Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Where did the towers go - directed free energy

Options
1…5791011

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again: the examples I use (of which the overpass is only one of many other different examples, including multi-storey buildings ) are to only show that it is possible for steel structures to fail due to fire.
    In that way, which you are determined to ignore and misrepresent, it is " fully accurate and completely justifiable to use in the context regarding the collapse of Building 7".
    And you have agreed that they show it is possible for steel structures to fail due to fire.

    No I'm not ignoring and misrepresenting anything I haven't seen evidence of skyscrapers turning into a pile of dust due to fires alone ... youre and mine videos shows that it is possible that some parts of buidlings/overpass can fail due to fire yet my example is misrepresenting the facts but you think yours is accurate
    King Mob wrote: »
    You are using your examples differently however. Your argument requires you to show that it is impossible for WTC7 to fail due to fire. You are presenting examples of steel buildings to show it is impossible.

    To me yes seeing these infernos its impossible
    King Mob wrote: »
    This is wrong because the buildings and scenarios are entirely different.
    You can show that it is possible that WTC might have survived, but unless you have an example of the exact same building in the exact same conditions, you cannot use them to show that a collapse would be impossible.

    I think in the architects and engineering video they came up with some plausible scenarios
    King Mob wrote: »
    Do you still believe that your examples show that it is impossible for WTC7 to have failed due to fire?

    Yes by fire alone i do ... steel is steel it will not magically act different in the wtc7 fires i believe
    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you please explain what precisely about the structure would have made it impossible. If you can't, be honest and admit you can't. Just please stop dodging the question.

    The fires alone could not have brought down that building ..That is what i believe and i already said earlier that i don't have the proof for it ... asking me for it after all the discussions is rather silly


  • Options
    #183
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No I'm not ignoring and misrepresenting anything I haven't seen evidence of skyscrapers turning into a pile of dust due to fires alone ...
    No one aside form the people who believe in space lasers thinks or claims that the towers turned into a pile of dust. That's a perfect example of you misrepresenting facts and people's arguments.
    weisses wrote: »
    youre and mine videos shows that it is possible that some parts of buidlings/overpass can fail due to fire yet my example is misrepresenting the facts but you think yours is accurate
    Yours are misrepresenting if you are presenting them as evidence that WTC7 could not possibly have collapsed.
    If you are now going to claim that is not your argument, then you examples have no point in your argument.
    weisses wrote: »
    No I'm not ... just look back on thread in what context i posted those videos
    So then why are you presenting them as if you are arguing that?
    weisses wrote: »
    I think in the architects and engineering video they came up with some plausible scenarios
    Such as?
    Simply saying stuff like this then refusing to provide them makes it look exactly like they don't have any plausible scenarios.
    weisses wrote: »
    Yes by fire alone i do ... steel is steel it will not magically act different in the wtc7 fires i believe
    Unless say, a building had a different type of (or undamaged)fireproofing. Or a functioning sprinkler system. Or more failsafes built into the structure. Or did not have the fire in a similarly vital area, either lacking one or the fire being in a different place. Or the building being built in different separate sections where one could fail and collapse leaving the other sections standing...
    Or a thousand and other other differences from WTC7 which would affect the outcome.
    But the steel itself behaves the same in fire and can give out. Just as the steel in the supports of WTC7 could give out.
    We also know that a building can be brought down entirely when a vital support is removed.
    weisses wrote: »
    The fires alone could not have brought down that building ..That is what i believe and i already said earlier that i don't have the proof for it ... asking me for it after all the discussions is rather silly
    So why do you believe that? Why specifically could it not have been brought down by fire?
    Why do you believe it when you can't support it?
    Why do you reject other explanations that unlike yours make more sense, are consistent, plausible and rational, address all of the facts and don't rely on the silly jumps of logic your one needs?


  • Options
    #184
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    No one aside form the people who believe in space lasers thinks or claims that the towers turned into a pile of dust. That's a perfect example of you misrepresenting facts and people's arguments.

    sorry rubble ... i thought you would know by now what we are talking about here ... No need for being pedantic
    King Mob wrote: »
    Yours are misrepresenting if you are presenting them as evidence that WTC7 could not possibly have collapsed.
    If you are now going to claim that is not your argument, then you examples have no point in your argument.

    Im presenting them as examples that its unlikely that a skyscraper will totally collapse into its own footprint in a matter of seconds ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    We also know that a building can be brought down entirely when a vital support is removed.

