It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Psychology101 to Psychology911

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


GoodOlDave you are funny, I laugh myself silly reading your post I have never seen anyone so uninformed. You project a lot of rage and hurt, I really feel for you buddy.




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I "believe" in the scientific method and yet until it is fully applied I "believe" nothing else. I believe I do not know everything, but that never takes away from things that I do know.


Your statement is disingenuous. First, the scientific principle includes being able to replicate a hypothesis in an experiment as proof of concept, and it's a given that an event so large and complex at the 9/11 attack can't be fully replicated for the same reason evolution and plate tectonics can't be fully replicated, and yet for evolution and plate tectonics we hold the theories to be valid becuase there's more proof backing them up than there is proof which discredits them.

Second, it's blatantly obvious that your own claims of demolitions fails the scientific method becuase it heavily relies on unprovable speculation of your own invention I.E. super thermite that noone can detect. The only way the scientific method could be applied is if you cheat by making up more unprovable stuff I.E. secret gov't agents to compensate. How do you explain the contradiction?


I am very particularly, detail-oriented, very specific in my words and none of them are by accident. If I do not say something, you should not assume I think or believe it. Can you honestly tell me that you thoroughly understand this?


I understand enough about the standard account to know the theory is credible, and the more I learn, the more I see it only supports the standard account. On the other hand, after talkign to many, many,MANY proponents of the "controlled demolitions" claims, I understand their scenario relies too much on incorrect statements and impossible-to-prove claims for it to be credible, and the more they attempt to justify it the more impossible-to-prove claims they're forced to introduce. Your own personal attention to detail and the care you use to select your words is therefore entirely moot.

Is that a sufficient answer?


First can you explain to me how exactly that "clearly shoots down...controlled demolitions claims"?


Easy. Becuase it's an actual eyewitness account that in the area where the initial structural failure occurred, the fires were hot enough to discoler the structural supports. That proves two things- a) it gives credibility to the "uneven heating" theory and b) it rules out exlosives becuase any such fire would have obvious destroyed any such explosive and/or control cables.



Are you saying that because the fires appeared intense to someone around the impact site, that therefore the fires and impact damages were all that brought the buildings down? Because if you are, then frankly I neither understand why you think this is logical or how I can even explain to you that it is not solid reasoning.


I already said it wasn't just the fires. It was a combination of the fires and damage from the plane impact, as well as the peculiar design of the structures themselves, which caused a chain reaction of events that led to the collapse. It wasn't due to any one individual event, it was due to a multitude of events. I don't know how to explain in any more elementary terms than that.


Well, generally the reason we learn things is to have a more accurate perception of what is going on constantly around us, and to be able to more appropriately interact with our world.


That's all well and good, and I have no objection to such a viewpoint. The problem arises when somethign sounds like it *might* have happened it somehow leads to the viewpoint that it *had* to have happened.


Similarly, the amount of structural integrity and load-bearing capacity they represent is also a fact and a very basic tenet of structural engineering: columns carry loads, eventually to the ground. The more columns you have, the more load-bearing capacity you have. When more than 85% of the columns on the impacted floors are still intact, that speaks for itself. I don't need to tell you what it "means."


All right then, what say YOU explain how the support columns found during the cleanup were bent in ghastly angles with the ends broken and/or torn, with little to no fire/blast damage. I'm not theorizing or speculating, I'm telling you what they found. It's all well and good to be quoting from college textbooks but it's another thing entirely to get college textbooks to explain the known evidence.


I'm talking about engineering principles and physical behaviors as prescribed by formulas; you are obviously talking from a much more simplistic and naive frame of mind. I appreciate the effort but you see, I want the technical details that engineers sought in the aftermath, not what the layman saw on his TV and could tell you the day of.


This is of course true, and I suppose I may be guilty of naitivity on occasion, but nonetheless the technical details still have to conform to the known facts and one of the known facts is that the building collapsed in a floor by floor cascade of structural failure. This is confirmed by every video footage of the collapse in existence, so any supposed *facts* you try to introduce which attempts to refute this is therefore wrong, my naitivity notwithstanding.

I'm sure you had more points begging to be refuted, but your post ran up against the 6500 char maximum, and so will need to be addressed another day.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
GoodOlDave you are funny, I laugh myself silly reading your post I have never seen anyone so uninformed. You project a lot of rage and hurt, I really feel for you buddy.


...and yet I note that you aren't able to refute even a microbe of any of it. I don't particularly care whether you consider me a buffoon. The only thing I care about is whether you can show anything I'm posting is incorrect.

Besides, simply callimg me a poopy head before running away giggling is not an article of debate. It's simply a mechanism that soothes your bruised ego and makes you feel better about yourself for not being able to prove me wrong.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Been following along in this learned discussion, but those three pictures in your latest post caused me great pause.

The first, of the truss/floor pieces, and how they connected to the perimeter pieces looks very unsubstantial to me. Seems, from the second picture, that the center 'core' was the meat of the building...the spine, if you will. How am I doing, so far??

The side pieces, each consisted of three vertical columns, yes? Tied by those horizontal rectangular plates. The connections look very weak. I mean, obviously, just depending on the downward force of gravity, and without any structural compromises, they would have been sufficient...were for decades, obviously. AND, I assume there was design to allow certain lateral flexing, for wind effects, correct??

Now, the core....airplane debris, and fire went all over, caused I thought, a lot of damage, even to the core columns? That's what I don't understand, how the building could have been inspected to survive that, especially when considering the side loads fromt he outer wall pieces' damage...and gravity acting onthe portions above.

Then, your third picture...well, that was a good one!! I've heard a lot conspiracies that keep repeating "free-fall" and "falling into its own footprint" which seems to imply what is observed by CD and implosions that are available to view on the Internet....which, BTW, don't always fall directly into their own 'footprint'...mostly, though....BECAUSE they are imploded. Your overhead diagram showed exactly what one would expect from the forces of gravity, and kinetic energy of structural failure...not implosion.

