Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Changes in the last year

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




I'm interested in what exactly you want things to look like. For example, are these microspheres the right microspheres?



The picture of fly ash spheres are not attached to any chips of paint.

(the one image here is post reaction of a sample and the other is from the dust)





No doubt Harritt may have misidentified some fly ash spheres, it is very possible, but that doesn't account for the attached spheres which formed the basis of identification. These are not fly ash.

The only thing that I have ever seen that resembles the Harritt microspheres are the ones from the Ryan video I linked earlier.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Wow, I can't stop laughing...

"Seventy-five million years ago the emperor of the Galactic Federation, a despot named Xenu, solved overpopulation on his planet by freezing its inhabitants, shipping them to Earth in spacecraft resembling DC-8s, and dropped them into volcanoes in Hawaii and other places. He then detonated the volcanoes with atomic bombs and captured the suddenly-disembodied Thetans with an electronic device."

Is this really what they believe?


They don't express it in such crude terms, any more than the church explains creation by saying the first man was created out of a clod of dirt by magic by an invisible guy living up in the clouds and the first woman was created by a Frankenstein lab experiment so that the dirt clod guy could get laid. They need to represent it much more poetically than this.

The point behind all this is, after hearing about that "Heaven's Gate" cult out in California who seriously believed they needed to commit mass suicide so they can board a UFO hiding behind a comet in outer space, I've learned one of the important secrets of life- you can convince people to buy dog sh*t if you know how to market it properly. This is one of the reasons why I'm here- to point out Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, etc are nothing but dog sh*t salesmen. Seriously, Jones is saying the police kidnaps children and sells them on the black market to make snuff films. Why would there even be *one* person quoting that guy here?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Hahaha! All these cointelpro idiots come out with some ridiculous story and make out like us 'truthers' are writing stuff that is equally as carzy! They are a bunch of tards who think their silly games fool everyone! Many of them spout this utter crap! It's funny reading it though, I know 5 year olds that have a better imagination than these cointelpro 'debunkers'!!!!


Well, if we're really all sinister secret agents send to spy on you then it should be pretty easy to prove- can you name even one thing I posted that's incorrect? Did Renee May really not call out to her mother from flight 77? Did firefighters not report seeing the fires in WTC 7 causing massive structural damage? Did German intelligence not report Mohammed Atta was in contact with Al Qaida operatives while in Hamburg? Did dozens of eyewitnesses not specifically see a plane hitting the Pentagon? Does "do the orders still stand" not mean something completely different than "stand down order?"

It would be one thing if you could show why what we're posting is false, but simply relying on the quasi-religious belief there are armies of sinister secret agents whispering disinformation in everyone's ear only makes your own credibility suffer, not mine nor anyone else's.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


Wow, I can't stop laughing...

"Seventy-five million years ago the emperor of the Galactic Federation, a despot named Xenu, solved overpopulation on his planet by freezing its inhabitants, shipping them to Earth in spacecraft resembling DC-8s, and dropped them into volcanoes in Hawaii and other places. He then detonated the volcanoes with atomic bombs and captured the suddenly-disembodied Thetans with an electronic device."

Is this really what they believe?


Yes, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Kirstie Ally, Jason Leigh, Nancy Cartwright (Bart Simpson), are all believers of Xenu!
en.wikipedia.org...

Operation Clambake
www.xenu.net...

This site exposes Scientology and their deep secrets. Fun reading!



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The picture of fly ash spheres are not attached to any chips of paint.

(the one image here is post reaction of a sample and the other is from the dust)
...
No doubt Harritt may have misidentified some fly ash spheres, it is very possible, but that doesn't account for the attached spheres which formed the basis of identification. These are not fly ash.

How do you know? Is your only criteria located with paint because I have to say, an iron sphere that's found in fly ash being found in the painted steel's paint, does not really seem that revolutionary to me.

You've basically abandoned answering my questions too. Why do you show such deference to one group of researchers, yet the slightest possible hint of impropreity completely condemns another?

Why aren't you condeming Dr Jones for lying about providing future tests, for basing his claims on unreliable data but making them anyway?

I think it's clear that you are not looking at this in a biased manner, and instead you feel everyone must disprove the theory you have picked to like. That is not the case. There were many sources of microspheres in the dust, and just because they're rarely photographed being stuck in paint, you use this as an excuse.

Come on man, this is not reasonable or rational.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




How do you know? Is your only criteria located with paint because I have to say, an iron sphere that's found in fly ash being found in the painted steel's paint, does not really seem that revolutionary to me.



Did you look at the pictures?

They are not located with, they are attached to. There are also separately and severally dissociated spherical particle which may or may not be fly ash, but I expressly differentiated these by saying that they indeed be fly ash.

How did these metal spheres get attached (to all appearances bonded) to the "paint" do you suppose? Glue?

If you are going to accuse someone of not answering your question at least read the post which you are accusing of doing so. If this is the level of reading comprehension you brought to bear on reading the Harrit paper (Harrit is the main author by the way, not Jones), then it is no wonder you have failed to grasp the key details.
edit on 7-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
They are not located with, they are attached to. There are also separately and severally dissociated spherical particle which may or may not be fly ash, but I expressly differentiated these by saying that they indeed be fly ash.

How did these metal spheres get attached (to all appearances bonded) to the "paint" do you suppose? Glue?

I presume they got there while the paint was wet. By burning the carbon layer they reveal anything contained within it when it cured. Of course, there are many possibilities, and as far as I know there's no actual differentiation between 'contained within' and 'attached to' in any test results or documentation. It's just the interpretation you're giving of the picture.


If you are going to accuse someone of not answering your question at least read the post which you are accusing of doing so. If this is the level of reading comprehension you brought to bear on reading the Harrit paper (Harrit is the main author by the way, not Jones), then it is no wonder you have failed to grasp the key details.
edit on 7-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

I refer not to the questions I asked then, but to previous questions you have left unanswered:

Originally posted by exponent
Let's assume however for a minute that I, Dr Millette et al are wrong and that this is in fact a nanothermite.

Can you propose a way it could have been used to attack the towers which would not be better carried out with regular thermite, explosives, or a gas axe? It seems to me that this sort of compound can only exist in small quantities in the towers due to the visibility of a huge shower of molten metal. We also know it can't exist on fire floors due to its low ignition temperature.

From that we're left with small quantities in the rest of the building. To do what?!



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




Of course, there are many possibilities, and as far as I know there's no actual differentiation between 'contained within' and 'attached to' in any test results or documentation


It's there, in the pictures I linked....

Unless you have some other plausible mechanism for how the fly ash re-melted and attached itself to the metal...

I don't doubt that there may have been fly ash, but this isn't it.


Let's assume however for a minute that I, Dr Millette et al are wrong and that this is in fact a nanothermite.

Can you propose a way it could have been used to attack the towers which would not be better carried out with regular thermite, explosives, or a gas axe? It seems to me that this sort of compound can only exist in small quantities in the towers due to the visibility of a huge shower of molten metal. We also know it can't exist on fire floors due to its low ignition temperature.

From that we're left with small quantities in the rest of the building. To do what?!


Because the reaction speed of thermite goes up as the particle size goes down?
Because high-explosives make a loud noise that is hard to conceal?
Because regular explosives leave readily identifiable chemical traces?
My guess is an oxy-acetylene torch would be WA-A-A-A-Y too slow and would need to jerry-rigged to high hell.

Charges can be hardened against impact or fire much the same way that sensitive recording equipment can in a black-box, but even if that were not the case that molten metal may simply be evidence of a broken charge. In that scenario you only see a little because only a single, or a couple, of charges may have been dislodged.

It is a fallacy to assume that an inordinate amount of thermite (or whatever) was required, because the alternative theory is that none was required. Something is more than nothing, whatever the precise details are.
edit on 10-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
It's there, in the pictures I linked....

Unless you have some other plausible mechanism for how the fly ash re-melted and attached itself to the metal...

I'm not sure what exactly you think has 're-melted'. I see evidence of irregularly shaped blobs of metal, but I don't see how that's supposed to prove that they're some part of the red chip composite. It's supposed to have a rapid reaction speed remember, not slowly melt and congeal.

It seems a common problem with these claims is that they require contradictory properties of the material. For example AE911truth would have you believe that there's 'chemical evidence of thermite'. But also that perimeter panels were thrown at huge speeds horizontally. The two are direct opposites, and so I hope that we can agree on a set of criteria that are not.


Because the reaction speed of thermite goes up as the particle size goes down?
Because high-explosives make a loud noise that is hard to conceal?
Because regular explosives leave readily identifiable chemical traces?
My guess is an oxy-acetylene torch would be WA-A-A-A-Y too slow and would need to jerry-rigged to high hell.

Ok so we can reasonably agree here. They would want to carry out secret activities and so we can rule out loud explosives or anything with an obvious trace or signature right?

I'm confused by the 'reaction speed' argument though. Why would that be remotely relevant? Surely the important thing would be the total heat output? I don't know what mechanism you're proposing though so that may not be correct.


Charges can be hardened against impact or fire much the same way that sensitive recording equipment can in a black-box, but even if that were not the case that molten metal may simply be evidence of a broken charge. In that scenario you only see a little because only a single, or a couple, of charges may have been dislodged.

We're aiming for secrecy though, so we can't propose anything that would require a large amount of work to install or be particularly obvious to regular staff. If you needed to keep a charge intact and under 450C or so in a full scale office fire after a plane impact, you're going to need to construct a pretty significant amount of reinforcement. Again I don't know exactly what scenario you're proposing so I can't say for sure.


It is a fallacy to assume that an inordinate amount of thermite (or whatever) was required, because the alternative theory is that none was required. Something is more than nothing, whatever the precise details are.
edit on 10-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

Something is more than nothing, but in order to agree with that you have to concede that indeed the building could have collapsed without explosives. That is after all the 'debunker' side of the argument. You can't both say 'well we will accept the weakness of the building' and 'we wont accept the vulnerability to collapse'.

My biggest problem with your post is that I am more interested in how this thermite is to be used, not just why it is a candidate. Nobody I know of has come up with any remotely plausible mechanism to carry out a thermite based demolition, and the only examples we have are extremely limited in scope and have significant preparation times.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I don't know what you want me to say, the pictures clearly shows metal spheres that could not be fly ash.

The heat output is not the most important thing, it is not THAT it burns, it is how it burns. This is similar to the physical principals underlying walking over burning coals. It doesn't matter how hot the coals are if they cannot effectively transfer the heat or if the heat is transferred more slowly than it can be conducted away. This is why you don't use paper to weld train tracks, despite the fact that it has a higher energy content per mass (including the air used in burning) than thermite.

The mechanism I envision is of devices similar to Cole's charges attached to some key locations. Again, you don't need that many if you place them at the right spots. The ejections are only problematic because of their location below the main wave of collapse as their is no plausible natural mechanism for their creation (no, I do not consider air pressure "plausible"). They do not necessarily need to be explosions to be an issue.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
as their is no plausible natural mechanism for their creation (no, I do not consider air pressure "plausible").


Too bad, as that is what caused them,and nothing you claim will change that fact!



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I don't know what you want me to say, the pictures clearly shows metal spheres that could not be fly ash.

It seems you've convinced yourself that this is the case, but I see no evidence that this is true.


The mechanism I envision is of devices similar to Cole's charges attached to some key locations. Again, you don't need that many if you place them at the right spots. The ejections are only problematic because of their location below the main wave of collapse as their is no plausible natural mechanism for their creation (no, I do not consider air pressure "plausible"). They do not necessarily need to be explosions to be an issue.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

You're right the ejections are problematic in this theory! How many are we talking here? Are we failing a full floor? What columns are being destroyed?

I also want to know how this theory explains those ejections and how it explains the inward bowing seen on both towers.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





It seems you've convinced yourself that this is the case, but I see no evidence that this is true.



I love how you are trying to make it look like it's me denying what's right in front of his nose.

You claimed it was fly ash, you showed me pictures of fly ash, I said that it is quite likely that some of the sphere's were indeed fly ash. Then I show you pictures that in no way shape or form could be construed as fly ash as per the picture you presented as "proof", and your response?

"Nuh-uh, I'm not looking".

And I am the one with a pre-set conclusion?


You're right the ejections are problematic in this theory! How many are we talking here? Are we failing a full floor? What columns are being destroyed?

I also want to know how this theory explains those ejections and how it explains the inward bowing seen on both towers.


Well you can go count them. I am talking about the localized ejections a floor or more below the main line of full floor collapse.

The problem with air-pressure ejections is that it is physically impossible for them to occur so far below the collapse front in a open office space with miles of glass windows.

There is no plausible theory how there could be "advance" collapses in structurally sound lower portions of the building ahead of the collapse front. Bazant certainly does not address the issue.

The ejections in my theory would be caused by the same as the whatever causes the ejections in a natural collapse theory, except with the addition of a mechanism to explain how it got to be happening so far down the building.




Too bad, as that is what caused them,and nothing you claim will change that fact!


Great argument, have a cookie.
edit on 17-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I love how you are trying to make it look like it's me denying what's right in front of his nose.

You claimed it was fly ash, you showed me pictures of fly ash, I said that it is quite likely that some of the sphere's were indeed fly ash. Then I show you pictures that in no way shape or form could be construed as fly ash as per the picture you presented as "proof", and your response?

"Nuh-uh, I'm not looking".

And I am the one with a pre-set conclusion?

I believe you are the one with a pre-set conclusion, because that's not what I said at all. You posted pictures of microspheres embedded within a red chip. I said that I see no problem with these being fly ash microspheres that could be been embedded by mechanical force or by contamination during curing.

Why is this implausible? What is it about the microspheres that so convinces you they are somehow attached or part of the chip? I honestly don't understand.


Well you can go count them. I am talking about the localized ejections a floor or more below the main line of full floor collapse.

The problem with air-pressure ejections is that it is physically impossible for them to occur so far below the collapse front in a open office space with miles of glass windows.

There is no plausible theory how there could be "advance" collapses in structurally sound lower portions of the building ahead of the collapse front. Bazant certainly does not address the issue.

The ejections in my theory would be caused by the same as the whatever causes the ejections in a natural collapse theory, except with the addition of a mechanism to explain how it got to be happening so far down the building.

There is no thermite based mechanism that could cause this. That's the biggest problem. You say it would be the same cause, but the cause is undoubtedly air pressure. The building is collapsing and reducing in volume. It's essentially analogous to a piston in a cylinder. As this happens the pressure of the rest of the building must increase as a matter of course.

There's no doubt that air is going to 'leak' out of every conceivable hole, but we know from the accounts of firefighters who were in the towers as they collapsed that they experienced a huge gust of wind before the collapse front reached them. It's also worth noting that many of the ejections occur on mechanical floors where there was direct air ducting to the outside, without any windows in place.

Another argument which doesn't favour thermite or explosives is the rate of ejection. It increases over about a half second period. No explosives are that slow, and the whole point of nano-thermite apparently is to increase its reaction rate. The only plausible mechanism for a slow acceleration in velocity is air pressure.

Obviously I'm speaking as if this were fact, and I do believe it to be so, but from your perspective it is opinion. You must admit however that you are missing out questions in my posts and that you have a very limited explanation for even the most basic theories.

The exterior column bowing should be fairly diagnostic. There are few possible causes for this and thermite or explosives don't match up with any. What say you on this? I find it hard to get details from people.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



I believe you are the one with a pre-set conclusion, because that's not what I said at all. You posted pictures of microspheres embedded within a red chip. I said that I see no problem with these being fly ash microspheres that could be been embedded by mechanical force or by contamination during curing.


So it should be a simple matter to find examples of similar chips created by similar processes shouldn't it?

Debunkers love asking for proof, but where is yours? It has already been demonstrated that nano-thermite can produce chips of this appearance, what hasn't been demonstrated is that fly-ash can.

Should be simple, I'll wait.




There is no thermite based mechanism that could cause this. That's the biggest problem. You say it would be the same cause, but the cause is undoubtedly air pressure. The building is collapsing and reducing in volume. It's essentially analogous to a piston in a cylinder. As this happens the pressure of the rest of the building must increase as a matter of course.


So...

Gravity alone can do it, but suddenly, assist it with thermite and it becomes completely impossible.

A thermite assisted demo would just be a special case of a Verinage procedure, I see no technical reason why it couldn't blow out floors ahead of the collapse. We know that it can knock out columns pretty fast, and that is all that Verinage is.

There is no piston, there is no cylinder. The floors were flat slabs open to the air apart from glass panes on more than 75% of their surface area. There was no pancaking either, and I am not talking about the ejection at the main edge of collapse.



Another argument which doesn't favour thermite or explosives is the rate of ejection. It increases over about a half second period. No explosives are that slow, and the whole point of nano-thermite apparently is to increase its reaction rate. The only plausible mechanism for a slow acceleration in velocity is air pressure.


Just to be clear, the mechanism I am proposing is partly air-pressure, not explosive expulsion. Not just air pressure to be sure, mostly mechanical and elastic forces acting on floor and column elements that suddenly break due to floors giving way.

The question is, what causes those floors to give way?

Think about it, the mechanism for breaking the floors is that the mass of falling material accumulates into a lump and forces its way through (roughly). how does some of this stuff end up twenty of thirty floors lower down to break stuff?

As for gusts of wind...

How many gusts of wind have you seen breaking out a window? You are talking almost hurricane force here, at least, and that is if the ejections consist of mostly glass and paper. It is not like a gush of air is gonna do that. It needs to be pressurized, and you don't pressurize air without a pressure vessel. Again, you can go do physical experiments with this and try it yourself.

If you think falling building material will created such focussed, localized air pressure pulses capable of moving heavy objects I challenge you to find evidence for the claim.




Obviously I'm speaking as if this were fact, and I do believe it to be so, but from your perspective it is opinion. You must admit however that you are missing out questions in my posts and that you have a very limited explanation for even the most basic theories.


Who's the conspiracy theorist now?

Did you consider that I don't do this as a full time job and sometimes don't feel like answering EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MAKE in some offhand corner of your post? Or run out of time? Or get bored? Or just miss things?

Ask your question again if it is so important to you.

Also... Why do you think that every tiny question you ask have to be answered. Some things in life just are mysteries, that's the fun part, I suggest you embrace it.



The exterior column bowing should be fairly diagnostic. There are few possible causes for this and thermite or explosives don't match up with any. What say you on this? I find it hard to get details from people.


Of what?

The only physical tests to that effect failed to find support for the official sanction mechanism, and the only F.E.A. I have seen indicates that the cause of the bowing is the exact opposite of what you would no doubt like it to be.




It may not be readily apparent to you, but I am very likely to be swayed by actual evidence. It just turns out debunkers are really bad at actually providing any for their claims. So I ask you: can you provide actual evidence (not just empty insinuation, actual hard evidence), of your claims?

There are a couple of claims here now, you don't have to do all at once.
edit on 21-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
So it should be a simple matter to find examples of similar chips created by similar processes shouldn't it?

Debunkers love asking for proof, but where is yours? It has already been demonstrated that nano-thermite can produce chips of this appearance, what hasn't been demonstrated is that fly-ash can.

A nice bit of switching sides around here, but ultimately pointless. It has not been shown that nano-thermite can produce chips of this appearance, this is the very question we're trying to answer. You cannot claim to answer a question with the very question we're answering. That's circular reasoning.

Microspheres from nano-thermite and from other iron melting products appear almost indistinguishable to me. It's you who claims there is a unique arrangement that is detectable as thermite. I'm asking you to prove it.


So...

Gravity alone can do it, but suddenly, assist it with thermite and it becomes completely impossible.

That's like saying "So gravity alone can do it, but suddenly, assist it with popsicles and it becomes completely impossible".

I explained this to you on a previous post. You can't both claim that the buildings were as weak as debunkers allege, but that they retain the strength that you believe they have. If they are as weak as the facts show, then there is no reason whatsoever to suspect thermite involvement.


A thermite assisted demo would just be a special case of a Verinage procedure, I see no technical reason why it couldn't blow out floors ahead of the collapse. We know that it can knock out columns pretty fast, and that is all that Verinage is.

We don't know that it can knock out columns pretty fast. The fastest demonstrated example takes seconds. The slowest possibly explosive would take milliseconds. Besides, the Verinage procedure proves quite clearly that there is no room for 'thermite'. They collapse buildings using nothing but their own mass, but suddenly this becomes impossible when applied to the WTC?


There is no piston, there is no cylinder. The floors were flat slabs open to the air apart from glass panes on more than 75% of their surface area. There was no pancaking either, and I am not talking about the ejection at the main edge of collapse.

Everything here is wrong. The upper floors undoubtedly form a piston (firefighter accounts). The lower floors undoubtedly form a cylinder (simple geometry) and pancaking has been proven god knows how many ways. You remember 'the meteorite' right?


Just to be clear, the mechanism I am proposing is partly air-pressure, not explosive expulsion. Not just air pressure to be sure, mostly mechanical and elastic forces acting on floor and column elements that suddenly break due to floors giving way.

The question is, what causes those floors to give way?

Think about it, the mechanism for breaking the floors is that the mass of falling material accumulates into a lump and forces its way through (roughly). how does some of this stuff end up twenty of thirty floors lower down to break stuff?

It doesn't, the air pressure does. Air pressure moves at the speed of sound, less than a second to traverse the building from the exterior, probably one or two internally (longer windier route)


How many gusts of wind have you seen breaking out a window? You are talking almost hurricane force here, at least, and that is if the ejections consist of mostly glass and paper. It is not like a gush of air is gonna do that. It needs to be pressurized, and you don't pressurize air without a pressure vessel. Again, you can go do physical experiments with this and try it yourself.

If you think falling building material will created such focussed, localized air pressure pulses capable of moving heavy objects I challenge you to find evidence for the claim.

Ok that is easy:

Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”
Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”
Stone Phillips: “A rumbling sound, this gust of wind? And then what happened?”
Sal D’Agostino: “When I hit the fourth floor landing, I remember the plaque on the door. And that’s when the building started shaking. And you heard the rumble. And I said, ‘Oh, here we go. This is it for me.’”


I'm not asking you to believe the ridiculous here. A building collapsing like this can't help but increase the pressure in the lower section, and we can see from the behaviour of the smoke and the debris and the accounts of people in the building.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Who's the conspiracy theorist now?

Did you consider that I don't do this as a full time job and sometimes don't feel like answering EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MAKE in some offhand corner of your post? Or run out of time? Or get bored? Or just miss things?

I don't do this as a full time job either, but consistently when I try and get explanations from truthers about the practical aspects of the building they go silent.


Also... Why do you think that every tiny question you ask have to be answered. Some things in life just are mysteries, that's the fun part, I suggest you embrace it.

Embracing ignorance is exactly the opposite purpose of this site. You've come to the wrong place.


Of what?

The only physical tests to that effect failed to find support for the official sanction mechanism, and the only F.E.A. I have seen indicates that the cause of the bowing is the exact opposite of what you would no doubt like it to be.

There were no physical tests of that effect. This alone indicates you don't have more than a truther's understanding of the situation. You really believe a couple of unbacked youtube videos to be an authoritive FEA?

Give me a break. Why don't you read some published papers. Here's one ANOK wants to avoid:
www.sciencedirect.com...


It may not be readily apparent to you, but I am very likely to be swayed by actual evidence. It just turns out debunkers are really bad at actually providing any for their claims. So I ask you: can you provide actual evidence (not just empty insinuation, actual hard evidence), of your claims?

There are a couple of claims here now, you don't have to do all at once

Certainly. Please see the paper above to prove that truss sagging can provide an inward pulling force. Please see the complete lack of any other explanations for truss sagging. Please see the debris studies characterising the truss seats.

Of course, you demand proof but on the opposite side you rely on your own personal opinon a lot of the time. "this looks like thermite to me", "i don't see how it could be air pressure", "it's air pressure AND thermite" etc.

I'll engage you as long as I can, but please stop with the nonsense claims you picked up off a truther site. If you want to discuss the NIST report it's your burden to read it I am afraid, and saying 'oh the tests they did failed' is a perfect indicator that you have not bothered.

I'll make it clear here for the future. NIST conducted no diagnostic tests for floor sagging. They conducted modelling accuracy tests in reduced scale, and then used computer models to determine the composite floor behaviour.

If you doubt that this would happen, you can produce a reviewed paper or a physical test. Unfortunately there is nothing in reviewed literature or previous experiments that supports the idea that catenaries don't exert inward fore.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




Embracing ignorance is exactly the opposite purpose of this site. You've come to the wrong place.


Thinking every aspect of an event can be known and "proven" is embracing ignorance. It is also really naive.


There were no physical tests of that effect. This alone indicates you don't have more than a truther's understanding of the situation. You really believe a couple of unbacked youtube videos to be an authoritive FEA?


fire.nist.gov...

...also...

en.wikipedia.org...




www.sciencedirect.com...


You can't link things behind paywall and expect me to buy it if the abstract in no way suggests that the test illustrates your point. I'm not even sure what your point is.

It doesn't matter if it published in a million journals and peer reviewed by the pope, if there is no source code (as with the NIST f.e.a) it is GIGO. I don't think the youtube video is proof of anything, but at least it is more reproducible. Reproducibility and falsifiability are the standards in science, publication in peer reviewed journals often, but not always, is merely a good indicator that these are present. Why do you think journals periodically retract articles?

But I notice you are dodging the real question here. You made some positive claims here, I expect those claims to be backed up by actual evidence before you start accusing people of stuff.
edit on 23-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Thinking every aspect of an event can be known and "proven" is embracing ignorance. It is also really naive.

No, wanting to know everything about an event is the very opposite of 'embracing ignorance'. Sorry.



There were no physical tests of that effect. This alone indicates you don't have more than a truther's understanding of the situation. You really believe a couple of unbacked youtube videos to be an authoritive FEA?


fire.nist.gov...

...also...

en.wikipedia.org...

Neither of these are tests of the floor systems in the towers. If you actually had bothered to read the paper you'd know that. Why are you pasting references to things you clearly haven't read properly?

edit: I should add more detail here, they don't test the actual physical mechanisms of the day, just the interaction with fire.


You can't link things behind paywall and expect me to buy it if the abstract in no way suggests that the test illustrates your point. I'm not even sure what your point is.

Then perhaps you should read more carefully. You linked a random youtubers FEA and claimed it was some sort of evidence, this is a peer reviewed FEA by a respected institution showing exactly the opposite of what was claimed in the youtube video.


It doesn't matter if it published in a million journals and peer reviewed by the pope, if there is no source code (as with the NIST f.e.a) it is GIGO. I don't think the youtube video is proof of anything, but at least it is more reproducible. Reproducibility and falsifiability are the standards in science, publication in peer reviewed journals often, but not always, is merely a good indicator that these are present. Why do you think journals periodically retract articles?

I wouldn't mind this attitude if you applied it equally, but you clearly don't. You assume everything that agrees with you is reasonable, and then discount everything that disagrees with you. This is not a balanced viewpoint, and considering that truthers have had the data to reproduce simulations for years and years it doesn't seem that any confirmation from them is coming.


But I notice you are dodging the real question here. You made some positive claims here, I expect those claims to be backed up by actual evidence before you start accusing people of stuff.
edit on 23-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

What claims would you like me to back up that I haven't already? I'm still waiting for an explanation of how columns can bow in.
edit on 23/6/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




No, wanting to know everything about an event is the very opposite of 'embracing ignorance'.


Wanting to have all the money in the world is not the same thing as having the ability to get all the money in world, even is such a thing were conceptually possible.

Not realizing that difference is naive.



I should add more detail here, they don't test the actual physical mechanisms of the day, just the interaction with fire.


Yes...

And the key claim of how the collapse initiated relies on a presumed property of how the steel interacts with fire. That is the corner stone of the building (as it were), and it was because of that corner-stone that further physical tests were not conducted.

This is one of those points in an argument where if it fails every subsequent point in the argument is rendered invalid.



Then perhaps you should read more carefully. You linked a random youtubers FEA and claimed it was some sort of evidence, this is a peer reviewed FEA by a respected institution showing exactly the opposite of what was claimed in the youtube video.


Here is the abstract to the article:


Much research has been and is currently being done to try and accurately recreate the effects of fire on structures including the effects of redistribution within the structure and the associated changes in load carrying mechanisms. This work has mostly focussed upon the most common and simplest structural forms currently used. As such most of the research to date tends to involve Universal Beam and Universal Column sections in a grid formation with spans of 6–9 m. This paper reports on an investigation of the effects of heating on a long span truss floor system. The ABAQUS finite element package is used to model the structure including fully non-linear behaviour and thermal expansion effects. Different boundary conditions and heating regimes are investigated to understand the response of the truss members to fire. The effects of heating on the lateral restraint available from the slender floor systems to a column have also been studied. The results and analysis indicate that composite truss flooring systems may not fail suddenly. Individual member buckling seems to be a much more gradual occurrence linked to material failure and expansion based geometry change rather than sudden “failure”.

www.sciencedirect.com...

In fact, the abstract suggests exactly opposite of what the official narrative requires: that failure is not sudden, but gradual.

There is no apparent connection to the video of the F.E.A. I linked.



What claims would you like me to back up that I haven't already?


Let's start with the claim that fly ash metal sphere can look like the ones I linked, shall we?




I'm still waiting for an explanation of how columns can bow in.


The first claim, I believe, was made by you, claiming that the pull in forces generated by heating the floor elements could have caused the bowing.

Let's see your evidence for that claim first, okay?
edit on 25-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join