    So getting rid of that one support column is the reason wtc7 imploded ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So why do you believe that? Why specifically could it not have been brought down by fire?
    Why do you believe it when you can't support it?
    Why do you reject other explanations that unlike yours make more sense, are consistent, plausible and rational, address all of the facts and don't rely on the silly jumps of logic your one needs?

    All answered before


  • Options
    #185
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    sorry rubble ... i thought you would know by now what we are talking about here ... No need for being pedantic
    Pointing out the difference between dust and rubble is not being pedantic.
    weisses wrote: »
    Im presenting them as examples that its unlikely that a skyscraper will totally collapse into its own footprint in a matter of seconds ...
    But how can they show that it is unlikely when they are not the same structure and not in the same circumstances?

    And again you repeat the myth about it falling into it's own footprint...
    weisses wrote: »
    So getting rid of that one support column is the reason wtc7 imploded ?
    Yes. You claimed to have read the NIST report and seen the simulation, yet you don't seem to know anything about the official explanation....
    The collapse started after one support failed( specifically column 79), passing it's load on to other supports which were substantially weakened by the fire which then also failed passing their loads onto yet more supports that were either also weakened or forced to take weight they could not handle or even further damaged as debris fell internally. And so on....

    Please explain what is impossible or improbable about that scenario.
    weisses wrote: »
    All answered before
    No they haven't.
    Either point out were, show were they've been answered, or stop lying.


  • Options
    #186
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But how can they show that it is unlikely when they are not the same structure and not in the same circumstances?

    Same goes for your overpass video ( its not even a freakin building)
    King Mob wrote: »
    And again you repeat the myth about it falling into it's own footprint...

    There is a lot that has to be repeated when discussing things with you ... you will understand it someday
    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes.


    So basically they only needed to blow up that column for the building to fall into its own footprint ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    You claimed to have read the NIST report and seen the simulation, yet you don't seem to know anything about the official explanation....

    I didn't claim to have read the NIST report ( only parts of it)

    See how easy it is to misrepresent someone
    King Mob wrote: »
    No they haven't.
    Either point out were, show were they've been answered, or stop lying.

    We had two long discussions about building 7 and i believe its all covered in there ... if you don't bother to look it up fine ...

    I just briefly looked back on those threads and its all covered

    There is a difference however in what you want to hear and my answers given


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    humanji wrote: »
    Not sure why you insist on going on about molten steel. Here's some:

    steel_foundry_onpage.jpg

    Why don't the men burst into flames?
    You know, I was really looking forward to an answer to this post. Oddly enough, no sign of Dew Drops or Juiceee today.


  • Options
    #188
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Same goes for your overpass video ( its not even a freakin building)
    Yes, and again the examples I gave (of which the overpass was only one) were only to demonstrate that steel frame structures can collapse due to fire.
    weisses wrote: »
    There is a lot that has to be repeated when discussing things with you ... you will understand it someday
    Again the building did not fall into it's own footprint. Why are you denying what is clear from photos?
    weisses wrote: »
    So basically they only needed to blow up that column for the building to fall into its own footprint ?
    No, you are being disingenuous again. That's where the collapse started and how it began. The collapse was able to happen because the fire weakened and wrapped other supports.

    Please explain what was impossible or implausible about the scenario i detailed.
    weisses wrote: »
    I didn't claim to have read the NIST report ( only parts of it)

    See how easy it is to misrepresent someone
    So you don't actually know how they say it collapsed.
    Yet you reject that explanation without even looking at it as if you wanted to reach a preferred conclusion rather than the truth.
    weisses wrote: »
    We had two long discussions about building 7 and i believe its all covered in there ... if you don't bother to look it up fine ...

    I just briefly looked back on those threads and its all covered

    There is a difference however in what you want to hear and my answers given
    So you cannot provide anything I've asked for, I've asked more than enough times and if what you said existed you'd have linked to it by now. Instead we are just getting that laughable hot air..

    You can't show what's implausible or impossible about the official story as you don't even actually know what it is.
    You've no valid or rational objections to it as you rejected it simply because you want there to be a conspiracy theory, and to that end uncritically believe whatever you're told by conspiracy theorists as intellectually dishonest as yourself.


  • Options
    #189
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    You know, I was really looking forward to an answer to this post. Oddly enough, no sign of Dew Drops or Juiceee today.

    Well to be fair
    you are comparing 3 skilled men working in a foundry with protective gear working with a specfically designed container of molten metal

    with papers blowing around what seems to be red hot metal at a disaster site

    what kind of answer would you like


  • Options
    #190
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    Well to be fair
    you are comparing 3 skilled men working in a foundry with protective gear working with a specfically designed container of molten metal

    with papers blowing around what seems to be red hot metal at a disaster site

    what kind of answer would you like
    Cept that being skilled doesn't make you less flammable or more flame retardant, the container has an open top and one of the men has a bare face.
    If what Juicee is claiming is consistent, there's no way that that guy can be there.

