Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

reply to post by mmiichael


You should be irritated, because you post like a troll. I'm not going to stop giving you hell until you start supporting the things you say. When you post any old BS on a discussion forum, you can't really complain when someone calls you out on it. A "truce" is meaningless to me.

All you have to do is support what you assert with science that you can understand. Or else admit you are unable to do so and go find a better sandbag to pound on.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael

 

You should be irritated, because you post like a troll. I'm not going to stop giving you hell until you start supporting the things you say. When you post any old BS on a discussion forum, you can't really complain when someone calls you out on it. A "truce" is meaningless to me.

All you have to do is support what you assert with science that you can understand. Or else admit you are unable to do so and go find a better sandbag to pound on.

Don't really like the word "troll" myself. I think the rest of your post explained what you wanted to say better.

Anyway, mmiichael did say a few things that I found noteworthy:

Originally posted by mmiichael
Most people who come to a conspiracy forum are not trained or educated in the sciences.

Followed soon after by:

Originally posted by mmiichael
I only skim read through your missive. I'm sure I'm guilty of whatever you said and way more. I'm just an unknowlegeable insecure person desperately seeking attention. You're so perceptive and analytical. You outed me. I'm so humiliated. (Heavy sighing)...

Hopefully an agreement to disagree informal truce can be arranged as this is starting to become more a source of irritation than fun.

Now I'm sure that the second one had its degree of sarcasm built in. But sarcasm can at times have grains of truth in it.

To mmiichael:
At times the truth can be rather irritating. I frequently find this to be the case. And I'm for truces across the board, but on 1 condition: I don't think we should let fun get in the way of revealing the truth. If you'd like a break from this place (I know I've frequently enjoyed breaks from the constant arguments concerning this subject), go ahead and take one. But when you come back, I think you should expect that people's positions won't have changed much in your absence.

Originally posted by scott3x
At times the truth can be rather irritating. I frequently find this to be the case. And I'm for truces across the board, but on 1 condition: I don't think we should let fun get in the way of revealing the truth. If you'd like a break from this place (I know I've frequently enjoyed breaks from the constant arguments concerning this subject), go ahead and take one. But when you come back, I think you should expect that people's positions won't have changed much in your absence.

Thanks for the balanced appraisal. I consider a lot of the posting I do exercises in thinking, analysis, dealing with personalities.

Forgetting what I have or haven't said here as I'm replying a couple threads simultaneously. Came tot his forum for a closer look at the various theories on things like controlled demolition. Found answers, but also found the most outrageous disinformation being thrown around. So became annoyed that many less critical thinkers, many still young, are being exposed to malign agenda driven junk science dressing itself up as fact.

A couple members with professional credentials who only peruse and will not post on 9/11 threads regulary send me "Right On" and "You tell 'em" mesages via U2U. People are interested but don't want to enter what sometimes feels like Fight Club.

This area is a hotbed of of controversy and flared tempers given the polarizing political factors. But science has to be respected and abused no matter what one's personal beliefs are. When I see willful abuse of it, I go on attack mode.

This will beocme a diatribe if i continue.

Maybe I'll go and argue with the Creationists for a while. Always keep my Bible handy in the top drawer of my desk.

Thanks again for the input.

Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
At times the truth can be rather irritating. I frequently find this to be the case. And I'm for truces across the board, but on 1 condition: I don't think we should let fun get in the way of revealing the truth. If you'd like a break from this place (I know I've frequently enjoyed breaks from the constant arguments concerning this subject), go ahead and take one. But when you come back, I think you should expect that people's positions won't have changed much in your absence.

Thanks for the balanced appraisal.

Thanks for considering it to be such :-)

Originally posted by mmiichael
I consider a lot of the posting I do exercises in thinking, analysis, dealing with personalities.

Forgetting what I have or haven't said here as I'm replying a couple threads simultaneously. Came to this forum for a closer look at the various theories on things like controlled demolition. Found answers, but also found the most outrageous disinformation being thrown around. So became annoyed that many less critical thinkers, many still young, are being exposed to malign agenda driven junk science dressing itself up as fact.

I think I should point out at this point that I believe that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were indeed demolished, and that the plane that flew towards the pentagon flew over it instead of into it, with explosives being set of simultaneously within the pentagon to create the illusion that the plane did in fact crash into the building.

I can easily imagine that you will label this as junk science or what not, but not telling you now could easily lead to misunderstandings.