Also, how deep were the underground portions of the Towers. Would all of those cubic yards of mostly empty space account in any way for some anomalies in the collapses??



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
First, the scientific principle includes being able to replicate a hypothesis in an experiment as proof of concept, and it's a given that an event so large and complex at the 9/11 attack can't be fully replicated for the same reason evolution and plate tectonics can't be fully replicated


Sorry, I was talking about setting up a truss connected to a perimeter column, and then heating the truss until failure at the connection occurs like NIST suggested. Not rebuilding the entire buildings. What I'm talking about CAN be done in a lab, and it pretty much was. The only difference is that the relevant data wasn't taken or presented in the actual report.

Here is one of those tests, where they rebuilt an office area and put fire to it: wtc.nist.gov...

So NIST did build this exact set-up, and it is therefore obviously not impossible to recreate. But they didn't test their hypothesis with it.

The fact that none of this is real science (because it is incomplete and hasn't been tested/proven), is not an excuse for you to believe it anyway. It's another reason you should DOUBT the validity of what they are saying.


Second, it's blatantly obvious that your own claims of demolitions fails the scientific method becuase it heavily relies on unprovable speculation of your own invention I.E. super thermite that noone can detect.


First of all, I'm not even trying to offer a complete scientific theory. That is not and never was my personal responsibility to you or anyone else.

Secondly, there IS evidence of thermite, both in the FEMA report and in these recently published studies. If you refuse to understand them then that is your own fault.


The only way the scientific method could be applied is if you cheat by making up more unprovable stuff I.E. secret gov't agents to compensate. How do you explain the contradiction?


There is no contradiction, because I'm not making claims like that and then saying they're scientifically proven. Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I asked you before if you understood how you are doing this, and I guess by your lack of response and continuation of it that you DON'T understand what you are doing.


I understand enough about the standard account to know the theory is credible, and the more I learn, the more I see it only supports the standard account. On the other hand, after talkign to many, many,MANY proponents of the "controlled demolitions" claims, I understand their scenario relies too much on incorrect statements and impossible-to-prove claims for it to be credible, and the more they attempt to justify it the more impossible-to-prove claims they're forced to introduce. Your own personal attention to detail and the care you use to select your words is therefore entirely moot.


Basically you are telling me that your mind is already made up, so you don't have to carefully read and think about what I say, because you know I am wrong anyway.

I think I"m going to stop responding pretty soon if these are the kinds of attitudes you hold as you post.


Becuase it's an actual eyewitness account that in the area where the initial structural failure occurred, the fires were hot enough to discoler the structural supports. That proves two things- a) it gives credibility to the "uneven heating" theory and b) it rules out exlosives becuase any such fire would have obvious destroyed any such explosive and/or control cables.


If you really believe that, then more power to you. Obviously we have different ideas of what the word "proves" means, because you can still have devices or materials that resist fire. Even conventional C4 can be thrown into a fire and won't detonate. So you are obviously wrong that "any such fire would have obvious destroyed any such explosive and/or control cables." On top of that, you can use very simple electronics to eliminate cables and use radio frequencies instead. But I doubt you knew that either.


It wasn't due to any one individual event, it was due to a multitude of events.


And yet you are so confident that it was ONLY fire and impacts and nothing else, when the impacts knocked out less than 15% of the structure, leaving 35% more equivalent until the a yield strength is reached assuming a safety factor of only 2 (which is a legally required minimum). So you assume the fires did more damage than the impacts themselves, but somehow you are already certain there was nothing else in there when there is absolutely no evidence the fire could have done that, and there IS evidence of there being eutectic compounds all over columns that melted them.


That's all well and good, and I have no objection to such a viewpoint. The problem arises when somethign sounds like it *might* have happened it somehow leads to the viewpoint that it *had* to have happened.


You don't think you're guilty of that? Even consider that NIST didn't bother to prove any of what they hypothesized?


All right then, what say YOU explain how the support columns found during the cleanup were bent in ghastly angles with the ends broken and/or torn, with little to no fire/blast damage. I'm not theorizing or speculating, I'm telling you what they found.


It's not all of what they found. Many/most columns were still in pristine condition and had smooth failures on the end:









Almost ALL all of the perimeter columns failed at the bolts and suffered little to no deformation.

I never said such a "collapse" wouldn't naturally bend things around; even in conventional demolitions lots of things are busted up and bent of their own accord because the buildings' own PE is used to do work against it. So there is no argument here. Some columns would have been bent anyway.


the technical details still have to conform to the known facts and one of the known facts is that the building collapsed in a floor by floor cascade of structural failure.


You mean to say the "collapse progression" started near the impacts and then went downward until somewhere just short of the lobbies. Whatever it was, yes, that's the direction it went. But that information can't discriminate as to whether that means the trusses were all piling on top of each other like the now-defunct pancake theory suggests, or whether it was a linear sequence of detonations going down the buildings. So we would have to look at other information to be able to settle that.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, the core....airplane debris, and fire went all over, caused I thought, a lot of damage, even to the core columns?


Less than 15% of the perimeter columns surrounding the building on those floors were severed, and NIST did simulations of the maximum damages possible to inflict upon the core and came up with approximately 7 severed columns out of the total 47 or so. That model, again, represents a maximum of core damage possible, even after changing Flight 175's impact angle in WTC2's case.


That's what I don't understand, how the building could have been inspected to survive that, especially when considering the side loads fromt he outer wall pieces' damage...and gravity acting onthe portions above.


