Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Sep 21, 2011.
yeh I know you and your pals keep saying that but then we all know empty talk is cheap.
Then prove your point.
acknowledge a proven point
You haven't proven any points.
Try to use chemistry to disprove what Fangbeer has posted. If you claim he's wrong, show your work.
there is nothing wrong with the chemistry fang posted, only that it does not apply.
What you are asking is as ridiculous as applying economic statistics to design an electrical circuit.
If you were paying attention you would have noted he cannot and never will post the elements and detailed circumstances required to make his claim true.
His posts get more ridiculous as he goes on with it. LOL
There is a good reason for that. LOL
Then show what, in your opinion, "changed steel to dust".
here you go again with the brawndo debate.
I will refresh your memory
Look at that, you can see 4 columns tip over and turn to toothpicks! What the hell is up with that?
WOW look at that just bursts into a poof of dust and floats to the ground! Amazing!
This one is pure white again columns bursting into dust.
I am standing besides myself!
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.
I am STILL WAITING for the official 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]
No, I'm asking you what you think caused "steel to turn to dust". We know you believe it did, what do you think caused it?
why should I speculate on the work that our trustees failed to provide?
Do you not understand that I am asking the official liars what caused it?
Why do you insist that I answer my own question? HMM?
You insist that it must have happened, but you can't say how.
We are left with the science/ chemistry which proves steel did not "turn to dust" in your posted gifs. No speculation in that, the evidence has been shown.
Lacking a better theory, the science stands.
No applicable science has yet to be offered.
If you were to provide the correct science I would agree, but you need to apply apples to apples and oranges to oranges and then explain how your claim is possible with regard to the wtc and you all have failed miserably.
You cannot argue with someone who insists 2+2=1 when they insist they are properly applying math any more than one can argue with your misapplication of science.
I have given you all plenty of opportunity to state all the conditions required to demonstrate your claims and you always conveniently side step that part of the process or toss any garbage out here like a naughty child caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
grinders do not create heat and friction and all its takes is oxygen and iron should be starring in a comedy show.
go ahead make my day!
In other words Koko has no clue what he is talking about and is hoping to obfuscate everything to the point where he might look credible. It isn't working.
Explain how the steel turns to dust, Koko. You've made the claim. You prove it. Surely someone as brilliant as you can prove such a simple little claim, right? You're not going to run away yet again, are you?
People getting owned on the net is nothing new, but it's always a special treat when you witness someone do it to themselves.
Keep up the good work koko, it's fun to watch.
If grinders only needed heat and friction to do their jobs,there would be no need to coat the wheels with abrasives...
Oh, but it has. Fangbeer has demonstrated through chemical science that steel cannot instantly 'turn to dust' without the release of heat and light. The gifs do not show any such release, so the steel in them is clearly not 'turning to dust'.
Unless you can counter this argument with science (you can't) or offer a differing hypothesis (you haven't) then all you are doing is whining "nun-uh".
Do you have a differing hypothesis? If so, what is it?
no he did not.
he had iron for starters
it was already dust for seconds
it was heated with a blow torch for 3rds
I did not see any blow torches on the wtc, it was not originally in the state of dust on the wtc, and it was steel not iron, and there was no flint, and that steel has been exposed to oxygen for years and the conditions for prophalactic ignition on the wtc were never demonstrated by him or you or any of your ilk.
I was perfectly clear in my previous posts and if you wish to have a discussion in a childs level of discourse then I will address you like I would any other obstinate child who is simply trying to "get their way" by stomping their feet.
any more thinking you wish me to do for you?
Now if you are ready to provide those condition I am listening or just face it that you are out of your league.
I'm not discussing the video posted (which in any case did not have a blowtorch). I'm talking about the irrefutable chemical fact that, if the steel in the gifs you posted had "turned to dust", then there would have been a huge amount of energy released in the form of light and heat. There isn't, so it wasn't.
Ignoring the science will not make it go away. Unless you can counter this argument with science (you can't) or offer a differing hypothesis (you haven't) then all you are doing is whining "nun-uh".
Do you have a differing hypothesis? If so, what is it?
Yes he did.
Yup. I have to assume you're talking about the video I posted of the pyrophoric reaction of iron. I had iron for starters because iron is what I was talking about. I showed you iron because iron reacts with oxygen and releases a lot of energy. It combusts at room temperature.
What does this have to do with anything? The iron in the test tube was "dust for seconds" because it was not in contact with free oxygen. It was on contact with CO2. Furthermore, you said that steel had turned to dust. If steel had turned to dust the iron in the steel would react with the oxygen in the atmosphere and release a large amount of energy. The video I gave you was to satisfy your juvenile need to see images of what I was talking about. If you were really a truth seeker, you'd be able confirm what I was talking about in much more academic ways..
Iron oxalate was heated with a blow torch to create a sample of elemental iron. Iron is so volatile in the presence of oxygen that it's a simple way to create "iron dust" without the iron immediately oxidizing. You seem to think that steel columns can just poof into dust without reacting with the oxygen in the air, so maybe you know of some other way to make elemental iron?
You don't know what steel is, do you? There is no steel molecule. Steel is an alloy. If you break steel apart, you expose elemental iron which is free to react with oxygen in the air. Iron is a very good conductor of heat, so most of the time when this happens the heat of oxidation is dissipated fast enough that a passivisation layer can be formed without igniting the entire sample. When the particles are small, however, there is a greater ratio of surface area to mass, and the heat cannot be dissipated. This second scenario is what you are trying to claim happened at the WTC. You want us to believe that large sections of steel "turned to dust." This dust would have a lot of surface area and would ignite just like a spark.
Flint is not a catalyst. Flint is just a way to break off small pieces. It's harder then steel, and so it shatters the steel.
The iron inside the column was never exposed to oxygen during the entire time it was holding up the building. The passivisation layer on the outside of the steel prevented oxygen from reaching the iron inside the steel.
Nice. You don't even know what you're talking about. Again. What a surprise. Why don't you explain the conditions required for this new type of ignition you just made up?
My children know about chemistry. They could teach you a thing or two.
The building was a giant sand castle.... here ill prove it.
If you take the 4" slab of each floor and times it by 100 you get 400".
Then divide 400" by 12 to get your feet and you get 33ish feet. Now we add in the 24" of fluted steel decking and trussing times 100 and we get 2400".
Then divide 2400" by 12 to get 200 feet.
Finaly we add 200 + 33 and get 233'.
I dont know about you but i saw a dust cloud engulf the city and there wasnt 233 feet of rubble left. These truthers are stoopid.
LOL That's because there is no such thing as "prophalactic ignition"? Did you mean prophylactic -- like condoms bursting into flames maybe??
Whoa....holy crap. I think you finally finished koko (kookoo) off. Thank goodness. I'm so glad I stopped by, I was very impressed by what you wrote.
what they are presenting is an outright LIE and I am the hang man and I am giving them all the rope in the world to totally hang themselves.
Why because what we saw in his video that burst into flames was not Fe, what I showed in my video that did NOT burst into flames was Fe.
Simple as that.
He has been shown the truth and they are as usual outside their league and they have no excuse because that trick is all over the internet.
Saw the video, doesn't even come close to being what you say. Something is wrong with you.
How huge? Light? says who?
You think something is wrong with me? well now is your change to shinek, prove it.
I posted several videos which one are you talking about?
and it does not change the fact they lied and it was not Fe in that test tube
Separate names with a comma.