    But in reality that's not how heat works.


  • Options
    #191
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cept that being skilled doesn't make you less flammable or more flame retardant, the container has an open top and one of the men has a bare face.
    If what Juicee is claiming is consistent, there's no way that that guy can be there.

    But in reality that's not how heat works.

    well you and I know that is rubbish an inanimate object cant move away from the heat so the comparison is a crock of sh!t


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    enno99 wrote: »
    Well to be fair
    you are comparing 3 skilled men working in a foundry with protective gear working with a specfically designed container of molten metal

    with papers blowing around what seems to be red hot metal at a disaster site

    what kind of answer would you like

    What are you insinuating?


  • Options
    #193
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    What are you insinuating?

    what dont you understand ?


  • Options
    #194
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    enno99 wrote: »
    what dont you understand ?

    I don't get what you are insinuating regarding the photo of the molten metal on 911. What is your theory on the matter..


  • Options
    #195
    Juicee
    Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭Juicee


    What can make metal glow or turn to jelly without high heat? The hutchison effect. Lots of other weird things as well.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj93HaGKV3g
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdETtRXwjrM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPYCKySAePQ

    Re: the steelworkers - take off the gloves and it's bye bye hands. Connect a hydraulic system to that metal rod and see what happens to the hydraulic oil. Put a piece of paper on the rim of that container and see what happens...

    King mob, you and monty have utterly failed to explain how paper can be right next to 1500c molten metal and not burn or how that hydraulic digger can possibly be moving molten metal.

    You say you have 'addressed' my points but by that you obviously mean given some response, any response, you obviously don't hold yourself to the standard of answering the actual question...

    You say "not everywhere on the site was 1500c" but what the hell has that to do with the actual question?? How does that explain unburnt paper right next to molten metal or the hydraulics issue??

    you and your double standards...so obvious.

    Biggus, if all of the buildings went into the bathtub, what's holding up the remaining shards of outer cladding?? King mob, I raised this question with you earlier and you completely ignored it.. Monty and jonny too, and others...more examples of double standards and hypocrisy


  • Options
    #196
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, and again the examples I gave (of which the overpass was only one) were only to demonstrate that steel frame structures can collapse due to fire.

    Again the building did not fall into it's own footprint. Why are you denying what is clear from photos?


    No, you are being disingenuous again. That's where the collapse started and how it began. The collapse was able to happen because the fire weakened and wrapped other supports.

    Please explain what was impossible or implausible about the scenario i detailed.


    So you don't actually know how they say it collapsed.
    Yet you reject that explanation without even looking at it as if you wanted to reach a preferred conclusion rather than the truth.


    So you cannot provide anything I've asked for, I've asked more than enough times and if what you said existed you'd have linked to it by now. Instead we are just getting that laughable hot air..

    You can't show what's implausible or impossible about the official story as you don't even actually know what it is.
    You've no valid or rational objections to it as you rejected it simply because you want there to be a conspiracy theory, and to that end uncritically believe whatever you're told by conspiracy theorists as intellectually dishonest as yourself.

    Look you got your view of things and that is fine ... I got mine

    This is all discussed in the other threads ... nothing new is added ... Were all going around in circles

    I have no evidence/proof against the official story so any argument/discussion is pointless basically when other theory's are dismissed almost beforehand

    I have my suspicions/doubts/questions that for a part are discussed in the architect and engineers video


  • Options
    #197
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    well you and I know that is rubbish an inanimate object cant move away from the heat so the comparison is a crock of sh!t
    That doesn't make any sense.

    It doesn't matter whether or not he could move, the picture clearly shows that the man is standing in an area that Juciee believes he could not be standing in.

    How is he able to stand so close to molten metal without his face melting?

    How about these people? How are they able to be so close to molten and glowing steel?
    http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/05/steel-poorman.jpg
    http://www.coalcampusa.com/rustbelt/oh/mcslab.jpg
    http://www.twopiecesofeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/055.jpg

    The blindingly obvious answer you are ignoring to lend credibility to an inane theory is: hot steel does not make everything immediately around it exactly the same temperature.


  • Options
    #198
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I don't get what you are insinuating regarding the photo of the molten metal on 911. What is your theory on the matter..

    Im not sure what you want here

    As i said the picture seems show molten metal and paper or do you have another explanation of it ?


  • Options
    #199
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    enno99 wrote: »
    well you and I know that is rubbish an inanimate object cant move away from the heat so the comparison is a crock of sh!t
    Loose paper isn't exactly the most fixed object out in the open though, is it? And you understand that perspective can be skewed with long lenses?

    Paper famously catches fire at 451 degrees fahrenheit (hence the brilliant novel of the same name). You'd imagine a man's bare face might be at some risk at that sort of temperature.


  • Options
    #200
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Look you got your view of things and that is fine ... I got mine

    This is all discussed in the other threads ... nothing new is added ... Were all going around in circles
    Except I can support my view with reason, evidence and knowledge. You can't support what you believe, your explanation is laughably inconsistent and you constantly have to be dishonest and ignorant to maintain your view.

    The reason we are going around in circles is because you are unwilling and/or incapable of directly addressing my points.
    weisses wrote: »
    I have no evidence/proof against the official story so any argument/discussion is pointless basically when other theory's are dismissed almost beforehand

    I have my suspicions/doubts/questions that for a part are discussed in the architect and engineers video
    Why do you know believe the official report if you cannot support that disbelieve?
    Doesn't the fact you can't support it not warn you that it might not be an honest position?
    Why, if you are unwilling to state your reasons for your position (though I think it's obvious that you can't since you have no reasons) did you bring it up? Seems to be the exact opposite of discussion.


  • Options
    #201
    Juicee
    Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭Juicee


    Juicee wrote:
    King mob, I raised this question with you earlier and you completely ignored it.. Monty and jonny too, and others...more examples of double standards and hypocrisy

    Correction, I should have said evaded


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Juicee wrote: »
    What can make metal glow or turn to jelly without high heat? The hutchison effect. Lots of other weird things as well.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj93HaGKV3g
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdETtRXwjrM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPYCKySAePQ
    Please show us evidence to suggest that this hutchson effect can be created by your fictional laser.
    Juicee wrote: »
    Re: the steelworkers - take off the gloves and it's bye bye hands. Connect a hydraulic system to that metal rod and see what happens to the hydraulic oil. Put a piece of paper on the rim of that container and see what happens...
    And what about the one guy not wearing the face mask? How could he be standing there without his face not being burned?
    Biggus, if all of the buildings went into the bathtub, what's holding up the remaining shards of outer cladding?? King mob, I raised this question with you earlier and you completely ignored it.. Monty and jonny too, and others...more examples of double standards and hypocrisy
    Another lie in the name of the tooth.
    King Mob wrote: »
    I did not say that it all went into it's own basement. I said a portion of it went into the basement as well as spread out over a wider area.
    Something you've yet to address.


  • Options
    #203
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Juicee wrote: »
    What can make metal glow or turn to jelly without high heat? The hutchison effect. Lots of other weird things as well.
    Oh, the Hutchison effect? Why didn't you just say so?
    The Hutchison hoax is named after an eccentric Canadian, John Hutchison, a fan of Nikola Tesla and Tesla coils. Hutchison claims tohave discovered a number of weird things, such as the levitation of heavy objects and the fusion of metal and wood by forces heretofore undetected by normal scientists. Hutchison calls these weird things "the Hutchison effect." Some of the things he calls weird seem to be explainable in terms of electromagnetism and other known physical forces, but he has more mysterious explanations, such as zero point energy and electromagnetic fields that cancel out gravity. Unfortunately, he seems to be the only one who can produce the effects, but not even he can replicate them—at least not in the presence of unbiased observers. His evidence consists mainly of his word and his videos.
    So your explanation for the mystery weapon unknown to science requires only more mysterious bizarre phenomena also unknown to science by way of supporting evidence.

    Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?


  • Options
    #204
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    That doesn't make any sense.

    It doesn't matter whether or not he could move, the picture clearly shows that the man is standing in an area that Juciee believes he could not be standing in.

    How is he able to stand so close to molten metal without his face melting?

    How about these people? How are they able to be so close to molten and glowing steel?
    http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/05/steel-poorman.jpg
    http://www.coalcampusa.com/rustbelt/oh/mcslab.jpg
    http://www.twopiecesofeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/055.jpg

    The blindingly obvious answer you are ignoring to lend credibility to an inane theory is: hot steel does not make everything immediately around it exactly the same temperature.

    The only thing blindingly obvious is your inability to admit the comparison is rubbish

    And you being the one with the prolific use of the word honesty scattered all over your posts

    Here is an experiment for you

    put you hand and a newspaper under the grill and see which will catch fire first


  • Options
    #205
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    enno99 wrote: »
    put you hand and a newspaper under the grill and see which will catch fire first
    But you wouldn't be able to put your hand there at all if it was hot enough to light paper. That's the point.


  • Options
    #206
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Except I can support my view with reason, evidence and knowledge. You can't support what you believe, your explanation is laughably inconsistent and you constantly have to be dishonest and ignorant to maintain your view.


    If you would have called yourself arrogant i could have agreed.
    I caught you out multiple times making up quotes but yet you call me dishonest

    My believe is supported by the engineers and architects video and a few other videos
    King Mob wrote: »
    The reason we are going around in circles is because you are unwilling and/or incapable of directly addressing my points.

    When you ask 4 questions back when asked 1 question there might be one slipping past ..Its not always working ... your tactics i mean

    If you are to lazy to read our previous discussions to find your answers its not my fault
    King Mob wrote: »
    Doesn't the fact you can't support it not warn you that it might not be an honest position?
    Why, if you are unwilling to state your reasons for your position (though I think it's obvious that you can't since you have no reasons) did you bring it up? Seems to be the exact opposite of discussion.

    Why is someone who cannot support certain ideas always dishonest ?
    You couldn't support your claim with the mural ... .does that make you dishonest ?

    Comparing a burning overpass as an accurate way to describe the destruction of a 47 story skyscraper ,,, Now thats a dishonest comparison

    If you want this discussion to go ahead i suggest we do it in the appropriate thread So i can ask you to debunk every claim they make in the architects an engineers video


  • Options
    #207
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    enno99 wrote: »
    put you hand and a newspaper under the grill and see which will catch fire first
    Why don't they catch fire immediately?
    What if I left the oven open and left both just outside it? Would they catch fire then? Or how about on the other side of a well ventilated room?
    How is it possible for paper to exist in a room with an open oven when the oven could be 200-300 degrees?

    Again, the fact I need to explain the basic ideas of how heat works should be a red flag about how stupid this theory is.


  • Options
    #208
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Loose paper isn't exactly the most fixed object out in the open though, is it? And you understand that perspective can be skewed with long lenses?

    Paper famously catches fire at 451 degrees fahrenheit (hence the brilliant novel of the same name). You'd imagine a man's bare face might be at some risk at that sort of temperature.

    You see I agree with most of that with the exception of the man being in danger unless he was unable to move or turn away from the source of the heat

    Which is why I think the comparison is not valid


  • Options
    #209
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    If you would have called yourself arrogant i could have agreed.
    I caught you out multiple times making up quotes but yet you call me dishonest
    Where did I do this?
    weisses wrote: »
    My believe is supported by the engineers and architects video and a few other videos
    But since you cannot supply any of the evidence or arguments they make you are simply relying on their authority let alone form your own.
    You simply believe it because you are told to and bought it uncritically.
    weisses wrote: »
    When you ask 4 questions back when asked 1 question there might be one slipping past ..Its not always working ... your tactics i mean
    And generally around here, I need to repeat the questions several times before getting a straight answer.
    weisses wrote: »
    If you are to lazy to read our previous discussions to find your answers its not my fault
    I have read them, you have never supplied the answers I was looking for.
    If you are making the point, it's your onus to back it up. That's how an adult discussion works.
    weisses wrote: »
    Why is someone who cannot support certain ideas always dishonest ?
    You couldn't support your claim with the mural ... .does that make you dishonest ?
    Lol. And you are still fundamentally misrepresenting that point...
    weisses wrote: »
    Comparing a burning overpass as an accurate way to describe the destruction of a 47 story skyscraper ,,, Now thats a dishonest comparison
    And another misrepresentation despite being corrected in the simpliest terms several times.
    weisses wrote: »
    If you want this discussion to go ahead i suggest we do it in the appropriate thread So i can ask you to debunk every claim they make in the architects an engineers video
    Maybe you should have thought about that before raising the topic then refused to discuss it....


  • Options
    #210
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    enno99 wrote: »
    Im not sure what you want here

    As i said the picture seems show molten metal and paper or do you have another explanation of it ?

    I don't understand your angle, are you saying..

    1. the picture is fake/doctored?
    2. what we are seeing in the photo is impossible? (there see 1.)


    Apologies if you are making some other point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I don't understand your angle, are you saying..

    1. the picture is fake/doctored?
    2. what we are seeing in the photo is impossible? (there see 1.)


    Apologies if you are making some other point.

    you picked a line from a post where I disagreed with the comparison of pictures of foundry workers and paper in close proximity to molten metal

    I dont know if the picture is fake Do you ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement