Rat: >if you were on the project you should know what >the hell a demo looks like when they pull a bldg. Not that it's relevent, but I happened to be on the roof of the adjacent building next to Mark when he pressed the button so I have a pretty good idea what the hell a demo looks like. Not that it's relevent, but do you ("know what the hell a demo looks like when they pull a building")? JB
He doesn't have ANY valid point, Joe. He's in full blown twoofer mode here. Notice that his wrestling name was Jesse "The Body" Ventura, and not Jesse "The Brain" Ventura. There's a good reason for that. "Burning temps" are a crock of shit. Burning releases joules of energy, and that gets transferred into the surrounding area. let me explain it this way - if you took the joules released in a camp fire, and concentrated that energy onto say the head of a pin, its temp would be like 20,000C. And if you took the joules released in a nuclear explosionand spread it out over the pacific ocean, its temp would increase by 1/1000th of a degree. Now, of course a camp fire doesn't warm you up much..... Why? Because its heat is lost into the surrounding atmosphere. The same could be said if you were to take office materials and burn them instead of wood in your camp fire. But air temps in office fires can be 1000-1200C EASILY. Why is that? Because the heat is contained. This is the problem with twoofer logic. They take the very real measurement of an open air fire of... whatever.... and say that the temps in the towers could not have gotten all that hot. But twoofers are too stupid to not realize that their examples don't apply, since to be an accurate argument, they need to use temps that are taken from fires that are contained. They like to argue that they do apply, mainly because they saw it on youtube (so of course that means it's accurate info, right? LMAO), but they are so mentally prepared, due to their paranoid delusions about some NWO, Illuminati, etc, that this sort of bs makes sense to them. They're nothing but ignorant and mentally damaged dipshits. Don't fall for it.
first of all .. learn to use the quote function you fucking jack off. are you retarded? all those stupid arrows are annoying. the quote function isn't that tough to figure out. look.. you said you worked on a demo project... so go fuck yourself..... you should know better. anyone that watches that bldg come down and says its not a controlled demo is a lying piece of shit. that means you....
haroshi is the biggest shill on this site.. i used to joke about her being a boiler room lackey,.... who knows.. maybe its true. all i know is she made a bet on here and never paid because she is the biggest coward on ET. no offense horoshi but when you wimped out of the bet.... i lost what little tolerance i had for you. people should search the thread... it was funny in a sad hiroshi kind of way.
its extremely relevant..... and yes i have watched many filmed demo's. and many demo professionals have called it a demo. i honestly don't believe you when you say you believe it's not.... i know you think it is... i know you are a lying piece of filth.
Ha ha !!!! Still smarting about how I worked over you and your buddy? LMAOOOOOOOOOOO. If you think that I'm interested in having any kind of meaningful debate with someone as psychologically damaged as you or Tommy Cryer............... Wake up and smell the roses, son. Actually trying to debate delusional paranoid crackpots like you and Tommy is like wrestling a pig. All that happens is I get dirty and make the pig happy........
You have to consider the fact that the metal beams in a building framework are under an applied stress over time From Charles', Henry's and Boyles law we get PV=nRT So the beams are in a contained volume (V) over a period of time with increasing temperature (T), that means that the pressure (P) increases, at the same time consider that there is stress on the beam from the surrounding concrete which is in compression, and the changing conditions cause the surrounding concrete to go into tension In the case of your bacon, none of the conditions of the steel beams were recreated by you metal skillet over propane your propane gas and frying bacon example should make Jack Ass 3, after all how can someone come up with an experiment to recreate the situation of the imploding Towers, with frying bacon on a skillet with propane gas. That is laughable
lmaooooooooooo NICE SPIN YELLOW COWARD CHICKENHAWK. Cryer beat the IRS... and i dont blame you for chickening out... but the way you wussed out and welched on the bet was disgusting. i should re post it all. too much trouble though. maybe i will if you keep up this crap. LOL
Rat: >look.. you said you worked on a demo project... Ahhh ... now you finally state the truth. I DID say I worked on a demo project -- but I didn't say I worked for a demo contractor. Now that we're making progress on the issue of your reading comprehension, we'll move to the next one you've had problems with... Please show me where I EVEN IMPLIED that "jets knocked off the insulation in bldg 7". JB
PV=nRT is a GAS law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws please don't try to apply it to steel! The "metal creep" and melted steel theories don't hold up. The heat (or metal creep) would require to act on every single beam on every single floor of wtc7 instantaneously in order to create a sub 10 second neat vertical fall. In other words, every single support beam on every level of the building would have to be rendered non-existent within a second or less. The odds of fire/creep/fatigue achieving this level of symetry and sychronisiy are astronimically small. A melted/fatigued frame would result in a slow saggin of parts of the structure, perhaps it might eventually fall onto one side over hours/days, but it has never happened before so i doub it.