• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

william rodriguez

Gravy said:
Keep in mind that the "50-ton press" Pecoraro refers to is the hydraulic capacity of the press, not its weight. A typical 50-ton press weighs about 650 lbs.

Docker, you're in way over your head. I linked to 2 posts of mine in the first page of this thread. I suggest you read them before proceeding.
Click to expand...

Ok boss whatever you say.

I know the 50 ton refers to capacity. In fact I heard the weight was only 400 pounds.
 
Docker said:
So there is no example. Thanks for the input.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean it is impossible to happen. If we could find out what the force of a jet fuel explosion is then we can figure it out.

Just cause there are no previous examples doesn't mean it isn't impossible.
 
Gravy do you think this witness is lying? Why are the skeptics witnesses all plausible but the CT witnesses arent.

You were not in the basement on 9/11. Who am I to believe, you or the witness.
 
Garb said:
Just cause there are no previous examples doesn't mean it isn't impossible.
Click to expand...

oooh, shouldn't that be used as to why the towers collapsed since they are the first all steel structures to do so? .... :eek:
 
Docker said:
Ok boss whatever you say.

I know the 50 ton refers to capacity. In fact I heard the weight was only 400 pounds.
Click to expand...

:confused: That completely contradicts your "jet fuel couldn't have destroyed it" theory.
 
gumboot said:
Thanks for that. Interesting that you ignored his account of kerosene, and the fact that he didn't hear any explosions. Where do you think the kerosene came from? His entire account is in keeping with an airliner smashing into the building.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

He claims the kerosene was from a car fire. Hes an engineer, he may know the difference.
 
Docker said:
Gravy do you think this witness is lying?
Click to expand...
No one says they are lieing.

We are saying that their conclusions are off.

Why are the skeptics witnesses all plausible but the CT witnesses arent.
Click to expand...

No, they are plausible whne they only stick to the FACTS of what they saw.
IE: I saw rubble.
IE: i saw concrete
Ie: i saw machines crumpled
IE: i smelt fuel
IE: i felt heat.

When they start saying: "I saw rubble, so it must have been an explosive device". They are not concluding it based on what they saw, just on what they believe. That is not a fact based conclusion.


when they start saying "I believe it was" or "IT sounded like" they are now concluding based on their own opinion, not fact.

You were not in the basement on 9/11. Who am I to believe, you or the witness.
Click to expand...
The witness, however you can only believe the amount of facts.
NOT their opinons as to what happened.
 
Docker said:
Please link me to an example where this damage has been created. If you cant then with draw your claim please.
Click to expand...


Have a read about thermobaric weapons...

Thermobaric weapons distinguish themselves from conventional explosive weapons by using atmospheric oxygen, instead of carrying an oxidizer in their explosives. They are also called high-impulse thermobaric weapons (HITs), fuel-air explosives (FAE or FAX) or sometimes "fuel-air munitions", "heat and pressure" weapons, or vacuum bombs. They produce more explosive energy for a given size than do other conventional explosives.
Click to expand...

-Gumboot
 
Docker said:
ok I have read that. Now tell me how jet fuels make walls disappear.

Also, why are people insinuating that rodriguez changed his story?
Click to expand...
You read all the accounts in the second link in the last five minutes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom