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.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
You're right that's why I said it definitely makes me re-think the controlled demolition scenario in the last post.
We're just going around in circles here. I keep saying that the video was to show the effects that nano-thermite has when ignited, and you keep saying I'm being misleading and twisting the facts. If you want to think that I was attempting to pull some crafty switcheroo where I would post a video of nano-thermite igniting in the hopes of convincing a few people that he was igniting a sample of dust which would be substantial enough to turn several people into truthers, forming some coalition of lunatics who go around twisting facts, then go ahead and think that.
I have other stuff going on, I can't spend all day reading several entire papers from scientific journals. I'll probably get around to finishing all of them sometime this week though. What can you say? How about you say where you are getting your information from?
Not the amount, but the ratio. 100% of the molten steel videos and images that I've seen have shown it to be a uniform, bright orange color. Only one of the videos that I've seen of molten aluminum shows it to have an orange color. Plus you didn't answer my question, can you find me some airplane crash pictures where the burning jet fuel turned the aluminum frame completely molten?
The facts? No your false opinion points out that it was never peer reviewed, I just showed you that it indeed was peer reviewed. You're just bashing Steven Jones simply because you disagree with the claims made in his work. He said it himself in that paper directed towards people like you who doubt the validity of his work and the peer reviewing process:You don't try to debunk the science behind his paper, you just attack his credibility by making fun of his religion and bashing the journal that he published in. "I am not going to post all the sources because they are very easy to find", do you post any evidence to back up what you say? If it's so easy to find, take 10 seconds to do a Google search and post the links in here!
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals...then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?
Ah and where exactly is the website of this group of engineers, physicists, architects, and so on that support the official story? Surely such a massive group that strongly supports the science behind the official story would have some organization to affiliate themselves with, right? Or since there are only a couple thousand that have joined that 9/11 Patriots organization, do you assume that everyone else who didn't join it disagrees with them?
So instead of providing me with the evidence to enlighten me with "the truth", you just attack where I get my information from. My "conspiracy sites" and "YouTube videos" that I use as evidence to back up what I say is much better than your opinion and complete lack of evidence to back up anything you say.
"Standard ridicule"-- In the last paragraph of yours you said this: "Keep visiting conspiracy sights and keep watching YouTube videos". To me that sounds like ridicule. A few facepalm pictures and multiple requests for you to back up what you say with facts and evidence is not at all ridicule. See all that evidence I include in my posts? That's my "homework".
Back up what you say with evidence, that's all I'm asking. You say the truth is out there and it's easy to find, so find it, post it here, and provide us with the truth. You've spent the past couple of days discussing this, but you won't spend 15 seconds to do a Google search and find the information that you claim is so easy to find.
Originally posted by -PLB-
It seems to me that you are not really taking this whole 911 subject very seriously.
Yeah I'm a very complicated person . It's peer-reviewed and published in a legitimate scientific journal, so I trust the peer-reviewers to not publish some pseudoscientific garbage that's filled with lies and twisted facts.
I really don't get you. You are presenting this paper a definite proof, you are defending it fiercely, and then it turns out you don't even know what is in it. It seems to me that you are not really taking this whole 911 subject very seriously.
Right, so not even can jet fuel which burns at 1800 degrees turn an aluminum airplane frame completely molten as there is no historical precedent for this, but the idea of regular old fire which burns at a much lower temperature doing that is unbelievable. So that brings up the question "What is that molten metal seen dripping?", since we've concluded that jet fuel could not have turned the aluminum frame molten let alone ordinary fires, then clearly there was something else going on up there.
That is because at the temperature that steel melts, it is always glowing bright. At the temperature that aluminum melts it is just silvery. Only when you heat it even more it starts glowing.
As for another airplane crash with molten aluminum, I don't know of any. But its not really relevant, in the WTC it was not the jet fuel that melted the aluminum, the jet fuel had already burned up.
There you go again attacking his religion instead of the evidence behind his paper. "You may either believe Jones or the scientific community", uh I don't know what scientific community you're referring to, probably the ones that disagree with him as you seem to see them as being the only rational scientific minds on the planet, but he is a part of the scientific community, as are the people that peer-reviewed his paper and the scientific journal that he published in it.
Do with it what you like. You may either believe Jones, a man who think Jesus came to America and think he created an over unity device, or you may believe the scientific community. I will point you to this blog, as it is by someone with expertise in the field and with thuther aspirations.
That's an incredibly stupid assumption to make, of course I don't think they're in on it. Why would you even ask that? And once again you provide no evidence to back up your claims, you just say things. I can just say things too: The American Institute of Engineers and Architects do not support NISTs report, along with the Organization of International Mechanical Engineers, the American Association of Architects, and the Engineering Committee of North America. See how legit that sounds? But with no evidence to back it up, it's just a meaningless statement.
I can list some organizations that support the NIST report:
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.
Do you think they are all in on it?
Dude I've told you probably a dozen times, I'm not going to take time out of my day to scope out some blog or forum posts of ignorant truth-debunkers who strawman Steven Jones paper by attacking the legitimacy of the peer-review process, his religion, and so on. If you are here to convince us that his paper is a sham, then you should do so by posting those links to back up what you say. Don't tell me again to Google some forum or find evidence for you, because I'm just going to ignore your idiotic requests. If you want me to look at some evidence from the other side of the story, then show it to me, it's that simple.
The web is literally filled with it. I pointed you to that blog. The interesting thing is that the person in that blog had direct discussions with Jones' team. Another rich source of information is the Randi forum I already pointed you to. Dozens of post with all the facts listed and all the debunks. It is just a matter of you opening you mind, don't wait for me to spell it all out.
Yeah do that, that's why I've asked you fifteen times to post evidence to back up what you say, and you're only now considering doing that?
I can post you a couple of links of to relevant threads on the Randi forum if you like. They often are long threads, but are very detailed.
In a way the independent investigations already have began, the physicists, architects, engineers, and so on who conduct experiments and publish peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals that contradict the official story using facts, evidence, experiments, mathemetical calculations, and physics are all a part of the independent investigation. The problem with that is since the government doesn't endorse their investigation, people like you automatically label their research as false and lacking credibility without any real reason other than it goes against the official story and many people support the official story. But I think what people want is the government to actually fund an independent investigation, because they spent such a small amount of money investigating arguably the most destructive act of terrorism and their report was filled with holes, flaws, skewed facts, assumptions, and so on. That's a slap in the face to not just the people that died in the attacks and their families, but America as a whole. They need to investigate every single detail, answer every question, and put this issue to rest in the form of a government funded, unbiased investigation.
You will find discrepancies in any investigation this size, a new investigation is not going to change that, although a couple will of course be set right. I don't really see the need for a new investigation, as no new evidence have surfaced. I have asked this question before (and it will probably remain unanswered), what is the truth movement waiting for? For the government who they do not trust to start the investigation? If every truther donates 5 dollar you end up with several hundred million dollar.
I asked for sources, you gave me a source, I looked at it, and determined that a two page blog post written by one guy does not trump a 25 page paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and worked on by nine people.
Basically you do not want to accept that Jones his work is not taken seriously outside the truth movement. I gave you a link to a discussion with the authors of the paper, I gave you letters from editors of that journal, yet you still rather believe it is a good paper. You asked for sources and once they are given you refuse to even look at it. You know the saying, you can drag a horse to the water but you can't make it drink. I can't think of anything that will convince you, your mind is 100% shut.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
I asked for sources, you gave me a source, I looked at it, and determined that a two page blog post written by one guy does not trump a 25 page paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and worked on by nine people.
If that's what you think it takes to convince me that his paper is phony, then you are sadly mistaken. How about some peer-reviewed criticisms instead of some blog post? You know those papers discussing the flaws in Bazants analysis of the towers collapse? They're published in a peer-reviewed journal, not posted on some dudes blog.
Did you miss the letter from the editor?
1) I was not editor of the journal at the time the manuscript you refer to was received and processed. I was not involved in its handling, and in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me.
2) What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal. As you can see from the email below, my letter of resignation was received and acknowledged. However, i still appear as the journal's editor - in fact i'm still receiving manuscripts to handle (which i naturally ignore).
That is from an editor of that "respected" jouranal. How more obvious can it get.
Can any de bunker please tell me how and why building 3 to 6 received catastrophic damage but didn't collapse to its core foundation completely and building 7 (had less structural damage from the twin towers collapsing debris ) had small fires and no catastrophic damage from the TT's collapse ,just effortlessly fell strait down.
Because of their close proximity to WTC 1 and WTC 2, all three buildings were subjected to severe debris impact damage when the towers collapsed, as well as the fires that developed from the debris. Most of WTC 4 collapsed when impacted by the exterior column debris from WTC 2; the remaining section had a complete burnout. WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC 1 that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings. All three buildings also were able to resist progressive collapse, in spite of the extensive local collapses that occurred.
All three buildings suffered extensive fire and impact damage and significant partial collapse. The condition of the stairways in WTC 5 indicates that, for the duration of this fire, the fire doors and the fire protective covering on the walls performed well. There was, however, damage to the fire side of the painted fire doors, and the damage-free condition on the inside or stairwell side of those same doors indicates the doors performed as specified for the fire condition that WTC 5 experienced. These stairway enclosures were unusual for buildings that have experienced fire because they were not impacted by water from firefighting operations. In addition, the stairway doors were not opened during the fire and remained latched and closed throughout the burnout of the floors. Therefore, general conclusions regarding the effectiveness of this type of stairway construction may not be warranted.
WTC 7 had an unconventional structure using long span cantilever trusses as was built over existing Con ED substation The south face of WTC was slashed open by debris from WTC 1 collapse doing significant damage to that side Fires were started by the debris, sprinklers were disabled and fires burned unchecked for 7 hours until internal collapse started sequence which resulted in WTC 7 collapse
WTC 7 had an unconventional structure using long span cantilever trusses as was built over existing Con ED substation The south face of WTC was slashed open by debris from WTC 1 collapse doing significant damage to that side Fires were started by the debris, sprinklers were disabled and fires burned unchecked for 7 hours until internal collapse started sequence which resulted in WTC 7 collapse
WTC 7 had an unconventional structure using long span cantilever trusses as was built over existing Con ED substation The south face of WTC was slashed open by debris from WTC 1 collapse doing significant damage to that side Fires were started by the debris, sprinklers were disabled and fires burned unchecked for 7 hours until internal collapse started sequence which resulted in WTC 7 collapse
I demonstrated that the journal has a very questionable reputation
I demonstrated that the review process was flawed or non-existent
I demonstrated that an actual expert completely pulls the paper to shreds
I demonstrated the authors ignore critique
are not willing to do the required experiments
yet you still require a peer reviewed paper in order to accept that its junk science.
I guess this perfectly illustrated the difference between truthers and the real world. The rest of the world does not require a peer reviewed paper to understand that Jones work is junk.
If you throw your bias away and exercise some critical thinking I am sure you can also come to that conclusion.