The perimeter columns obviously weren't as massive as the core columns, but unlike the core columns there were around 200-300 perimeter columns around the buildings. Some of these columns had a safety factor of 20 according to original engineers, meaning some of the perimeter columns could have loads increased 20x without failure (probably the highest perimeter columns, since their dimensions are still comparable to the same columns much further down the building and so supporting much greater loads). The over-all load-bearing split between the core and perimeter was around 50/50 or 60/40 respectively, and probably varied throughout the building. NIST actually says somewhere in their report it was generally a 50/50 split of the global loads.


Then, your third picture...well, that was a good one!! I've heard a lot conspiracies that keep repeating "free-fall" and "falling into its own footprint" which seems to imply what is observed by CD and implosions


Those are both more relevant to WTC7 than either of the Twin Towers imo.


Your overhead diagram showed exactly what one would expect from the forces of gravity, and kinetic energy of structural failure...not implosion.


Actually, that depends on what you think the failure mechanism is. That diagram shows exactly why "pancake theory" was wrong, and why there would have been no significant "driving mass" to the collapse when upwards of 80% of that mass is going outwards, over the sides of the buildings and out of the collapse system as each floor "collapses." In fact it takes additional energy out of the system just to provide the horizontal force components to eject to material so far outwards in the first place.

But if you have another global failure theory besides pancake theory, then you could bring that up and show how that theory would explain so much mass being ejected outwards.


Also, how deep were the underground portions of the Towers. Would all of those cubic yards of mostly empty space account in any way for some anomalies in the collapses??


The office spaces were also mostly "empty space," and I've read that 95% of the buildings was just air. Those may technically be correct in some sense, but are misrepresentations of the actual physical structure. For example, 95% of the buildings may have been open air by volume but not by mass or weight, and certainly most of the resistance should have been provided by the steel and not just air resistance. The underground area was actually the foundation of the entire building and had the greatest load-bearing capacity, since it carried the absolute greatest loads in the buildings.

I don't know how any "open space" would account for anything in particular anyway. Can you be more specific?

[edit on 3-6-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
In Pharohmoan's insightful thread
Debunkers - Their Tactics and some Tips on How to Deal with Them,
he reveals some of his observations on the behavior/character of debunkers:



...From experience I have found that most debunkers (D's) will often attack a thread with their very first post. They will be quick to pick up on any grey areas in your thread and often misquote you or having not fully read the whole thread will often interpret content out of context. Often they will come in during key/interesting parts of a thread in order to cause maximum disruption. This is especially so when certain truths start to imerge. Also beware, you will notice they sometimes travel in packs, don't ask me how or why. When this happens be short with your replies to them, remember for the most part they are not there to contribute they're there to refute...

The closest i have come to a label in kin would be what we commonly call a "troll".



[edit on 6-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Here is one of those tests, where they rebuilt an office area and put fire to it: wtc.nist.gov...


I apparently don't have the player that plays *.RAM files so I'll have to get back to you on this...but does this test include simulating aircraft damage? If not then it's not a relevant test.


The fact that none of this is real science (because it is incomplete and hasn't been tested/proven), is not an excuse for you to believe it anyway. It's another reason you should DOUBT the validity of what they are saying.


All right, fair enough. Why then should I believe your claims of conspiracy and controlled demolitions, since they are likewise not real science and are likewise even more impossible to prove by the scientific method?


First of all, I'm not even trying to offer a complete scientific theory. That is not and never was my personal responsibility to you or anyone else.


No, YOU said that you trust your beliefs as they can be shown under the scientific method, and the "controlled demolitions" claim will fail the scientific method. You know that and so do I.


Secondly, there IS evidence of thermite, both in the FEMA report and in these recently published studies. If you refuse to understand them then that is your own fault.


Thermite is essentially aluminum powder with some other additives I.E. iron oxide" to make it more combustible. The entire structure of the towers were sheathed in a gigantic aluminum suit of armor, so claiming that it's suspicious to find traces of aluminum in the debris field of a building that contained tons of aluminum is being intellectually dishonest. The odds that this supposed thermite was even found means that it had to have come from a very large source of the stuff, so unless you're ready to add even more unprovable speculation to your previous unprovable speculation, logic dictates that the aluminum had to have come from the structure itself by some as-yet undocumented method.


Basically you are telling me that your mind is already made up, so you don't have to carefully read and think about what I say, because you know I am wrong anyway.


No, what I'm sayign is that if you disagree with the standard account, then it's your responsibility to supply us with an alternative scenario which better fits the facts. So far, all I've seen from the conspiracy people is NOT how it conforms better to the facts, but how all the facts that don't conform to your scenario just have to be false I.E. planted evidence, disinformation agents, coverups, etc. Whatever you want to call it, "research" certainly ain't it.


If you really believe that, then more power to you. Obviously we have different ideas of what the word "proves" means, because you can still have devices or materials that resist fire. Even conventional C4 can be thrown into a fire and won't detonate. So you are obviously wrong that "any such fire would have obvious destroyed any such explosive and/or control cables


When you throw C4 into a fire it will still burn. In fact soldiers in Vietnam used C4 as fuel to cook their rations in the field.

Sooner or later, the fact wil dawn on you that the more you attempt to prove your point, the more you only wind up proving it's wrong.


On top of that, you can use very simple electronics to eliminate cables and use radio frequencies instead. But I doubt you knew that either.


Ahem. I work with electronics, and I know full well electronics are made of plastics, silica, and electically conducting inks. The fires would have destroyed THEM as well. All it would take is ONE solder point, ONE, to fail from the heat, and the whole circuit would be useless.

Is THIS what I can expect from you for the rest of this discussion? Stuff that you make up completely off the top of your head as you go along?


So you assume the fires did more damage than the impacts themselves, but somehow you are already certain there was nothing else in there when there is absolutely no evidence the fire could have done that, and there IS evidence of there being eutectic compounds all over columns that melted them.


You're stetching mightily, here. There is no eutectic compound known to science that would lower the melting point temperature of solid structural steel to any significant degree. Whatever "eutectic compound" you're referring to had to have been debris from another part of the structure, which had no impact on the destruction of the steel itself.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.


