WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    As demonstrated in the Cardington tests, the temperature of unprotected steel is only marginally behind that of the atmosphere.

    Which has possible sources other than thermite.

    The only possible explanation for that is an incendiary?

    Which could be explained by the fires.

    Unsure of what the material is. Could be a soup of aluminum mixed with the materials present in the buildings.

    But the heat would have been trapped.

    I don’t think your logic is sound there. You admit that a normal controlled demolition would be an unlikely cause and surmise that it means it is unlikely that the fires could do it.

    The maximum recorded was slightly over 700C. The fires could have gone over 1000C. NISTs workstation fires went well over 1000C I believe.

    Explosives or a fast burning incendiary wouldn’t necessarily explain these temperatures either.

    The number of anomalies does not matter if they don’t stand up to scrutiny.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Show me where that document ‘makes it clear’.

    Show me the results of a test with temperatures near 1000C, steel with no fireproofing and bucking not occurring. This is what you are claiming, correct?

    There is no mention there of tests without fireproofing. Just admit that it's possible the fires were hot enough to cause unprotected steel to buckle. You are just throwing random links at me now to keep me busy in the hope that I will move on.

    What are you basing this on? Your imagination? Where are the details that make this clear?



    But the basis of the claim that the fires can't reach those temperatures seems to be your misunderstanding of a letter Kevin Ryan regarding the panel samples years ago.

    Just admit that it is possible for an office fire to reach temperatures hot enough to soften unprotected steel. It doesn’t even cause your whole conspiracy religion to fall apart, as the official story still relies on demonstrating that the fireproofing would be removed. But you don’t want to concede one point so you try every trick to avoid doing so.


    The ones Kenny showed you. He has posted that link at least twice and I have posted it twice. That’s at least four times Scott. Will you pretend that you don't remember?

    Scott, you are still playing games. One of the Cardington tests simulated a fire with only office materials. It reached near 1000C. I am demonstrating it was possible for the WTC to reach those temperatures.


    Those tests were done on fireproofed steel.



    That is an assertion based on your faith. As I have said, one of the tests was fueled only by office materials and it reached near 1000C.



    I’m still doing it now. You are stalling.



    I will say it again, one of the tests was fueled office materials. It nearly reached 1000C. NISTs workstation tests were consistent with this.

    Steel buckled in WTC5 and no jet fuel was involved.


    Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true.


    I think you are confusing the posts regarding the eutectic mixture causing erosion of steel.


    You are just trying to provoke me with comments like that. You are a troll..


    229.

    I have told you how many there were a few times now. As to where they are now, how the bloody hell would I know? Your question was intended to provoke me.

    For the moment lets start with demonstrating that a simple office fire can reach near 1000C. Concede that it can.

    The steel inspected at the scene showed signs of temperatures well over 250C. NIST knew about this. Do you understand? There was other evidence. Instead you keep focusing on the outdated interim report from a few years ago.

    No your speculation is worthless as there was evidence that the fire reached temperatures well above 250C. The steel inspected showed signs much hotter than that and the jet fuel alone burns a lot hotter than that. At no point did NIST think 250C was the maximum temperature that the office fires reached.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to psikeyhackr's post 839 in this thread.

    I see. Well, I like your idea, but as Tony Szamboti has said, I think it's also good to use a bunch of arguments that are perhaps not as strong but are nevertheless fairly compelling as well. And ofcourse, different people may find different arguments compelling...
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to a part of shaman_'s post 857 in this thread.

    Do you atleast admit that you personally don't have a better explanation?
     
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    So you make stuff up?

    If you dont understand something you dont just go rewriting what is already known and look for 'big words' to add to your argument when you dont even understand what the words mean.

    That is my contention.
     
  10. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Round 5, Part 3

    This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 634 in this thread.

    I believe that Matsen makes it clear that doctors are frequently not taught certain elements of critical thinking that would allow them to expand to more preventative methods instead of generally only stepping in when a disease manifests itself. It's also no secret that some doctors can be corrupted by drug companies. As I've mentioned in the past, Kevin Ryan has made it clear that certain individuals in NIST know a whole lot about nano-thermite and yet they never mention them in all their reports- the closest they go is mentioning conventional thermite. Why do you suppose the government appointed experts missed mentioning them?


    You and I haven't just done a 'bit of research'. And we both pale in comparison to someone like Kevin Ryan.


    When I have found that one of my arguments isn't backed up by sufficient evidence, I have let it go in the past. This is not one of those cases.


    Well one thing is clear- your tendency to exagerate when it suits you. Urban activists, flaws. And now it seems you're hard at work with your crystal ball, determining that I would "still worship him" regardless of any mistakes he made.

    Your crystal ball seems to have told you the following:
    1- I worship Kevin Ryan.
    2- I will believe Kevin Ryan regardless of any mistakes he makes.

    I think you bring up some good points that need to be dealt with shaman_, but your claims to knowledge regarding my personal beliefs are, shall we say, a little out there

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    You and I haven't done as much research as Kevin Ryan. And while Mackey may be the eminent expert on superficial plausibility, even I can debunk his claims at times.


    Kevin Ryan and I don't ask you to simply take our word for it, which seems to be one of Mackey's favourite tactics- this is why he can write hundreds of pages of 'debunking'- it's mainly fallacy rich stuff that can certainly be debunked- but it's harder to prove or disprove something then it is to simply state something as fact. This is why Jim Hoffman didn't bother debunking all of his claims- it's not worth his time.

    You aren't as bad as Mackey, but you have frequently been rather lazy in backing up your claims. Saying that you've done it before somewhere isn't backing up your claims; it's wanting to do a Mackey- use your opponent's time to disprove you instead of trying to actually prove your own case. This is using the same logic that got the U.S. so many guantanamo bay prisoners; the idea is that you don't have to actually prove that they did anything- instead they have to -disprove- that they did anything. The same is the case with the whole idea that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 despite his vehement denials (a certain fake video aside). It's a Bush era relic and hopefully it'll start leaving when he does.
     
  12. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    In reference and in addition to post #866:

    If you are perceptive enough you can find examples of this all over. First the subject needs to be somewhat complex and infamous helps as well.

    As an example, right here we have a thread "AIDS is a lie". A question like that is somewhat ubnderstandable because there are still things to discover about a disease such as aids.

    But what the person does when he makes a statement such as this is try and rationalize his\her inability to understand this complex fact of life.
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Aw come on Headspin, don't be a tease- I know you know the answer, why not tell us, as well as the page number in that document

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ?
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to John99's post 866 in this thread.

    How on earth did you arrive to that possibility from the above quoted question?


    The argument sounds good, but do you actually have any evidence that I actually engage in this type of activity?
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Point #1:

    How did i arrive at it?

    Wiring the towers with explosives (physical impossibility). And isisting Thermite then Thermate then Nano-Thermate or whatever the new thing is. But that is just the most obvious example.

    Point #2:

    The argument sounds good and it is good. I can go on but it is possible we can explore this phenomenon at a later time.
     
  16. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    this is only how the anti-truthers cook it up for your digestion. it is a mentality that has no bearing on the facts.

    if you have followed it from the start, nanothermites and other thermite deriviatives were discussed even in the first conference papers. It is only a desire to stifle and suppress that compels anti-truthers to (falsely) express the situation in terms of an ever-changing argument.
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    is that a joke? go ahead and label people with a negative title. this is what hold back progress.
     
  18. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Really? Please explain.

    I am tempted to return the favor you did me the other day and ask what "isisting" means, but won't as I realize you meant insisting. Obviously the ability to have typos doesn't discriminate.

    As for your charge of changing claims by the truth movement on just what form of demolition devices were used, I think any detective would tell you that an investigation is evolutionary and converges. Here it is much less a case of changing as providing more specifics. Dr. Steven Jones originally postulated generally that thermite derivatives and explosives were most probably used to take down the towers. Once the eutectic reaction was discovered thermate became an obvious more specific candidate and with the need for some form of lower sound level but some explosive power and once it was known that such a product existed, nano-thermate was an even more explanative candidate for what could have been used. This is nothing more than a converging process with additional specificity of the general hypothesis put forth earlier.

    More data helps to refine any investigation and in this case it is no different. The discovery of iron microspheres and red/gray chips in the dust have provided additional data to the early hypothesis which was based on molten metal found in the rubble and the apparent controlled demolition of WTC 7 needing pre-positioned charges.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2009
  19. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Do you want me to explain something inside your head?
     
  20. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    This is something you have to explain.
     
  21. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    If you are referring to your claim that it is physically impossible to have wired the towers for demolition, I have to laugh.

    There were years over which it could have been done. The elevator shafts provided a clandestine way to rig the core columns and drop ceilings on each floor, with four feet of space between them and the floor slab above, provided a clandestine way to do whatever would have been necessary to the perimeter columns, which most probably needed to be demolished at their corners.

    Additionally, we know radio control of demolitions is done routinely now, so the need for massive wiring is unnecessary.

    Radio and computer control would also allow for quick sequencing according to where the aircraft actually hit the buildings.

    Isn't it interesting that the actual collapse floors were just above most of the impact damage. In case you didn't read his short paper on this Kevin Fenton's paper is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors.pdf. I can't isist that you read it, but it would proably be a good idea for you to do so.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2009
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    You are making it much simpler than is realistc and whatever to suit a scenario. Aside from that, it is still fantasy. These explosive were just hanging around for years and no maintenance personnel seen anything, no supervisors? Contractors do not just walk into these buildings and set up shop.

    There is no 'clandestine' way to wire the twin towers for demolition without people knowing. This is common sense but according to you so many were already involved. Now we are up to what a few hundred?
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2009
  23. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    There would have been a reason the Kuwait American Co. purchased Securacom, which handled security for the towers, and installed Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III on the board of directors in the mid 1990's. Interestingly they installed a new security system. This is too much to see as coincidence when the Bush administration and it's backers (including certain high level Kuwaitis and Saudis) had the most to gain from the events of Sept, 11, 2001. Nobody was deposed about who had access to the interiors of those buildings.

    There were documented fireproofing upgrades done in 1999 and 2000 predominantly in the areas where the planes hit and the collapses initiated. There were no questions asked about this.

    It is also interesting that a little known elevator company (Ace elevator) won the elevator maintenance contract over the long term incumbent and designer of the system (Otis elevator) in the mid to late 1990's. There was also an elevator upgrade project being done throughout much of 2001. There were no questions about this.

    Let us also not forget that Bush appointees (FEMA agents under Bush crony Joseph Albaugh) were in NYC on Sept. 10, 2001, under the ostensible cover of doing a bio-terror drill on Sept. 12, 2001, and took immediate control of the investigation of the collapses on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. There were no questions about this.

    The NIST was not authorized to start their investigation until October 2002 and got only 236 out of about 50,000 pieces of steel from the towers. They got none from WTC 7. Very little of the 236 pieces were from the fire affected areas of the towers. Other than those 236 pieces and maybe a couple pieces for memorials it had all been smelted down before NIST started their investigation. FEMA did no systematic cataloging and photographing of the steel as is usually done in an investigation into a catastrophic structural failure. They did take some photos but that isn't a systematic method which can help in the investigation. They did essentially no testing of the steel except the couple of pieces found in Appendix C of their report, and while there were some seriously anomalous findings nothing else was done.

    As for numbers of people involved many may have been unwitting. Well planned conspiracies use unwitting people who follow seemingly legitimate orders, think they are just doing their jobs, and are never the wiser. How many people were involved in the Tuskegee syphillis experiments? It was many more than those who actually knew what was really going on and controlled it.

    It would seem your incredulity and possible naivety on this constitutes the real fantasy.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page