing steel walls. The fire is still raging in that pic and this much has already happened.

If the picture we started with were showing thousands of explosions going off we would have heard explosions THEN. POP POP POP. Delineated. Even if this were rapid fire it would at least sound like a roll of firecrackers going off.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p255/imeggman/ats25069_bowing1.jpg

[WildCat]

that appears to be a MAPP gas cylinder
That's exactly what it is, great for sweating in copper pipes, melting lead, and loosening bolts. Not so good at melting steel.

$39.95 at Home Depot - w/ the torch head.

[Docker]

I got it from a source you use to post on your sig, but now you post how that other guy was right twice, truthful twice and showed how you quibble over little tiny questions and never look up anything

It is a fact, my post is a fact, your posts are questions and the proof is self critiquing

I have found most CT lemmings are debunked by their own sources

Alex Jones! Or was it Denny Crane! Soon to be Docker!

So you have no source, Ok, as long as we know.

[defaultdotxbe]

As a technicality D. is right here, but his way of expressing it and the way the formula is written implies (especially since he gave no further data) that he does not have the chemical knowledge but merely quickly looked up enough info to put this together (that is not an accusation, it based purely on the data available to me).
true, my point was more than it was a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon, i didnt know the formula offhand

CH2O is generalized hydrocarbon and can be used to represent cellulose, but it is actually any of many long chain molecules that make up wood.
isnt CH2O formaldehyde? but i believe almsot any carbohydrate can be expresses as C(x)H2O(y) (a hydrate of carbon)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

So you admit oxyacetalyne torches were used in the world trade center. Thankyou


Of course the structure formed a natural Jet burner effect a long chimney with air holes just like in the second picture.
Also you still did not answer what was burning in the first picture.

The oxyacetylene torch would work better don't you think if I actually turned on the Acetylene. There is no Acetylene going to the tip only oxygen and heated steel along with a little aluminum. It is a test to see what happens when you burn steel in proximity inside of Aluminum.
Charcoal was the fuel source the same as first fuel ever used to make steel.

" The combustion of iron and certain other (highly heated) metals in a pure oxygen flow is technically of great importance due to the accompanying huge quantities of heat - huge when compared with the unit volume of the metal, for iron, it is around 12900 cal/l compared with 2½ cal/l for hydrogen. A strongly condensed sharp oxygen jet, meeting a plate made out of malleable iron or steel at a location, which has been heated to about 1 350ºC, combusts the iron there into iron oxide and blows the oxide away. The heat tone of the combustion heats and combusts neighbouring sections; locations in the direction of the gas jet pass through the same process, and since this continues, you can make deep groves in plates and eventually cut them (autogenous). A metal can be cut autogeneously only when its temperature of brisk combustion and oxide melting point lie below its melting temperature. This is the reason, why cast iron, copper, aluminium, et al. cannot be cut, but only melted through. The combustion of aluminium into aluminium oxide (Al2O3) forms the foundation of alumino-thermics (H. Goldschmidt, 1899), which serves generation of high temperatures, especially for welding (rail links, large machine parts), but here the oxygen comes from the interaction of aluminium with iron-oxide. During the conversion of 1 kg thermite mixture, consisting of 3 parts Fe2O3 and one part of Al, there arise about 850 kcal. This enormous heat tone of the reaction is due to its rapid development during a few seconds; the estimated maximum temperature is 3 000ºC."

http://kr.cs.ait.ac.th/~radok/physics/j5.htm

Once you acheive a substainable mass of heated metal steel can burn in air.

You just have to have enough steel to continue the reaction, it is a critical mass relationship between the cooling effect of the air, and the Oxide Combustion reaction of the steel, If you heat the air, you need less mass to keep the steel burning.

[Piggy]

So, is that what you're saying, Docker?

Are you saying that the collapse which we see in real time on the video was caused by silent explosions?

And are you saying that these explosions caused the same sort of debris patterns which would be expected from a collapse?

