A Christian forum to join in general communication with people from around the world.

For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT


  • #2
    Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

    But, an amazing number of people have no interest in listening to the cross examine.
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
      Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

      But, an amazing number of people have no interest in listening to the cross examine.
      1 Kings 18:27 .... I actually appreciated the man in the videos rather taunting behavior. Some people will not examine their convictions unless provoked.

      God bless,
      William
      Comment>

      • #4
        God forgives the church of Christian Truthers for their extraordinarily miniscule mistakes.
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by William View Post
          I actually appreciated the man in the videos rather taunting behavior. Some people will not examine their convictions unless provoked.

          Yes, he does a good job of provoking. And, a graphic demonstration is always better than simply saying something.

          Steel melts at a hotter temperature than jet fuel burns, therefor burning fuel didn't bring down the WTC. Never mind that steel, and anything, gets weak before its hot enough to melt.

          There are no stars in the black sky on moon landing photos, therefor the moon landing was faked. Never mind that there are no stars because because of the fast shutter speed needed on the bright side of the moon.

          One photo of debris at the 911 Pentagon crash shows a small jet turbine, too small to belong to a jumbo jet, therefor a missile, not a jumbo jet, hit the Pentagon. Never mind that the object really isn't a jet turbine.

          The substance of conspiracy theories and bad doctrine, things taken out of context and presented as evidence of whatever a false teacher wants people to believe. Another trait of false teachers, they try very hard to stick to their out-of-context evidence rather than directly answering objections.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
            The substance of conspiracy theories and bad doctrine, things taken out of context and presented as evidence of whatever a false teacher wants people to believe.
            Right. So why are you so satisfied with the out-of-context presupposition in the opening post?

            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
              Yes, he does a good job of provoking. And, a graphic demonstration is always better than simply saying something.

              Steel melts at a hotter temperature than jet fuel burns, therefor burning fuel didn't bring down the WTC. Never mind that steel, and anything, gets weak before its hot enough to melt.

              There are no stars in the black sky on moon landing photos, therefor the moon landing was faked. Never mind that there are no stars because because of the fast shutter speed needed on the bright side of the moon.

              One photo of debris at the 911 Pentagon crash shows a small jet turbine, too small to belong to a jumbo jet, therefor a missile, not a jumbo jet, hit the Pentagon. Never mind that the object really isn't a jet turbine.

              The substance of conspiracy theories and bad doctrine, things taken out of context and presented as evidence of whatever a false teacher wants people to believe. Another trait of false teachers, they try very hard to stick to their out-of-context evidence rather than directly answering objections.
              I agree with you Cornelius. I know of no one who actually claimed that the steel melted. As Popular Mechanics states:

              Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.
              It further states:

              "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F", notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."
              If anything the above video proves the point. The weaken steel and the sheer weight of the building would be more than enough to bring it down. Popular Mechanics also goes on to point out that jet fuel was not the only thing burning.

              But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
              Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
              Last edited by Origen; 12-18-2015, 08:34 PM.
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by Origen View Post
                I know of no one who actually claimed that the steel melted.
                I then ask you to get informed. "Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings." - BEYOND MISINFORMATION, p. 32. Beyond Misinformation

                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Zog Has-fallen View Post
                  I then ask you to get informed. "Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings." - BEYOND MISINFORMATION, p. 32.
                  If there was molten steel, then someone ought to produce pics of that steel among the debris. There are pics of twitted and warped steel. It just was not hot enough. Whatever the witnesses claim to have saw it was not molten steel.
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Origen View Post
                    If there was molten steel, then someone ought to produce pics of that steel among the debris.
                    That’s easy. See pages 31, 32 and 35 of BEYOND MISINFORMATION. Beyond Misinformation

                    Originally posted by Origen View Post
                    There are pics of twitted and warped steel. It just was not hot enough.
                    It’s true that not everything melts in nano-thermite explosions.

                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Zog Has-fallen View Post
                      That’s easy. See pages 31, 32 and 35 of BEYOND MISINFORMATION. Beyond Misinformation

                      It’s true that not everything melts in nano-thermite explosions.
                      Pics, where are the pics of the molten metal among the debris? I want to see hard evidence of it pouring out of WTC 2. Show me the lava that was that was claimed to have been seen.
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Origen View Post
                        Pics, where are the pics of the molten metal among the debris?
                        Click image for larger version

Name:	911moltenmetal.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	188.9 KB
ID:	8830


                        Originally posted by Origen View Post
                        I want to see hard evidence of it pouring out of WTC 2.
                        Are you asking for instructions on how to download the free pdf with embedded pics cited above?

                        Here is a video of molten metal pouring out of the north-east corner of WTC2 South Tower on 9/11:





                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Zog Has-fallen View Post
                          Here is a video of molten metal pouring out of the north-east corner of WTC2 South Tower on 9/11
                          Those are pics of something but I see no evidence it is molten metal. It could just as likely be from aluminum desks which melts at a much lower temperature.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Origen View Post
                            Those are pics of something but I see no evidence it is molten metal.
                            You have to watch these conspiracy photos, not only are people photo-shopping but they even go the extent of inserting clips in videos. There was one that showed a missile hitting the Pentagon, the inserted clip only appeared for a blink of an eye. A viewer had to view it a couple of times and slow it down to catch the frame that "introduced" the idea.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Origen View Post
                              Those are pics of something but I see no evidence it is molten metal. It could just as likely be from aluminum desks which melts at a much lower temperature.
                              You don't know the first thing about the science that exalts the church of Christian Truthers. Molten aluminum looks silvery.

                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap