Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

  1. #2061
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    And a good video with some stills (and some video too):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A
    Well I just flicked through this and noticed the usual debunked images that Jones keeps repeating.

    Steel so molten it can be picked up? We have a word for things like that... solids.

    Steel so hot and molten that fire fighters can hover their faces directly above it? Is that picture not simply lights to aid the firefighters in looking for survivors or bodies?

    As for the picture of molten material ejecting from the tower; here's an application of logic for you: The precise point where you see this stuff falling out of the windows, is where all the aluminum from the plane would have came to a halt. Aluminum is certainly within melting point of the obvious raging fires that also were taking place at this precise point. Why should it be surprising that we saw molten material coming from this particular point of the tower? We can say with near certainty that this is what led to the material falling out of the window.

    What would have been interesting is if this material was seen at multiple points of the tower at places where you would not expect large amounts of aluminum or high temperatures.

    And like I do with most of my posts, let it just be known that it remains unproven that thermite can be used to remotely cut a thick steel beam… let alone demolish a building in the manner which we saw on 9/11.

    With all of the above in mind... is it any wonder I don't bother watching the whole video from start to finish with the sound on? Is it any wonder why his views are not successful in a scientific arena?

  2. #2062
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    On a positive note...I would like to commend you for shrugging off responses that included personal attacks. That's taking the high road in the debate, and is a step in the right direction in your quest for "critical thinking"
    What choice does he have? Scott3x is a liar. There is no way he can be as dumb as this because he would not be able to type a post.

  3. #2063
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Yeah!! I posted the same video of the thermite reaction a couple hundred pages back!

    Funny they used it to prove their point. I guess they didn't know a Fiat has an aluminum block engine.

    Loved the pictures of the columns cleanly cut at neat 45 degree angles. How could thermite cut a clean 45 angle? It can't..the only thing that cuts steel like that is a plasma torch...like they used when deconstructing the debris.

  4. #2064
    He is pulling chains. The fact is that his crew are the ones hawking DVD's and other merchandise.
    Last edited by John99; 11-04-08 at 04:10 PM.

  5. #2065
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Scott,

    I'd like you to watch that video again and pay close attention to the second experiment where they burned a hole in the Fiat. If you can tell me why the guys in the video used a flower pot...you will understand why thermite can't be used to cut a vertical column.

    I'll give you a hint. If you notice the car hood, which is made of thin, low-carbon sheet metal, is almost completely covered in the 4000+F degree molten iron during the reaction, ...but in the aftermath photos, the thin hood only has a hole in it where the flower pot was.

    Let me know what you think the role of the flower pot was. (Hey...who said we couldn't learn about science and debate conspiracies! )

    If you search for "thermite reactions" on you tube, you can see the whole video, including another experiment on the Fiat they did by placing a flower pot of thermite on the top of the car in the rear, over the gas tank. They put like 5 gallons of gas in the tank, and when the thermite hits it...Kablooey! Cool explosion...has nothing to do with the debate...just neat to watch.

    Feel free to repost this in your CIT forum,(in it's entirety) if you want their help.
    Last edited by MacGyver1968; 11-04-08 at 06:30 PM.

  6. #2066
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Thermite charge

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0266204.html

    "The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition.

    The thermite reaction is an exothermic reaction that can produce temperatures of more than 4,000° F. These temperatures are well above the melting point of most metals. Boosting the rate of the thermite reaction by flowing a stream of oxygen through the materials can raise the reaction temperature from the normal 4,000° F. to the range of 10,000° F. to 16,000° F. Boosting the temperature to this level greatly reduces the time associated with cutting through a material. In addition, directing the burning particles and gases into a jet through a nozzle allows improved removal of molten metal and deeper penetration into the material.

    Until this time, one-shot thermite-based devices have been used primarily to make point like, circular holes in materials. Sustained thermite cutting technologies, such as burning bars, achieve linear-shaped cuts by expanding on the initial penetrated area and moving away from the initial point of penetration in a line (similar to a conventional cutting torch). By configuring a single-use apparatus and its associated nozzle into a linear or curvilinear arrangement, the shape of the penetration would be lengthened dramatically. Connecting segments of these devices into a desired shape would allow users to determine the dimensions of a breach area or linear cut.

    This thermite-based method will allow operators to penetrate a material in timeframes similar to explosive shape charges without the safety concerns and security risks associated with explosives. In addition, the sustained duration of a thermite jet will more effectively handle discontinuities and interfaces that normally disrupt and dissipate explosively driven shape charge jets. When a linear shaped charge is used for cutting steel on a steel bridge demolition project, a large degree of preparation work must be undertaken to ensure a successful cut or penetration. A “preconditioning” process involves removing overlapped plates and areas of reinforcement with a conventional cutting torch. This process is time consuming, expensive, and dangerous. Conversely, the sustained jet of a thermite charge offers improved performance over multi-plate materials with limited or substantially no preconditioning. The thermite charge's sustained jet also affords a greater assurance in cutting plates of varying thickness, layered plate configurations, and any supporting or reinforcing members that may exist in the middle or on the backside of a material. While the projected thermite charge particle stream is a slower reaction than that of an explosively driven jet, it is very fast from the perspective of the operator. The anticipated timing for material penetration is typically on the order of hundreds of milliseconds."

  7. #2067
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    HS,

    Could you post the link where that info came from. The link you posted just shows a online patent application. Thanks.

  8. #2068
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    perhaps you should patent your techniques for avoiding reality, you become more inventive with each post.

  9. #2069
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    No...honestly. You made a good point in post 2066. If you can post a link so I can do some independent research and critical thinking, and examine the evidence without bias....so I can tell If what you said is true. The point I was trying to make in post 2065 that thermite can't be used in a vertical application.

    I'm not trying to be coy or anything...I just want to confirm your data. If it's true..you win the point. Thermite can be used in a vertical application. I just need to see the reference.

  10. #2070
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    i've given you the link in post 2066. try scrolling down. i'm not interested in winning any points. read the info or don't read it.

  11. #2071

  12. #2072
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    i've given you the link in post 2066. try scrolling down. i'm not interested in winning any points. read the info or don't read it.
    My bad...I didn't see the part at the bottom. I thought that was from another source or something...since it's not...it's still just a online patent application, it doesn't mean it really exists. Anyone can apply for a patent for anything. I bet I could create one for a "Headspin Nose Hair Clipper"

    You need harder evidence than that.

  13. #2073
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post

    By far...the MOST compelling evidence presented on this thread...I mean...if you can't believe DB...then who can you believe?

    Nice track there John.
    Last edited by MacGyver1968; 11-04-08 at 07:15 PM.

  14. #2074
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    So, HS...what role does the flower pot play?

  15. #2075
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    My bad...I didn't see the part at the bottom. I thought that was from another source or something...since it's not...it's still just a online patent application, it doesn't mean it really exists. Anyone can apply for a patent for anything. I bet I could create one for a "Headspin Nose Hair Clipper"
    are you saying this device described as "this present invention" does not exist?
    what evidence do you have that this device does not exist?
    You need harder evidence than that.
    why? this isn't a court room, and you're not the judge. if you are saying that you yourself need harder evidence, then that doesn't surprise me, people have different standards of proof, a lot of germans denied that jews were being killed at Auswitch despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    So, HS...what role does the flower pot play?
    I don't know what you mean.

  16. #2076
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Your taking their word for it that it exists. Anyone can make an application for a patent for anything. If the patent was approved...then that would be something.

    This isn't a court room, but it is a debate. The unofficial motto of this board is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". An online, free patent application is not scientific evidence. Remember your at "SCI" forums.

    The flower pot is in the video that scott posted, demonstrating a thermite reaction. You obviously didn't see it...never mind.

  17. #2077
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    i'm going to patent a cure for cancer, it will read "take one of these pills in the morning and one in the evening".

  18. #2078
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    You could apply for that patent. and it would show up on that website. Whether or not it meets the conditions for approval is a whole different ball game. There are patent applications for "over unity" devices.

  19. #2079
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    do you think that Battelle Memorial Institue is the type of organisation that fucks about putting out patents for ficticious devices, and lying in the description by describing them as "this present device". do you think they would go to the trouble of providing detailed technical drawings of such a device that doesn't even exist?
    http://www.patentdebate.com/PATAPP/20060266204

    what you are doing is demanding a level of proof above that which is reasonable. if i shoot someone in the face and they die, can you prove that i killed them? no, because they may have died from heart failure or an infinte other reasons before my bullet hit them in the head.

    Denial is all about giving undeserved equal weight to two arguments, choosing an absurd notion over a well grounded reasonable assertion in order to protect one's belief. You could use the technique to deny anything you wanted and in this manner you are able to comfortably choose your own reality. It's delusional, but its what fearful people do all the time to avoid difficult issues.

  20. #2080
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    I'm afraid sir, you are the delusional one. At least Scott makes sense....sometimes

    I'm not denying that this doesn't exist..im just asking for a little more proof than a patent application.

Similar Threads

  1. By Jozen-Bo in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 08-02-08, 03:09 PM
    Replies: 81
  2. By Tnerb in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 07-16-08, 02:06 PM
    Replies: 33
  3. By Thoreau in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-09-07, 12:19 PM
    Replies: 18
  4. By Lord Hillyer in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 11-13-07, 02:33 PM
    Replies: 11
  5. By Orleander in forum Site Feedback
    Last Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PM
    Replies: 16

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •