why wont any gubafia's allow nuclear testing of the wtc remains? Hmmm.... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56aGHp8oez8"]WTC mini nukes test results (extended version)[/ame]
Now that sounds like a well informed, well thought out, educated and intelligent response! Lotta deep connotations in there.
LOL... We've explained this to you already. If nukes were used, there would be an EMP that would make the video segment you are using RIGHT THERE nearly impossible, because the recording device would be rendered inoperative. You have to admire the ostrich-like capabilities of 9/11 Deniers to ignore basic physics. Not many people can wear blinders that narrow.
You DO realize the heat needed to 'vaporize' steel would have cooked just about everyone around the towers for blocks,possibly? NO steel was vaporized,it's a ludicrous claim.
Just a story from my personal experience... I grew up near Bethlehem Steel, and the workers there, like my dad for a while, used to cook their lunches simply by having them in the same room as the steel works. And that was just high enough heat to melt it. Pretty sure the delta-h to "vaporize" steel (technically sublimate, I suppose) would be enough heat to turn all of lower Manhattan into charcoal.
well you have a problem. you need to explain what can cause it to turn to dust. If you have nothing then it stands. good luck and dont worry I am not holding my breath for a bon a fide answer LOL
No, first you need to prove "it" turned to dust. As that's a preposterous claim, given the pictures of large chunks of WTC sitting on the ground (as well as the various pieces sent to monuments all over the world, including one right by my house), you're not going to be able to show that. No, I don't even think heat generated in any manmade process can vaporize steel. What process do you know of that can vaporize steel, and what are the effects on the surrounding areas? See, we keep asking you for straight answers, and instead we get poorly made gifs and flamebaiting. If you could go 5 replies of directly answering every question asked, I'd give you $100. My money is safe, however.
sure I will play footsie with you. I am waiting to see if anyone knows. I mean since you all seem to think its preposterous and all it stands to reason you all must have great knowledge on the matter or just talkin out yer I want to know which one it is. Since no honest person could say that UNLESS they knew the subject matter. However I am sure it is preposterous to those who have little to any knowledge of nukes. We have a poorly made nist and commissions report so I guess we all have to work with what we have huh. Then you need to prove that all the metal used in the WTC was accounted for. Thats about 200,000 ton roughly. I will be awaiting your data. Anyone who cannot see the columns turning to dust either needs glasses or they certainly are liars since there is no other explanation. Next NISTs pictures are very poor quality too, so do post hig res pics for me instead of those blurry ones nist put out k Now as I was saying unless you have a realistic explanation for how steel can turn to dust as seen in the clips, it comes under the same category as freefall = demolition, dustification = nuke. simple as that. last time I checked a collapse does not vaporize or turn steel and concrete to dust. Oh btw hint: a nuke works really well for that!
After that complete non-answer, does anyone really think any of the 9/11 Deniers are getting the $100 I put up? All I ask is that one of you go 5 posts in a row simply responding directly to every single question that is asked of you.
Yes. Delta - H, as Bullslawdan put it, is the only way for an element to change from one phase to another. Thus, iron cannot become a gas without a change in heat. No chemical bond can be formed or broken without a change in heat. Thus, the iron and carbon in steel cannot be broken apart without a change in heat. The subatomic particles of a atom cannot be knocked loose and radiate without a change in heat. Thus, a nuclear bomb cannot "dustify" a building without a change in heat. Steel cannot be 'vaporized' without a change in heat. Heat is the only way. Chalk this up as yet another thing that Koko has gotten wrong. You can mark it right next to the place where you made the mark for his claim that steel was turned to dust in the first place. No steel in the entire building was turned to vapor during the collapse of the WTC. Next lesson we'll discuss how steel actually gets harder when exposed to radiation and the observation of eutectic compounds in steel tested on the site. By the end you'll be tested on why eutectic compounds within the steel indicate that the steel actually became softer. (hint: it has nothing to do with "mini nukes") Bring your #2 pencil, Koko.
Would those 'books' be science fiction? And you need to make your mind up, was the steel 'vaporized' or 'dustified'?
Back for more even? Why don't you tell me which book to hit that contains information on how an object can lose mass without a change in heat? Bear in mind, it doesn't really count as scientific opinion if it has a unicorn on the front and pop up pictures.
LOL... 5 posts of direct answers to questions would earn this guy $100 via Paypal, and he can't do it. And people still think these 9/11 Deniers have any bearing on reality?
That's what I thought. You can't "think of ways to do it" because you have no idea what you are talking about. You lied and you got caught. This is yet more proof that truthers just make stuff up as they go along.