Originally posted by mmiichael
A couple members with professional credentials who only peruse and will not post on 9/11 threads regulary send me "Right On" and "You tell 'em" mesages via U2U.

I'd argue that it's easy to criticize from the sidelines; and also much harder to truly ascertain the validity of the arguments from such a distance, even if one has a relatively good knowledge of a subject. To give an example, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth initially believed the official story, until he heard David Ray Griffin talking of the flaws in the official story concerning the WTC collapses.

Originally posted by mmiichael
People are interested but don't want to enter what sometimes feels like Fight Club.

I know what you mean. I have frequently attempted to tone debates down; I doubt anyone likes Fight Clubs and any forum that wants to keep this debate going generally has to resort to moderation, which this forum certainly does do. However, there's only so much moderation one can do in a fight club without the people turning on the moderators themselves. The line between good moderation and too much censorship is extremely fine.

Originally posted by mmiichaelThis area is a hotbed of of controversy and flared tempers given the polarizing political factors. But science has to be respected and [not] abused no matter what one's personal beliefs are. When I see willful abuse of it, I go on attack mode.

This will become a diatribe if i continue.

Maybe I'll go and argue with the Creationists for a while. Always keep my Bible handy in the top drawer of my desk.

Lol :-).

Originally posted by mmiichaelThanks again for the input.

Thanks for yours.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by scott3x]

Here is a video you can share with friends/family when supporting the
use of explosives in the towers:

www.youtube.com...

Review the video several times at about the 2:25 - 3:08 time marker.

Don't look at the dust, or demo wave. Look below; at the sides; above
the demo wave.

Each time you review the video, count the number of flashes from unique
areas.

reply to post by turbofan


I note the overly dramatic music that replaces the soundtracks so that the noise of demolition charges is not heard. Why wouldn't you want to hear the timed cracks of the demo charges at the WTC? Those randomly placed charges that were disguised as falling glass surely made some noise.

reply to post by pteridine


I guess turbo is now going to explosives argument, since the thermite one is toasted.

Unless he now believes that the thermites are what are "exploding" in the videos.

Have you noticed that? First its special magic thermite that was somehow placed there. Then its magic paint on thermite that is super dooper better than regular thermite because it has "nano" sizes. Then it suppose to be thermite cutter charges. Now its explosives. And then it will go back to thermite, full circle, and the conspiracy circle will go around again. This ride is getting old.

I guess you're both wrong and you haven't answered the questions/nor
presented a reasonable alternative.

Too bad it has already been stated there were a combination of 'tools'
used to bring down the towers. This is apparent from the jets of debris
shooting out well below the demo wave, and the sounds of explosions
caught on video/witness testimony.

Originally posted by turbofan
it has already been stated there were a combination of 'tools'
used to bring down the towers. This is apparent from the jets of debris shooting out well below the demo wave, and the sounds of explosions caught on video/witness testimony.

A statement is a long way from an established fact. What exactly are these supoosed 'tools'? Mechanial, electronic? Size, shape, composition, where, how?

It has been clearly shown that explosions are expected when tons of material and equipment in a skyscraper are burning.

So tell us more about these 'tools'


M

[edit on 9-9-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by turbofan


How's this for a reasonable alternative that doesn't require nano-anything, super-duper secret quiet explosives or even death rays from space:
"Big airplanes full of fuel hit the towers at high speed. Their impacts severely damaged the structures and the burning fuel started fires that could not be contained. Some time later, the remaining structure, weakened by the fires, could no longer hold up the building above the damaged section and that part of the building collapsed on the part of the building below the damaged section and caused it to collapse, too. This proved to some truther guys that cardboard boxes are poor representatives of buildings and that even though buildings are designed to survive an event there is no guarantee that the design was adequate."

Originally posted by pteridine
"Big airplanes full of fuel hit the towers at high speed. "

oK

Their impacts severely damaged the structures and...

Not true. Severe is subjective. FEA shows the towers should not have
fallen based on columns cut (according to NIST).

the burning fuel started fires that could not be contained.

Pure BS! Many photos, video and fire fighter radio transmission proving
otherwise.

Some time later, the remaining structure, weakened by the fires, could no longer hold up the building above the damaged section and that part of the building collapsed on the part of the building below the damaged section and caused it to collapse, too.

See above. Also goes against science due to near free fall speeds.

See Chandler's latest analysis.

Also:

Independent confirmation is now available from a scientist in New Hampshire, who has succeeded in acquiring a video clip through a microscope, showing a rapid flash in the red material in less than a second. GAS generation is also observed and recorded; this is expected with nanothermite. The gray/black material is evidently unaffected by the ignition; we also observe this effect in the red/gray chips heated in the DSC.

reply to post by turbofan


You don't think the buildings were severely damaged? If they hadn't collapsed, do you think the WTC's would have been able to open for business the next day due to minor damage? The next month due to moderate damage? Were any fires extinguished or did they burn, uncontained?
Severe damage. Uncontained fires.

Speed of collapse? How near is near? From start to finish, it was longer than free fall by a significant fraction.

I await publication of the results of the NH investigator. Reaction in the absence of air is a key point in the long path to proving thermite and he may have shown that. I also await the Scholars team to help you defend Jones' paper. They seem to be occupied elsewhere with more important thermitic matters than unexplained energy outputs.

Turbo,

Still waiting for more details on the combination of 'tools' you alluded to.

Is there a Youtube video with Jurassic Park theme music or something equally dramatic to enlighten us?


M

Originally posted by pteridine
Speed of collapse? How near is near? From start to finish, it was longer than free fall by a significant fraction.

Sounds like a 'lotta' BS to me. "Significant fraction"

Tell me, are you going to throw out a random number that contradicts
the video evidence, or NIST?

Come on, tell me...how long did it take for each respect tower to 'fall'?

P.S. MMike, all you have to do is re-read the paragraph. Try it some time.

reply to post by turbofan


12 seconds to 15 seconds.

You haven't said if you've given up on the "Scholars" yet

reply to post by pteridine


12-15 seconds? I love how you make up your own numbers!

Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1 says you're wrong both times by about
three seconds.

P.S. Don't forget the 3rd Tower

[edit on 11-9-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


It is enlightening that you now accept the NIST document as authoritative. We will refer to it from now on to settle any discrepancies.

I don't accept the NIST document in its entirety. I'm just telling you that you're wrong again for reference times.

The video evidence proves the collapse time. NIST wasn't even stupid enough to sway from that.

So, let's move on. We have near free fall speed at 9 seconds, and 12 seconds.

A brick dropped in air from 1300 feet hits the earth in 9.03 seconds

You can figure the height of impact for each tower and do the math.

Gee...uhhh...musta been da jet fuel

In case you haven't seen, check out the new video prooving explosives:

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 11-9-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by pteridine


Well if you aren't basing your numbers on "official" numbers, from actual investigative reports, then what data ARE you basing your numbers on?

Not that I really care about the PE/KE thing or "free-fall time." I'm not sure you guys realize how futile that argument is for either of you since so much technical data is STILL missing and has to be assumed.

As a matter of fact, you are not measuring a single event when you measure the tower collapses. There was a large seismic spike, equivalent to a small earthquake, but it was brief and came with the onset of each collapse (ie the loud explosion everyone kept saying they heard at the beginning of each collapse -- want to look at witness testimony again btw?). But the perimeter and core structures came down in stages. To measure a single interval of time is to arbitrarily decide what debris hitting the ground represents the collapse as a whole, and which does not.

WTC7 is a much more clear-cut case since its acceleration as it dropped was measured directly and instantaneously.

Originally posted by turbofan
I don't accept the NIST document in its entirety. I'm just telling you that you're wrong again for reference times.

The video evidence proves the collapse time. NIST wasn't even stupid enough to sway from that.

So, let's move on. We have near free fall speed at 9 seconds, and 12 seconds.

A brick dropped in air from 1300 feet hits the earth in 9.03 seconds

You can figure the height of impact for each tower and do the math.

Gee...uhhh...musta been da jet fuel

In case you haven't seen, check out the new video prooving explosives:

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 11-9-2009 by turbofan]

You call that an explosion? What kind of explosive is this claimed to be? Vinegar and bicarbonate in a plastic bottle? It looks like debris falling apart. No flash, no bang, just dusty pieces flying. Another technical triumph for the video sleuths.

Using the correct g gives 8.99 seconds for a brick dropped from 1300' in a vacuum. WTC 1 was 1368' from the top of the roof to street level; WTC 2 was 1362'. Dropping a brick in a vacuum, with g=32.174/sec^2, gives 9.22 seconds for WTC 1 and 9.20 seconds for WTC 2.
All this proves nothing. Bricks in air have an air resistance that depends on their density and aspect. The time it took for the buildings to collapse is not really known and the time it would take for the buildings to collapse is also not known.
You are corrrect in that the jet fuel had a major effect on the collapse.