It's not all of what they found. Many/most columns were still in pristine condition and had smooth failures on the end:


WAIT A DOG GONE, COTTON PICKING MINUTE! All this time you've been telling me how controlled demolitions and thermite just had to have destroyed the columns, and now you turn around and post photos that show they all actually failed from the abnormal excessive stresses from the collapse. You admit yourself that the photos show "they failed at the bolts and show little to no deformation". Where's the melting? Where's the cutting? Where's the blast damage? Your own photos show none of that ever happened. It's right there in living color.

Friend, with YOUR OWN PHOTOS you just blew your own "controlled demolitions" and "thermite" conspiracy claims right out of the water, better than I ever could have. Thank you.



[edit on 9-6-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I apparently don't have the player that plays *.RAM files so I'll have to get back to you on this...but does this test include simulating aircraft damage? If not then it's not a relevant test.


Yes, of course they considered aircraft damage, this is NIST. But aircraft damage was not the lone mechanism responsible for the collapses. What they need to simulate is the OTHER mechanism, the truss failures. Which is a mechanism that has no scientific precedent, and which they failed to test.


All right, fair enough. Why then should I believe your claims of conspiracy and controlled demolitions, since they are likewise not real science and are likewise even more impossible to prove by the scientific method?


You don't have to, I don't care what you personally believe happened. But the official reports we have been given leave enough unanswered to justify another, independent and much more closely monitored investigation. No changing parameters, no assuming critical data, none of those things. If we could only get that, I would personally be satisfied.


No, YOU said that you trust your beliefs as they can be shown under the scientific method, and the "controlled demolitions" claim will fail the scientific method. You know that and so do I.


It's impossible for something that isn't even a scientific theory to fail the scientific method. There is no consistent demolition theory, only circumstantial evidence that points to demolition. The only real theory presented was NIST's, and before that, pancake theory, which NIST itself debunked.


Thermite is essentially aluminum powder with some other additives I.E. iron oxide" to make it more combustible. The entire structure of the towers were sheathed in a gigantic aluminum suit of armor, so claiming that it's suspicious to find traces of aluminum in the debris field of a building that contained tons of aluminum is being intellectually dishonest.


No one is saying it's suspicious to find aluminum.



No, what I'm sayign is that if you disagree with the standard account, then it's your responsibility to supply us with an alternative scenario


No, it isn't. Not legally, and not without giving me resources to conduct an investigation, not at all. I am a private citizen whose tax dollars went to NIST's investigation. So are you.


When you throw C4 into a fire it will still burn. In fact soldiers in Vietnam used C4 as fuel to cook their rations in the field.


My point still stands that fire does not necessarily detonate any given explosive. Plasticizers are added to prevent that.



On top of that, you can use very simple electronics to eliminate cables and use radio frequencies instead. But I doubt you knew that either.


Ahem. I work with electronics, and I know full well electronics are made of plastics, silica, and electically conducting inks. The fires would have destroyed THEM as well. All it would take is ONE solder point, ONE, to fail from the heat, and the whole circuit would be useless.


Then you isolate the components thermally. Big deal. I'm an EE major too. There are already circuits in existence that operate around extreme heat.


Is THIS what I can expect from you for the rest of this discussion? Stuff that you make up completely off the top of your head as you go along?


Tell me what I am making up.


You're stetching mightily, here. There is no eutectic compound known to science that would lower the melting point temperature of solid structural steel to any significant degree.


Appendix C of the FEMA report disagrees with you. The melting point of the steel after it was sulfidated was lowered several hundred degrees. Do you want me to post the actual quote from the report again?


WAIT A DOG GONE, COTTON PICKING MINUTE! All this time you've been telling me how controlled demolitions and thermite just had to have destroyed the columns, and now you turn around and post photos that show they all actually failed from the abnormal excessive stresses from the collapse.


No, I didn't. Most of the columns are fine, that's what I just showed you pictures of. The connections were what failed in most cases, in very specific places, just the way a cutter charge would theoretically be placed.


You admit yourself that the photos show "they failed at the bolts and show little to no deformation". Where's the melting? Where's the cutting? Where's the blast damage? Your own photos show none of that ever happened. It's right there in living color.


Again, FEMA appendix C has samples of melted and severely corroded steel. If you think I am saying 100% of the steel at the WTC had to be destroyed in order to bring the buildings down, you are misrepresenting my argument.


Friend, with YOUR OWN PHOTOS you just blew your own "controlled demolitions" and "thermite" conspiracy claims right out of the water, better than I ever could have. Thank you.


That's funny considering first you were saying the fact that they were all bent out of shape and severely deformed was evidence that weight/gravity did it. Now I post these photos, and the opposite proves the same thing to you. Go figure.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, of course they considered aircraft damage, this is NIST. But aircraft damage was not the lone mechanism responsible for the collapses. What they need to simulate is the OTHER mechanism, the truss failures. Which is a mechanism that has no scientific precedent, and which they failed to test.


Call me obtuse, but I can't see how such a thing could ever be reliably simulated. There are too many unknowns involved I.E. the exact damage there was to the structure from the impact, whether the fireproofing was damaged and how much it would play a part, the exact dispersement of the aviation fuel throughout the building, etc, to really be able to accurately replicate it. They can obviously venture an educated guess, but guessing certainly won't be enough to convince the doubters who demand the T's crossed and the I's dotted.


You don't have to, I don't care what you personally believe happened. But the official reports we have been given leave enough unanswered to justify another, independent and much more closely monitored investigation. No changing parameters, no assuming critical data, none of those things. If we could only get that, I would personally be satisfied.


I suppose I can agree with you on that. The question to be asked, is just what do you consider to be an independent investigation? It seems to me that anyone with the technical background and/or access to such data would have gov't connections and thus "be tainted by gov't influence", while people who really are independent wouldn't have the technical background to analyze such details and would have much credibility.

You obviously don't trust anyone from NIST or FEMA, nor any educational institutions becuase they'd have gov't connections, and certainly not anyone connected to the airline industry or involved in terrorism or counterterrorism. Who's left, exactly?


It's impossible for something that isn't even a scientific theory to fail the scientific method. There is no consistent demolition theory, only circumstantial evidence that points to demolition. The only real theory presented was NIST's, and before that, pancake theory, which NIST itself debunked.


No, there is also FEMA's theory obviously, as well as Purdue University's theory that the aircraft did more damage than was originally suspected becuase it was full of fluids and it behaved like a giant cannon ball, as well as MIT's theory that uneven heating to the steel caused irregular thermal expansion and contraction which caused structural failure.

I myself subscribe to MIT's theory.


No one is saying it's suspicious to find aluminum.


Since thermite IS aluminum, and since people are obviously interpreting the aluminum found as being thermite, and are therefore speculating that thermite had to be responsible for the collapse, your statement isn't correct.


My point still stands that fire does not necessarily detonate any given explosive. Plasticizers are added to prevent that.


Nope, it's the plasticizers that cause it to burn to begin with. The explosives themselves don't detonate becuase it requires a severe shock to set them off, not heat.

FYI thermite isn't an explosive. It's a substance that burns really, really hot but very, very slowly.


Then you isolate the components thermally. Big deal. I'm an EE major too. There are already circuits in existence that operate around extreme heat.


Then you necessarily have to shield it to the extent that its presence would be immediately obvious. The circuits you're referring to are designed to survive extreme heat, not to be hidden from view.


Tell me what I am making up.


You are speculating there is a conspiracy, and to explain why it was successful you speculate there's a coverup, and then you speculate there are all these secret agents actively workign to perpetuate the coverup. This is all to support your previous speculation there were controlled demolitions and you speculate these were super controlled thermite demolitions with super electronics that can withstand heat, based upon speculation that aluminum powder found in the debris field was thermite. Have I forgotten anything?

I don't have to tell you that this isn't proving anything. It's runaway circular logic. You're just using make believe to support more make believe.


Appendix C of the FEMA report disagrees with you. The melting point of the steel after it was sulfidated was lowered several hundred degrees. Do you want me to post the actual quote from the report again?


When I said "significant degree", I think it's a given that a material with a melting point of some 2000 degrees F won't be compromised from lowering the melting point several hundred degrees by any significant degree.

Do you disagree?


No, I didn't. Most of the columns are fine, that's what I just showed you pictures of. The connections were what failed in most cases, in very specific places, just the way a cutter charge would theoretically be placed.


Then you just disproved your claims again. If even *one* of the floors was legitimately able to fail from being unable to withstand the cascading structural faulure above it, as the reports say, then you're necessarily admitting that they *all* could have failed, becuase all the floors were of the exact same design and all the floors below the impact area were hit by cascading structural failure.


That's funny considering first you were saying the fact that they were all bent out of shape and severely deformed was evidence that weight/gravity did it.


If I said they were *all* bent out of shape then I retract it becuase that is not what I meant. Yes, some were snapped like twigs, some failed at the bolts, and some were bent out of shape. What I am saying is that all known photographs (including yours) show they were all damaged by the collapse of the building itself and not sabotage. Since sabotage is no longer applicable, the actual condition of structural failure that the stresses from the collapse left it in is largely irrelevent.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Call me obtuse, but I can't see how such a thing could ever be reliably simulated. There are too many unknowns involved I.E. the exact damage there was to the structure from the impact, whether the fireproofing was damaged and how much it would play a part, the exact dispersement of the aviation fuel throughout the building, etc, to really be able to accurately replicate it. They can obviously venture an educated guess, but guessing certainly won't be enough to convince the doubters who demand the T's crossed and the I's dotted.


So if it can't be "reliably simulated" then where's the proof?


The question to be asked, is just what do you consider to be an independent investigation?


That could be worked when the demand is high enough to get something rolling again. There would probably be a few additional lines of more detailed investigation in general that the majority of people would have to see before they would be satisfied. All this kind of stuff can be discussed later and somewhere else.


You obviously don't trust anyone from NIST or FEMA, nor any educational institutions becuase they'd have gov't connections, and certainly not anyone connected to the airline industry or involved in terrorism or counterterrorism. Who's left, exactly?


What would be nice, is if you didn't have to just TRUST anyone, but could look at the data and make everything make sense to you individually, including all the little things that currently don't make sense in light of the "official story" or are only explained as meaningless coincidences.


No, there is also FEMA's theory obviously


FEMA's report was just a rough draft of sorts for the NIST investigation. Some of the same engineers from the FEMA report even went to NIST to continue their work. It's basically the same thing as NIST, only earlier.


as well as Purdue University's theory that the aircraft did more damage than was originally suspected becuase it was full of fluids and it behaved like a giant cannon ball


There were a number of questions regarding where Purdue got their structural information from, and how accurate it was, that I never personally saw resolved. There is no dispute how much damage the perimeter structure sustained. NIST did their own core modeling, extensive models of the impact to the core, and should have been using accurate data since they actually had access to it. Like I said, I still don't know where Purdue got their structural information or why their simulation differed from the NIST's.


as well as MIT's theory that uneven heating to the steel caused irregular thermal expansion and contraction which caused structural failure.


You mean Professor Eager's theory? Not MIT itself, unless they did some study I haven't seen yet. Just another tenured professor running his mouth, like the many I could refer to that you would say similarly.



Since thermite IS aluminum


Thermite is not aluminum. That's like saying a car is tires. Big difference.


Nope, it's the plasticizers that cause it to burn to begin with. The explosives themselves don't detonate becuase it requires a severe shock to set them off, not heat.


No, heat will detonate C4 too, only it takes higher temperatures. Look, this is a matter of chemistry. Chemical engineering. You can engineer a chemical explosion with whatever range of attributes you want if you really set your mind to it. Take TNT. It goes off easily, to a little heat, pressure, whatever. Now take C4, something different, with different properties. Now it isn't set off as easily, normal fire doesn't detonate it, etc. Those are two of the most common explosives in the world and already you see how changing the chemical make-up allows different possibilities. Of course you want to tell me if it was an inside job, nobody would have ever thought of this kind of brilliant rocket science, that the explosives would have to be safe from heat. They would have just set big piles of TNT on each floor and put a sign up saying to look away and don't touch it. I know, I know. I just don't buy it.


FYI thermite isn't an explosive. It's a substance that burns really, really hot but very, very slowly.


You're right, but nanocomposites aren't like that. The smaller the particles, the more rapid and energetic the reaction.


Then you necessarily have to shield it to the extent that its presence would be immediately obvious. The circuits you're referring to are designed to survive extreme heat, not to be hidden from view.


To assume you can't accomplish both before really trying to tackle the problem shows contempt for a fair investigation. You have no idea what materials would have been used, the nature of the device, any of that. Neither do I. Unless you really think you are so smart that you know every single possibility imaginable, you can't just make blanket statements about what is possible or not possible without proving it.



Tell me what I am making up.


You are speculating there is a conspiracy


Then you're speculating when you say there wasn't one.


and to explain why it was successful you speculate there's a coverup, and then you speculate there are all these secret agents actively workign to perpetuate the coverup. This is all to support your previous speculation there were controlled demolitions and you speculate these were super controlled thermite demolitions with super electronics that can withstand heat, based upon speculation that aluminum powder found in the debris field was thermite. Have I forgotten anything?


I don't know what "super" is supposed to mean. "Secret agents" have been around for hundreds of years, it's a fact of military intelligence. So are false flag operations something old, not new. What's new is the scale on which they are being carried out and the technology being used. Scary, yes, but not enough for me to immediately rule it out for fear of being called paranoid by other people who are too put off to even consider it. They dumb you down and then put on like everyone is incompetent while we are still talking about the most technologically advanced and sophisticated military industrial complex in the world. Including psychological techniques. Have you ever really thought about that, or am I


When I said "significant degree", I think it's a given that a material with a melting point of some 2000 degrees F won't be compromised from lowering the melting point several hundred degrees by any significant degree.

Do you disagree?


As a matter of fact I do, because it lowered the steel's melting point by half, and DID melt it. It wouldn't have melted if it's melting temperature wasn't lowered, and that's a fact. So it made a significant difference, in that it MADE the steel melt. If that's not significant then there is no use even talking to you about any of this. Conventional thermite won't even do to steel what the eutectic mixture found on those columns made them suffer.


If even *one* of the floors was legitimately able to fail from being unable to withstand the cascading structural faulure above it, as the reports say, then you're necessarily admitting that they *all* could have failed, becuase all the floors were of the exact same design and all the floors below the impact area were hit by cascading structural failure.


I never said that, and the whole "cascading floors" things is outdated. That's "pancake theory."


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


911research.wtc7.net...

But if you disagree with NIST, too, that's just one more reason to throw out their investigation and start a new one.


What I am saying is that all known photographs (including yours) show they were all damaged by the collapse of the building itself and not sabotage.


That depends on the method of sabotage, which we haven't defined. To say nothing left in the debris was suspicious is being disingenuous and ignoring a lot of oddities, like the presence of molten steel prior to collapse, the steel and concrete that was melted together into tightly-packed blog called "the meteorite," and even a lot of dramatic bending of massive steel columns without fracture lines, that "official" metallurgists even say must have been been so hot they just bent over like a "wet noodle" (thus no fracture lines). And that's only odd because no scientists are actually saying that the core columns were uniformly heated to any great temperature, only the much smaller floor trusses, so they should NOT have been that hot according to official studies. Then again no steel was supposed to have been melted, either. And I don't really understand how core columns that were supposedly bolted and welded end-to-end, installed in lengths of 3 stories each and staggered, could just rip apart smoothly, unless the buildings were also built illegally and this also auded then in coming down. Just a few things I can think of present in the debris field, or before it.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
One reality that we see with most debunkers,
over and over again is the lack of 10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty:

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong.

6. Demonstrate consistency.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good.

Now this doesn't mean that truther's are exempt from subversive and misguided intentions, we are all human after all, but the rate at which debunkers set fire to this list in undeniably grand.

Now what does this tell us about the psychological makeup of these individuals? Not all cases are cut and dry, but i think it would be unfair to say that all are being dishonest deliberately. When you have bought into a lie to such a point that you go out of your way to defend it and perpetuate it... obviously one is ignorant of their own ignorance. As for others, i think the intentions are clearly that of a troll.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


That's a handy reference list.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Have you ever really thought about that, or am I


I ran out of characters but I was asking rhetorically if I were just paranoid. I don't really care if anyone thinks I'm paranoid, because none of these ideas scare me in the least. Just because they can do these things doesn't mean they're going to come after me and everyone else that realizes it. We still outnumber our authorities by a landslide.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So if it can't be "reliably simulated" then where's the proof?


The proof is from 500 videos from every concievable angle that a passenger jet irrefutably hit the tower, which irrefutably resulted in gigantic fireball and blatant distruction, and that irrefutably shows the collapse began at the very spot where the aircraft hit the building, and the building irrefutably collapsed sequenially by floor. Then of course, is the proof from the irrefutable fact that the buildings were heavily occupied by tens of thousands of people, the majority of whom lived to tell what they saw.


That could be worked when the demand is high enough to get something rolling again. There would probably be a few additional lines of more detailed investigation in general that the majority of people would have to see before they would be satisfied. All this kind of stuff can be discussed later and somewhere else.


That still doesn't answer the question. The people most qualified to answer questions on how the towers' security and maintenance operations are the NYPA, and you don't trust their imput. The people most qualified to answer questions on materials engineering are gov't units like NIST, FEMA, army corps of engineers, etc, and you don't trust their input. The people most qualified to know about aircraft movements in the country are the FAA and NORAD, and you don't trust their input. Of course, the people most knowledgeable about Al Qaida are the FBi and CIA, and we both know you'll never believe them, either.

It seems to me you've deliberately set yourself up in a lovely catch 22 so that there isn't ANYONE'S input you'll ever accept.


What would be nice, is if you didn't have to just TRUST anyone, but could look at the data and make everything make sense to you individually, including all the little things that currently don't make sense in light of the "official story" or are only explained as meaningless coincidences.


Everyone who's putting forward a credible report on the collapse of the towers accompanied their report with the data they used to support it. The only ones who AREN'T doing this are the conspiracy websites who do little more than claim, "it looked a lot like controlled demolitions" before directing people to their T-shirt shop.


There were a number of questions regarding where Purdue got their structural information from, and how accurate it was, that I never personally saw resolved.


I didn't say I subscribed to Purdue's theory. You made the claim that the only theories being put forth are gov't theories, and I gave you examples how this isn't true.


You mean Professor Eager's theory? Not MIT itself, unless they did some study I haven't seen yet. Just another tenured professor running his mouth, like the many I could refer to that you would say similarly.


"Running his mouth", my dog's butt! Eagar worked with a number of people from MIT and other areas, and he explains every detail of his report. In fact, here it is-

www.tms.org...

Not a paragraph ago you said you wish you "could look at the data and have everything make sense to you individually", but now you say Eagar is simply "running his mouth". How do you explain your contradiction?


Thermite is not aluminum. That's like saying a car is tires. Big difference.


Nope. It's the aluminum that makes thermite burn. There are other components like iron oxide I.E. rust that feeds it oxygem to help it burn. Take a wild guess what OTHER material the towers were built out of, other than just aluminum. Go ahead, your first guess will almost certainly be right.


thought of this kind of brilliant rocket science, that the explosives would have to be safe from heat. They would have just set big piles of TNT on each floor and put a sign up saying to look away and don't touch it. I know, I know. I just don't buy it.


No, actually, I was going to say that the gov't doesn't invent anything on its own. They go to private industry to invent it for them, so if there were any such super explosives in existence, I guarantee you'd see them elsewhere....BUT if you acknowledge your conspiracy theories have a giant obstacle you cannot get around, then it's a beginning, at least.


You're right, but nanocomposites aren't like that. The smaller the particles, the more rapid and energetic the reaction.


..and the more piles of the stuff you're required to use to get any worthwhile results out of it becuase the energy release is too small.


Unless you really think you are so smart that you know every single possibility imaginable, you can't just make blanket statements about what is possible or not possible without proving it.


Dude, the very billionth of a second that you admit you want to explore "every single possibility imaginable" to find out the *real* truth of the 9/11 attack, it's the moment you're admitting you're introducing fantasia into your investigation in deviation of what the facts are.


Then you're speculating when you say there wasn't one.


You're changing the subject. You asked me for examples of how you were making things up and I gave them to you.


What's new is the scale on which they are being carried out and the technology being used.


No, there are precidents, the development of the atomic bomb being one. The gov't relied on gazillions of people doing things they never understood, with scientists from just about every university and field, and armies of watchdogs putting out cover stories and making sure everyone kept their mouths shut. They all did it becuase a) they knew they were doing somethign to destroy an enemy everyone hated, and b) they knew opening their mouths would get innocent people killed. After the bomb dropped, despite the secrecy EVERYONE immediately understood what they were up to.

In the REAL world, wide spread gov't operations need 100,000 people to do it, with sufficiently suitable propaganda to motivate them to do it and keep quiet while doing it, and even then it'd be utterly impossible to keep secret once the operation was completed. Your conspiracies require too many unnatural abberations to take seriously.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't really care if anyone thinks I'm paranoid, because none of these ideas scare me in the least. Just because they can do these things doesn't mean they're going to come after me and everyone else that realizes it. We still outnumber our authorities by a landslide.


As long as all the 911-Truth headliners are alive and well, i don't think we have anything to be afraid of. I think they are more likely to go after the one tool we have used to reveal their lies... the internet. Maybe an Electro Magnetic Pulse attack will be their next false flag...
and before they reconnect us to the grid they make the swap, from internet V1 to V2 ... for national security purposes of course.





posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
So if it can't be "reliably simulated" then where's the proof?


The proof is from 500 videos from every concievable angle that a passenger jet irrefutably hit the tower,


Ok, I can accept a plane hit each building.


which irrefutably resulted in gigantic fireball and blatant distruction,


The fireball itself was a deflagration, hot, but not explosive, and I'm already aware of the damage sustained by the impacts.


and that irrefutably shows the collapse began at the very spot where the aircraft hit the building


That's where the perimeter columns first started moving, yes. Just like they would naturally if you blew the core structure from the inside: collapse from the weakest point, unable to handle all the redistributed loads.


and the building irrefutably collapsed sequenially by floor.


I can agree with that too. Just probably not what you think caused it.


Then of course, is the proof from the irrefutable fact that the buildings were heavily occupied by tens of thousands of people, the majority of whom lived to tell what they saw.


Again, I agree, and I find a lot of witness testimony very valuable.

None of those things establish how the buildings themselves actually failed. Like the specific, scientific failure mechanism. I don't guess you are really interested in that after all? At least you totally neglect to mention anything about it.



The people most qualified to answer questions on how the towers' security and maintenance operations are the NYPA, and you don't trust their imput.


There are cops that are very good at interrogating people, very good at telling when people are lying, being very pointed in their questions and getting right to the point, etc., and reading between the lines and putting things together, such that I would trust them as long as all of their work was put out in the open, they were closely supervised and steered, etc. Mike Ruppert is one such police investigator, formerly worked for the LAPD. He started building such a case by himself soon after 9/11 and was eventually forced to leave the country because of various threats. Ruppert was also the one to expose federal agencies smuggling coc aine into the US and selling it on the streets in a huge Wall Street money laundering scheme. You can look up his presentations, the documentation he uses and things of that nature, and see that it's all very professional, reflecting the fact that he did it for a living. Those types of investigators are very good, care genuinely about their country, not just about their jobs and personal safety, and are very bright, and I would trust them.



Everyone who's putting forward a credible report on the collapse of the towers accompanied their report with the data they used to support it.


You say that now but then you don't want to actually defend anything in those reports. And you KNOW there are many people who have problems with the report. That is considering that a very small percentage of Americans have critically read any of these reports in the first place. For example, I doubt you have actually read the NIST or FEMA reports even though by knowing their names you automatically know more about them than most Americans.


I didn't say I subscribed to Purdue's theory. You made the claim that the only theories being put forth are gov't theories, and I gave you examples how this isn't true.


Purdue didn't come up with a collapse theory, they only modeled the impacts. Like I said, I have nothing to argue about the impacts themselves. What you saw is pretty much what you got, though a lot of people are confused as to how much damage the impacts actually caused.


"Running his mouth", my dog's butt! Eagar worked with a number of people from MIT and other areas, and he explains every detail of his report. In fact, here it is-


I've read it before. When someone validates it, let me know. He is no different than any other one of the tenured professors that are listed on the Scholars for Truth or Architects & Engineers for Truth groups. If you think he is, other than by what he believes, I'd like to know how.


Not a paragraph ago you said you wish you "could look at the data and have everything make sense to you individually", but now you say Eagar is simply "running his mouth". How do you explain your contradiction?


It's simple: what he says, doesn't make sense to me, in light of all the other things I've seen.



Thermite is not aluminum. That's like saying a car is tires. Big difference.


Nope. It's the aluminum that makes thermite burn.


It's also the iron oxide that makes thermite burn.

And if you want to be really technical, it's the REACTION that is the "burn" itself. It is a process, not any one of the ingredients. The aluminum strips away the oxygen from the iron oxide molecule, causing the iron to melt. Without iron oxide, you just have aluminum. And without aluminum, you just have iron oxide. And this is just the most basic form of thermite, that has been around for well over 100 years.


There are other components like iron oxide I.E. rust that feeds it oxygem to help it burn. Take a wild guess what OTHER material the towers were built out of, other than just aluminum. Go ahead, your first guess will almost certainly be right.


You don't know much about chemistry, if you think the fact that aluminum and iron were already present in the buildings is an explanation to where thermite would have come from. Just like if you have all the ingredients for a cake in your cupboard, you will never open your cupboard to actually find a cake ready-made, unless somebody made it and put it there. If you think you can explain how thermite could have naturally formed, you won't have been the first, but it was an actual chemist that proposed the theory the first time and I think he even realizes his error at this point. Maybe you can do a better job? I'm all ears I suppose.

The problem is that, even if you do manage to break up the aluminum and iron oxide into particles and distribute them correctly, that is STILL only the conventional form of thermite, and it won't even melt through the steel. It takes greater technology to actually destroy the integrity of the steel.


No, actually, I was going to say that the gov't doesn't invent anything on its own. They go to private industry to invent it for them, so if there were any such super explosives in existence, I guarantee you'd see them elsewhere....


You really think all our classified technology built by independent companies is also manufactured for civilian purposes?

Nanothermites and nano-energetics in general have been discussed in DoD magazines. They DO manufacture the stuff at Los Alamos, they say it is inexpensive, and can be used for everything from explosives to rocket fuel. I could post the magazine in pdf format and even all kinds of relevant quotes if you'd be interested in learning about any of these things.



..and the more piles of the stuff you're required to use to get any worthwhile results out of it becuase the energy release is too small.


Actually the energy releases per amount of mass are much greater with nanotechnology, as this DoD diagram points out:



Plus, the compound can be specifically tailored for the job in as many ways as chemistry allows. The eutectic compound actually taken off of steel samples and analyzed in FEMA appendix C showed that the compound severely sulfidated columns, reducing the temperature required to melt the columns by half, before the "burn" even began. That's exactly what you would expect, and there is no dispute it worked, as there is no dispute the corrosion destroyed the integrity of those samples.




Dude, the very billionth of a second that you admit you want to explore "every single possibility imaginable" to find out the *real* truth of the 9/11 attack, it's the moment you're admitting you're introducing fantasia into your investigation in deviation of what the facts are.


I was talking about chemical and explosives engineering, you are twisting my words. When you want to declare yourself the premiere expert in chemical or explosives engineering then you can tell me what is or isn't possible, in those regards.


You're changing the subject. You asked me for examples of how you were making things up and I gave them to you.


I still haven't seen where I made anything up. It would be pretty simple to show me where I have gotten any of my facts wrong.


In the REAL world, wide spread gov't operations need 100,000 people to do it


You must be thinking of welfare or some other intentionally corrupted public service system. Not the military. The military has things like DARPA, which had a whole 8 people employed at one of their 3000-ft. deep facilities about an hour and a half drive from my house. And DARPA is the agency that investigates things like mind control for the army, and get allotted millions of dollars for those kinds of projects. Likely they have many more than 8 people down there, it's just that the others are "black-budgeted," which introduces something else you probably haven't considered about the way our military works when it goes out of its way to keep things classified. Like I said, our technology includes psychological warfare. You have no idea how many people it would take, because you have no idea what exactly it would require to carry out 9/11 as an inside job. Social programs aren't related.

[edit on 14-6-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join