Is that what you're saying?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

that appears to be a MAPP gas cylinder, which burns a bit cooler than acetylene, perhaps thats why you are having troubel working with steel ;)

Mapps gas is acetylene, it is just not as Oxygenated as a forced Oxygenated Acetylene torch, and it is perfect for bending steel without over heating it and ruining the heat treating of carbon steels.
To much heat when you bend steel and the steel becomes brittle and breaks.

[gumboot]

I have come to the conclusion that Docker has no expertise in any area whatsoever.

I barely passed 6th form Physics (mainly because I made no effort to pass), and yet I learned enough in 4th form Chemistry to know that neither flesh nor wood are hydrocarbons.

I also know enough to know that hydrocarbon fuels produce some of the hottest fires man can generate.

I also know that any solid substance loses a significant percentage of its strength well before it becomes molten.

One thing I DO know a lot about is photographics, film and video. And, unsurprisingly, Docker's statements regarding photographic interpretation, "fast forwarded footage", and "types of microphone" demonstrate his understanding of these particular subject areas is about has strong as his understanding of basic chemistry.

Docker. With all respect. You have no idea what you are talking about. I humbly respect you listen to more knowledgable people and read the material they provide to you.

You may even learn something.

-Gumboot

[Bell]

What was that with the signatures again?

*points at signature*

[realitybites]

Would and flesh are indeed hydrocarbons.
"Would" is actually an auxilliary verb. Scientists have been trying to find the maximum temperature at which various parts of speech burn for decades now to no avail.

But it's reassuring to know that your command of science is on par with that of the English language.

ETA: Perhaps Judy Wood's tower trees were made of would.... Those would indeed be indestructible.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

That's exactly what it is, great for sweating in copper pipes, melting lead, and loosening bolts. Not so good at melting steel.

$39.95 at Home Depot - w/ the torch head.

29.95 at walmart with torch, My point is the mapps gas witch is naturally oxygenated hydro carbon will heat steel enough to allow it to bend.
The torch is simply a naturally oxygenated jet burner effect.

Also Iron-steel, and Aluminum are the only fuels burning in the top picture.
The Fuel Gage to the torch is not turned on no Acetylene is going to the torch head.

[beachnut]

So you have no source, Ok, as long as we know.

you have no sources,

my source is myself after studing CD for a year and backed up by

Danny Jowenko commenting on his theory of why WTC1 and WTC2

Danny Jowenko commenting on his theory of why WTC1 and WTC2

Danny Jowenko commenting on his theory of why WTC1 and WTC2

and of course I studied it for a year, RDX my thermite minded Alex Jones want to be

and your source of doltish quips

[beachnut]

So you have no source, Ok, as long as we know.

Denny Crane!

[Docker]

you have no sources,

my source is myself after studing CD for a year and backed up by

Danny Jowenko commenting on his theory of why WTC1 and WTC2

Danny Jowenko commenting on his theory of why WTC1 and WTC2

Danny Jowenko commenting on his theory of why WTC1 and WTC2

and of course I studied it for a year, RDX my thermite minded Alex Jones want to be

and your source of doltish quips

So explain how it would take a year?

[Docker]

"Would" is actually an auxilliary verb. Scientists have been trying to find the maximum temperature at which various parts of speech burn for decades now to no avail.

But it's reassuring to know that your command of science is on par with that of the English language.

ETA: Perhaps Judy Wood's tower trees were made of would.... Those would indeed be indestructible.

When a spelling mistake gets you that excited I know your on the ropes. ;)

[realitybites]

When a spelling mistake gets you that excited I know your on the ropes. ;)
Y.O.U.apostrophe.R.E. You. Are.

And what the hell would I be on the ropes for? You haven't done anything except post a picture.

[beachnut]

So you have no source, Ok, as long as we know.

actually my own study of CD resulted in the fact the WTC would have been taken down piece by piece since the PE in the WTC would overwhelm the local area with the destructive force of 248 tons of TNT as you released all that PE making KE, or something like that

but then most CT guys missed those dull days of Physics class!

or is that a false statement?

Got physics?

[Docker]

actually my own study of CD resulted in the fact the WTC would have been taken down piece by piece since the PE in the WTC would overwhelm the local area with the destructive force of 248 tons of TNT as you released all that PE making KE, or something like that

but then most CT guys missed those dull days of Physics class!

or is that a false statement?

Got physics?

They couldn't take it down piece by piece. They wanted something to look like a devastating collapse.

So tell me why would it take a year to place charges?

[beachnut]

So explain how it would take a year?

do you ever do your own research?

Question again, what a dolt I would be if all I did was to ask questions, is your only ability?

to ask questions, like a 2 year old?

Docker man, you will have to look this up and get back to us.

Go to CD guys or the library, and look it up, and get back to us please.

It seems you have lost the basic ability to think for yourself and just ask questions.

Why would it not take a year?

[beachnut]

They couldn't take it down piece by piece. They wanted something to look like a devastating collapse.

So tell me why would it take a year to place charges?

that is how long it would take.

How long do you think a CD operation would take?

[Piggy]

So, is that what you're saying, Docker?

Are you saying that the collapse which we see in real time on the video was caused by silent explosions?

And are you saying that these explosions caused the same sort of debris patterns which would be expected from a collapse?

Is that what you're saying?

[gumboot]

Docker will you withdraw your claim that flesh and wood are hydrocarbons?

-Gumboot

ETA. While we're at it, I believe you also said paper was a hydrocarbon...

[beachnut]

They couldn't take it down piece by piece. They wanted something to look like a devastating collapse.

So tell me why would it take a year to place charges?

That is very interesting, who are they?

So why would it take a year?

I think you can find a few experts in the CD field, where will you start?

[Docker]

That is very interesting, who are they?

So why would it take a year?

I think you can find a few experts in the CD field, where will you start?

You can't back your claim can you. Well done for making up such rubbish.

[beachnut]

Docker will you withdraw your claim that flesh and wood are hydrocarbons?

-Gumboot

ETA. While we're at it, I believe you also said paper was a hydrocarbon...

he can not, he has not the ability to retract, he is just posting

[beachnut]

You can't back your claim can you. Well done for making up such rubbish.

Why are you unable to conduct simple research on 9/11, on CD in this case?

[Mince]

Look at this collapse:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=WTC&hl=en


Posted on LC on 10/19. Five days later it has two responses. Not surprising.


I must admit. I'm a little confused.

How did explosives make the building buckle inward like that?

Also, where were the loud booms and squibs associated with building demolitions?

Also, when the aircraft pierced the tower, certainly all explosives on the affected floors would have been rendered useless. Why, then, does the collapse start exactly where the planes hit the buildings?

[beachnut]

You can't back your claim can you. Well done for making up such rubbish.

who are they, are you unable to say who wanted the WTC down, you said They.??

Who are They?

is this another secret?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Docker will you withdraw your claim that flesh and wood are hydrocarbons?

-Gumboot

ETA. While we're at it, I believe you also said paper was a hydrocarbon...
I would not hold my breath on that one Gumboot, paper and wood are a cellulose sugar, not a carbohydrate, lower energy value more heat retained and produced, do to soot formation than Hydrocarbons.

[beachnut]

You can't back your claim can you. Well done for making up such rubbish.

You are the one who can not back up your claims! Tell me how long it takes to set up the WTC for CD mister expert of CT stuff?

Simple, what is your source, I told you my source, but who are yours?

You have zero source or CD knowledge so it would take a year until you can post proof that it will not.

I have CD expert on tape saying it takes a year!

When you have yours, I stated my expert, you can post his name and his estimate. When will you be back?

other than that you have zip

Who are they that wanted the WTC down as you stated? They?

[fuelair]

true, my point was more than it was a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon, i didnt know the formula offhand


isnt CH2O formaldehyde? but i believe almsot any carbohydrate can be expresses as C(x)H2O(y) (a hydrate of carbon)

technically (officially R-CHO is any aldehyde and H-CHO is formaldehyde specifically.) but CH20 is the generalized form (also may be written as
(C) x (H2O)y ) - it is what is repeated over and over in very long chains to produce l.c. carbohydrates and sugars (carbohydrates).

[realitybites]

Docker, when can we expect you to abandon this thread to start another one with a pretty picture in the first post?

[Piggy]

Look at this collapse:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=WTC&hl=en

Another film in real time from the site.

In this view also, the building buckles inward, rather than exploding outward.

In this view also, there are no loud booms, only the low rumble of the collapse.

The man heard shouting says "the whole building collapsed", not "the whole building exploded."

There is no upward plume.

So I ask again....

Is this what you're saying, Docker?

Are you saying that the collapse which we see in real time on the video was caused by silent explosions?

And are you saying that these explosions caused the same sort of debris patterns which would be expected from a collapse?

Is that what you're saying?

[Docker]

You are the one who can not back up your claims! Tell me how long it takes to set up the WTC for CD mister expert of CT stuff?

Simple, what is your source, I told you my source, but who are yours?

You have zero source or CD knowledge so it would take a year until you can post proof that it will not.

I have CD expert on tape saying it takes a year!

When you have yours, I stated my expert, you can post his name and his estimate. When will you be back?

other than that you have zip

Who are they that wanted the WTC down as you stated? They?

I made no assertions regarding time to rig the building. You said it would take a year. Show your source or retract your statement

[realitybites]

I made no assertions regarding time to rig the building. You said it would take a year. Show your source or retract your statement
From the world record in controlled demolition (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807):
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

That was a 23 story vacant steel structure. One tower was 5 times that height (120 days). Tack on the second tower, you're lookin' at 240 days. Factor in the fact that the crew wouldn't have free reign and would need to take time to make sure any and all charges they placed wouldn't be noticed for the next 7 months, we'll tack on a highly conservative 50 days cumulative extra time.

So now we're sitting 290 and oh poop! Forgot about building 7....

[Anti-sophist]

Didn't the demo expert from that debunking special say "it would take a year", also, when asked about the time to set up a CD? It was in another language, if I remember correctly, with subtitles.

[Mince]

docker, remove my quote from your sig. Its out of context, and like a CT'er you quote mined it to suit your conclusion. REmove it, as you are presenting it as it means a totally different thing.


I notice he took the Danny Jowenko line out of his sig after I posted this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2032419#post2032419.



Mere coincidence, I'm sure.

[fuelair]

I'm thinking it's about time for an Animal House goodbye to to the silly lad!! :hit: :hit:

[Docker]

When did I ever claim it was a controlled demolition?

[beachnut]

I made no assertions regarding time to rig the building. You said it would take a year. Show your source or retract your statement

it takes a year, as I posted and I told you my source you are just too bad of a researcher to find the data or are you?

Are you not able to think and collect real facts?

it takes a year and you are not able to figure out a better estimate are you?

[Pardalis]

When did I ever claim it was a controlled demolition?

Killtown? :eek:

[R.Mackey]

Killtown? :eek:
Yeah, no kidding. If this isn't him, it's a student of his. Perish the thought!

Whoever you are, pal, I invite you over to my thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2034175#post2034175) to tell me who you think are the stars in the Truth Movement. Not there to debate theories, just want your opinion.

[Docker]

Killtown? :eek:

This is priceless. Over in the alex jones thread i'm being accused of being alex jones. And you call CTs paranoid.

[beachnut]

When did I ever claim it was a controlled demolition?

and you could not prove that, or not prove that, can you?

unable to prove anything about 9/11 becomes very frustrating for you, or is it your inability to do independent research is why you can not estimate how long it takes to rig the WTC?

So are you avoiding the question by smoking the stage for your retreat?

[Bell]

This is priceless. Over in the alex jones thread i'm being accused of being alex jones. And you call CTs paranoid.

You allready confessed you are Alex Jones.

[defaultdotxbe]

This is priceless. Over in the alex jones thread i'm being accused of being alex jones. And you call CTs paranoid.
i doint think anyone seriously accused you of being anyone, they are merely making light of how CTers all seem to act alike, lol

[Oliver]

This is priceless. Over in the alex jones thread i'm being accused of being alex jones. And you call CTs paranoid.

KILLTOWN IS ALEX JONES??? :eek: :eye-poppi http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451da7e781cb2.gif

[beachnut]

When did I ever claim it was a controlled demolition?

you are right, you can not claim much without facts, and you seem to be lacking facts, but have tons of questions to cover the fact you have no facts

is that a fact?

[Pardalis]

This is priceless. Over in the alex jones thread i'm being accused of being alex jones. And you call CTs paranoid.

Well, it's true all you nutters all sound alike.

[Anti-sophist]

Obviously, he is Alex Jones and Killtown. He is clearly schizophrenic.

Prove me wrong or admit it's a possibility.

[Bell]

Obviously, he is Alex Jones and Killtown. He is clearly schizophrenic.

Prove me wrong or admit it's a possibility.

I've never seen a picture of Alex Jones and Killtown together.

[beachnut]

case closed, check that ip address again

[gumboot]

From the world record in controlled demolition (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807):


That was a 23 story vacant steel structure. One tower was 5 times that height (120 days).


I would imagine the WTC buildings were also larger in the two horizontal dimensions as well, making it take even longer.

-Gumboot

[Dog Town]

i doint think anyone seriously accused you of being anyone

I did, and I am right!

[beachnut]

Yeah, no kidding. If this isn't him, it's a student of his. Perish the thought!

Whoever you are, pal, I invite you over to my thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2034175#post2034175) to tell me who you think are the stars in the Truth Movement. Not there to debate theories, just want your opinion.

He does not have the 1, 2 requirments you laid out.

[Bell]

I would imagine the WTC buildings were also larger in the two horizontal dimensions as well, making it take even longer.

-Gumboot

Didn't they rig half of WTC1 during a weekend?

[twinstead]

When did I ever claim it was a controlled demolition?

For the love of God I waded through 6 pages of this crap for THIS? Do you folks take a class in conspiracy theorist tactics?

Yea. Of course. If you never admit to a position, you're just asking questions, and if you're just asking questions, you don't have to provide any evidence.

Docker your threads are a total waste of time. You belong on GLP or LC.

[Pardalis]

331 posts in two days, and none with any substance... Wow, you might be geggy on crack.

[Piggy]

So, is this what you're saying, Docker...

Are you saying that the collapse which we see in real time on the videos was caused by silent explosions?

And are you saying that these explosions caused the same sort of debris patterns which would be expected from a collapse?

Is that what you're saying?

[Bell]

So, is this what you're saying, Docker...

Are you saying that the collapse which we see in real time on the videos was caused by silent explosions?

And are you saying that these explosions caused the same sort of debris patterns which would be expected from a collapse?

Is that what you're saying?

Give it a rest, Piggy. He sees how stupid his assertions are and now is affraid to admit. Hence he doesn't answer. I asked him some questions six times, and still he didn't answer. It's a classic CT nutter tactic. Duck(er) and cover.

[realitybites]

When did I ever claim it was a controlled demolition?
I'm sorry. You were being sincere in your opening thread when you stated:
Look at this simple gravity driven collapse. The steel simply weakened. There are no explosions involved. The concrete wasn't turned to dust.

....?

You weren't implying any nefarious wrong-doing there? Maybe hinting at controlled demo?

[Piggy]

Give it a rest, Piggy. He sees how stupid his assertions are and now is affraid to admit. Hence he doesn't answer. I asked him some questions six times, and still he didn't answer. It's a classic CT nutter tactic. Duck(er) and cover.
Look, Bell, I have an enquiring mind, ok? I won't be able to sleep until I find out. It's driving me crazy here. I've bitten my nails down to the quick. I gotta know what the man is saying! Don't you understand? Don't you have any mercy? Have you no feeling, man?!

[Mince]

Has anyone thought of mocking up the WTCs using Lincoln Logs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Logs) then simulating an aircraft impact and subsequent fire to see if and when the Lincoln Logs might collapse? All of this scientific and technological knowledge in the world and no one has thought of this?

[Docker]

I'm sorry. You were being sincere in your opening thread when you stated:


....?

You weren't implying any nefarious wrong-doing there? Maybe hinting at controlled demo?

Controlled demolition and planting bombs are veru different things.

[Pardalis]

What is your evidence that bombs were "planted" in the WTC towers and WTC7?

Show us.

[defaultdotxbe]

Controlled demolition and planting bombs are veru different things.
so you believe that a few randomly placed bombs could have the same effect as a planned demolition?

[DarkMagician]

Rough translation: oh dear, docker has a point

And it's his head.

[Docker]

so you believe that a few randomly placed bombs could have the same effect as a planned demolition?

It didnt look like a demolition, straw man.

[Pardalis]

Docker, what is your evidence that bombs were "planted" in the WTC towers and WTC7?

[Piggy]

Where's the boom, Docker?

If there were explosions, why no boom?

Why do the walls bend in on both videos?

Why is the debris pattern exactly what we would expect from a collapse?

[defaultdotxbe]

It didnt look like a demolition, straw man.
what kind of bombs were used? where were they planted? you must have at least some idea of the second one

[Mince]

O.k. O.k. Maybe using Lincoln Logs for a mock-up of the WTCs is inappropriate. After all, they are made of wood. But what about a mock-up using an Erector Set?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erector_Set

http://members.nucite.com/mem/1/thumbs_300/Erector41.jpg

Certainly the steel used in an Erector Set is very similar to the steel they used to Build WTC 1 and 2.

[Docker]

Docker, what is your evidence that bombs were "planted" in the WTC towers and WTC7?

The fact that they were totally destroyed.

[Piggy]

The fact that they were totally destroyed.

What? The bombs?

[Oliver]

Controlled demolition and planting bombs are veru different things.

Veru veru different things. :D

[Pardalis]

The fact that they were totally destroyed.

WOW!

:jaw:

[kookbreaker]

The fact that they were totally destroyed.

What do you mean by that? Why are bombs needed when collapse does the same thing?

[Piggy]

Veru veru different things. :D

Lighten up, Oliver. When a man's typing too fast to think, how can you expect him to be able to spell?

[Wowbagger]

The fact that they were totally destroyed.

Why can't passenger jets have destroyed them?

And, where are these explosives?

[kookbreaker]

Docker, what do you mean by 'totally destroyed' and have you calculated how much explosives would be needed to do so?

[Docker]

Docker, what do you mean by 'totally destroyed' and have you calculated how much explosives would be needed to do so?

Well your claiming gravity alone did it, so you wouldn't need that much. Just enough to break the core apart. The core that is repeatedly lied about.

[defaultdotxbe]

Well your claiming gravity alone did it, so you wouldn't need that much. Just enough to break the core apart. The core that is repeatedly lied about.
if gravity could do it why were explosives needed?

**sharpens up ockhams razor**

[gumboot]

Well your claiming gravity alone did it, so you wouldn't need that much. Just enough to break the core apart. The core that is repeatedly lied about.


Chris!

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

if gravity could do it why were explosives needed?

Head lock!

[realitybites]

Well your claiming gravity alone did it, so you wouldn't need that much. Just enough to break the core apart. The core that is repeatedly lied about.
So if you break the core, it collapses from the top down?

[Docker]

if gravity could do it why were explosives needed?

**sharpens up ockhams razor**

You said gravity did it I didn't. If you think so much explosives are needed then how did gravity do it?

[kookbreaker]

Well your claiming gravity alone did it,

Not at all. We are saying that the fire and impact led to gravity doing the damage.


so you wouldn't need that much.


How much?


Just enough to break the core apart.


And how was this placed? How was it detonated? Please show some real work here.


The core that is repeatedly lied about.

Examples?

[Docker]

So if you break the core, it collapses from the top down?

We know it was the core that failed because the antenna dropped first.

[Pardalis]

You said gravity did it I didn't. If you think so much explosives are needed then how did gravity do it?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Pardalis]

We know it was the core that failed because the antenna dropped first.

And what about the other tower?