Water AND garnet/abrasive. Just water doesn't do jack **** except get everything around the machine wet.

 

Tim, its a matter of pressure. You can cut steel with water if you wanted it.

 

Yes again you are correct. Is there a machine (commercial, experimental, anything) that can produce enough water pressure to cut 6 inches of steel sans abrasive? I dunno, maybe one of those fancy new superflows (?) can.

45ksi on a .050 nozzle on my old work's waterjet couldn't cut 1/8" aluminum (well, I guess if you went really, really, REALLY slow). Add a small amount of garnet and same settings would cut 8" of silicon ingot.

I'm just bustin your *****. You have too much energy. I don't really like arguing with you cause I'll lose.

 

Well you are right with water jets. When i posted that i was thinking more about deep ocean submersibles. It was mostly just showing that its not the density of a material or its mass, but its velocity is really the key in kinetic energy.

 

wow didnt know the bs section can get this intense of a topic

 

hopefully this should end this nonsense

Jason read this, all of it: http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=1

 

I don't trust that. Its not a poorly constructed flash video, nor in blog format!!!!!!!! It cannot be right!!!!!!!

 

I can like totally beat a 911 if it has street tires.. What? oh, um my bad.

As you were.

 

Can this piece of **** please be closed. Unsubscribing....

 

You know it was almost buried away till you added that on there... Way to feed the machine

 

my contribution to what is unquestionably the best thread ever

 

My theory is that the reptilian race that runs this country used contrails in the air to control the minds of the building workers, and had them plant alien explosives in the building. And the planes were all illusions!!!! THey were really missiles sent from Xenu from the planet Zarthar. They are in your heads man!!!!! Vote for nader

 

9-1-1 isn't an Area code...



Its a Gangsta Mode!!

 

rwd_only, the Pop Mechanics "analysis" is a piece of **** if you really dig into it. I've gone through it. There's a guy named Griffin who wrote a book debunking their "debunking".

There is a report by a tenured university physics professor by the name of Steven Jones who released a report, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse", and a book by Victor Thorn called "9-11 on Trial" which do a good job of going through the physical evidence.

In summary, here are the questions unanswered by the "official" 911 theory:


- the jet fuel only burned for a few minutes - that and the resulting office fires were not hot enough to melt the 47 3ftx3ft core steel beams

- FEMA admitted the temperatures were that of a smoldering office fire - not hot enough to weaken steel, which they also admitted

- firefighter tapes prove that the fires were contained and manageable

- the "wrong" tower, the one that had smaller fires for shorter durations, fell first

- why did assymetric damage cause symmetrical collapses - true for all THREE buildings

- half a million tons of concrete were pulverized

- the towers, and wtc #7, all fell at nearly free fall acceleration

- seismographic data shows huge spikes were registered just BEFORE the towers fell, not when they hit the ground

- molten steel in the rubble for weeks - no jet fuel fires could do this!

- multiple witnesses hearing loud booms from the BASEMENT just before the building collapsed

- some beams showed traces of vaporized metal

- several beams were ejected sideways hundreds of feet

- just seconds before the collapse of WTC2, it's top tilted 23* past vertical before swinging back - it should have toppled over into the street

There is something I just realized. The guys who got angry in this thread are ACTING AS IF I INSULTED THEIR RELIGION, by my presenting facts. Why should a discussion like this make people react angrily with religious zeal? I think it's because religion is based on blind faith, and people's belief in their world is akin to blind faith... until they question it.. (just as some people begin to question their religion). Something to think about.

The rest of you who refuse to even look at the facts and consider any possibilities will always have their heads in the sand, while they continue to believe what is spoonfed to them.... just like people believe that a $300 check from the gov't will "stimulate" the economy and make everything better. What a ******* joke.

Back for a swim in the Carribean for me....

 

again you forgot some detail.

What about the folks that read all your info didn't get angry and still think the theory is BS?

 

What most of these retorts are lacking, is physical evidence. Most of it is Heresay. You don't always see jet fuel burn either. Most of what you see is it burning something else. The jet fuel was not the only thing burning in the building. Other things caught fire. Bah... I'm not gonna even bother, its all been said. Jason is the only one in here with his fingers in his ears singing REM's its the end of the world song at the top of his lungs repeatedly.

 

What about the engineers in here who know more than you, who have conintuously asked for evidence to back up your claims?

What about the pictures showing that the WTC-1 and 2 fell slower than free fall?



But yeah, Jason i tried to have a discussion here with you, but you didn't want too. Enjoy your propaganda.

Unsubscribed.

 

Like me? I am agnostic, so I don't have that "blind faith" problem. I prefer facts to myth.

 

This thread continually disappoints me with it's lack of Porsche. By posting, I have thus added some 911 via my sig, making this thread worlds better.