Look at this collapse

Docker, why have you left the other threads you have started, are you really after the truth?
 
Docker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
:)

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
Click to expand...

What does acetylene have to do with jet fuel fires?

Can anyone see the goalposts moving?
 
Docker said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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

so where did your rediculous formula come from?
 
Docker said:
What does acetylene have to do with jet fuel fires?

Can anyone see the goalposts moving?
Click to expand...
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
 
Docker said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

;)
 
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.
 
According to NIST, the heat of the fires, whether from fuel or office supplies was hot enough to weaken steel, not melt it.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
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
Click to expand...

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

QED
 
R.Mackey said:
In case anybody's looking for signature material, this might qualify.

;)
Click to expand...

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
 
So, Docker, are you working your way around to explaining why your explosions didn't go BOOM?
 
Docker said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Wikipedia said:
In chemistry, a hydrocarbon is any chemical compound that consists only of the elements carbon (C) and hydrogen (H).
Click to expand...

Wikipedia said:
Cellulose (C6H10O5)n is a long-chain polymeric polysaccharide carbohydrate, of beta-glucose
Click to expand...
 
Docker said:
My formula is the formula for cellulose in wood. Which is what you asked for.
Click to expand...
you may be right, im not sure, regardless, its still a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon

Docker said:
The melting point of steel is much higher than the maximum temperature of jet fuel.
Click to expand...
true

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

unless of course you literally meant "steel does not transmute into rubber in a hydrocarbon fire"
 
Docker said:
The melting point of steel is much higher than the maximum temperature of jet fuel.

QED
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.

Sparking.jpg


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?
 
Docker said:
Who said they didnt? Dozens of people reported explosions
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Piggy said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you know all the details of the cameras microphone?
 
Docker said:
Who said they didnt? Dozens of people reported explosions
Click to expand...

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?
 
Docker said:
And you know all the details of the cameras microphone?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Docker said:
According to NIST? The same people that think 767s are shotguns.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Docker said:
CH2O(s) + O2(g) -----> CO2(g) + H2O(g)

here is the equation of wood burning in oxygen

you are wrong
Click to expand...

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.)
 
Docker said:
And you know all the details of the cameras microphone?
Click to expand...

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
 
Docker said:
Source?
Click to expand...
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).
 
Docker said:
Source?
Click to expand...

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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom