911 WTC World Trade Towers, Did Thermate do This?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Sep 21, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You're demolishing something alright...
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83

    it demonstrates yours and hats since he supports what you posted and what you posted completely missed the target you were required answer if you wanted to validate your claim.
     
  3. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,694
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Despite your ridiculous run on sentence, I don't have to validate my claim in order for my claim to be valid. I'm not here to teach you basic chemistry.

    If you'd like to try to invalidate my claim I'd be glad to hear your argument.
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83

    apparently you do not know what a run on sentence is.

    yes when your claim is the equivalent of starting a fire with a bucket full of water, you most certainly have to validate it.

    That is after all why you wont do it and we all know it LOL
     
  5. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    30 words with no punctuation IS a run on sentence ,bullhead...
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    its inherent in the manner in which I used the grammar ;)
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83

    Look at that, you can see 4 columns tip over and turn to toothpicks! What the hell is up with that?


    [​IMG]

    WOW look at that just bursts into a poof of dust and floats to the ground! Amazing!


    [​IMG]

    This one is pure white again columns bursting into dust.

    I am standing besides myself!


    [​IMG]


    Oh and the slo mo still shot. What a ball kicker that is. who could believe it if we didnt see with our own eyes.


    [​IMG]


    I am STILL WAITING for the offial explanation how steel can turn to dust!

    Anyone have a "reasonable" answer?

    as in believable?


    the above quote is addressed here:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs"]Idiocracy - Brawndo[/ame]
     
  8. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    NO steel turned to dust,
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs"]Idiocracy - Brawndo[/ame]


    so the best argument you can make is the brawndo argument when we can plainly see it does.
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What do you think is the cause, Jojo?
     
  11. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dude,brawndo is just from a movie....it has no bearing on the fact thatsteel did NOT turn to dust,and NOTHING you've shown proves otherwise
     
  12. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,694
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guessing is the same mysterious force that turned Don Quixote's windmills into giants.
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    except the video of course! LOLOLOL

    OH? The fact now? Really? Lets see what you rely upon for this "fact".

    and Brawndo demonstrates the methodology and procedures used by those promoting the official lie in debate forums.

    take note that fang has not laid out (and never will) the conditions required to get the results he claims. LOL
     
  14. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You whining about others not producing evidence is just hysterical, Koko! You're the king of running away when it comes time to actually back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*). We're still waiting for you to explain how steel turns into dust and how the collapse was suppose to look just like a controlled demolition. Still cracks me up how truthers first whined that the collapse looked too much like a controlled demolition and now here you are whining it doesn't look ENOUGH like a controlled demolition. :lol:
     
  15. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I posted a video of how easy it is to get steel to burn,but you ignored it

    And we're not talking about 'the official lie'

    just YOUR lie that the steel turned to dust, and YOUR lie that the videos show it.

    The Brawndo tape is just a red herring
     
  16. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,694
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I laid out the conditions multiple times. You need Fe and you need O2. That's it. Fe and O2 combine at room temperature and release heat. The more Fe and O2 you have to react the more heat you will release.

    The test tube in the video I showed you contains Fe created by decomposing iron oxalate. The decomposition fills the the test tube with carbon dioxide which provides a barrier between the iron (Fe) and the O2 in the atmosphere. As soon as the test tube is turned the Fe spills out and reacts with the O2 in the air. It is very important to note that the Fe does not need to be hot in order for this reaction to take place. The test tube in the video is held with a clamp for 2 reasons. The first is that iron oxalate is decomposed by heating. The second is that the iron burns at a very high temp which would burn someone holding the mouth of the tube where the reaction initiates.

    You're suggesting that an enormous amount of Fe "dust" was floating around in the atmosphere. Not only would a large amount of heat be released by the breaking of solid steel beams into dust, the Fe would react with the O2 in the atmosphere and release so much heat that it would be like staring into the sun. People without welder's masks on near the site would suffer vision loss.

    Your claim that the beams in that building turned to steel dust is ridiculous. The chemistry shows that the observed video can not possibly show large amounts of steel turning to dust. You're just flat out wrong, and all you have done to prove your case is claim that we don't know what we're looking at. Well, until you can explain what caused the steel to turn to dust, and what prevented the reaction of that dust with the oxygen in the atmosphere, then you're not going to persuade anyone that steel was turned to dust.
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83

    on the contrary you did not.

    you people need to hit the target if you want to claim you showed something to be correct. You keep shooting blanks.... and impotency is just that impotency. What is comical is that you fail to see it.

    the fact that you made that statement shows you neither know what a lie is nor what it takes to prove a lie.

    brawndo is the equivalent of citing a court case to make a point and it not the matter in and of itself as you wish to pretned.


    well there you have it. 3 strikes and you are OUT!
     
  18. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,694
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The target has been hit so hard and the hole in your argument is so large that no amount of dung that you can generate will fill it.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    so where are the little gremilins that did all this or I suppose you think its a natural phenomena huh? LOL

    You know where this is going! Your whole point is one huge PLONK! LOL
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83

    the crap you posted isnt even in the same universe!

    you just have not gotten off of the black ship d-nile yet LOL


    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcWoYEzfA0A"]Official Liars - Living In A Dreamworld[/ame]


    who am I?

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOqY0rwT9dk"]I am the God of Hell Fire[/ame]
     
  21. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,694
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Chemistry does not require gremlins. Can you refute the chemistry or not?

    No. You can't.

    On the contrary, you've relied on space aliens, shadow governments, and imaginary weapons systems to fill out the missing pieces of your argument.

    Do you have anything else?

    No. You don't.
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83

    chemistry here is not the issue.

    application is the issue.

    it does not apply.

    well unless you had little gremlins up there or the building was really not steel after all.

    you want to play the card from all directions at once and that level of intellectual dishonesty is shameful.

    That is why you will forever dodge my points LOL
     
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,694
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If what I posted was crap, then I would expect you to be able to refute it.

    So far all you've done is evaded and tried to change the subject to space aliens, and movies you've watched.

    What I posted is clearly not crap because you can not refute it.
     
  24. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,694
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I keep saying the columns were steel.

    Do you not know that steel is a crystal lattice that contains unoxidized iron? If you "turn steel to dust" you break apart that lattice and you expose all that pure iron to the O2 floating around in the atmosphere.

    Your little dichotomy is false. It's because the columns were steel that your video is proof that steel did not turn to dust.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83

    oh come on now dont be so shy!

    share with us all the presumptions you are making to say that crap.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page