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

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Aug 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    if the steel had ONLY softened he would have ONLY said "softened", a description of partially melted steel would have included "melted", "melting", and "SOFTENING". You are seeing ONLY what you want to see.
    if a block of ice sits in a pool of water, we can saying it is "melting"!!

    I have given you the exact quote and linked to the article a myriad of times, but you can't resist calling me a LIAR over melted/melting. If your argument rests on a distinction between "melted" and "melting", then your argument is fucked.

    I am not interested in your interpretations anymore, it is clear you prefer word puzzles over logic and evidence.

    a bridge is a different structure, would it have survived a hurricane as the towers were designed to withstand? many bridges just collapse with poor maintenance, there have been a few recent examples.

    do you have the answer to 4-across and 10-down?

    He had little to work with - 90% of the steel was never inspected and the blueprints were withheld by silverstein until leaked to Steven Jones in 2007. This is what Astaneh says - "TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS - The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents". If you understand science, you'll understand that a Hypothesis is not a definitive conclusion, that is why he titles his paper "A HYPOTHESIS FOR WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED".

    "tentative conclusions", "A hypothesis", "most likely," does that sound like a very clear definitive set-in-stone gospel to you? only a politician or a lawyer or a priest would put it to bed there, a scientist would not. Once more you make a bastard of logic and evidence with your interpretation "he has made it...very clear that the fires alone caused the collapse". and "came to the conclusion that the fires alone caused the collapse."
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    This particular device produces a superhot jet of therm?te whose cutting performance is enhanced by using a pressurized gas inside the ceramic chambers, without using an explosive shockwave. in other words it squirts anywheres you want. up down or sideways, will melt through concrete and steel, no prep work necessary.

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

    "The materials used for the thermite reaction may be premixed or mixed immediately prior to being jetted into the target material. One method for mixing the materials is to fluidize one solid reactant (typically powders or granulates) with a pressurized oxidant, and feeding them into a reaction chamber. Another method includes mixing two or more solid reactants (typically powders or granulates) and feeding them into a reaction chamber with or without pressured oxidant. The materials react and form a jet. The cutting action of the thermite charge can be augmented by pressurizing it with an oxidizing gas (e.g. oxygen or air).

    The apparatus and method typically provide for a reaction that provides cutting action in a non-explosive manner. “Non-explosive manner” is defined as a reaction that proceeds below the speed of sound in the reacting material. By proceeding below the speed of sound in the reacting material a shock wave as experienced in explosives is avoided."
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Some people can use Melting to express the distortion of a material even if technically it's not melted. What I mean is you could take a metal and heat it until it loses it's rigidness and bends under it's own weight, that can be called melting. It's not the same of course as using a cutting torch which melts the metal to liquid.

    The loss of rigidness will be when the beam "glows" in heat, and depending on the type of steel and how it was foundered decides on how many impurities are in the metal. (The larger amount of impurities the less temperature is necessary to cause melting as in bending.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    No, you are twisting it.

    what word would you prefer people use instead of "quote"?

    So magic alchemy only occurs in wtc7 and not wtc1 and 2 ?

    "approached ~1000 degrees", did you know on a linear scale there are two directions to approach a point ?

    Don't you find it interesting the mention of the figure of ~1000 degrees? when the minimum possible temperature of a liquid iron sulphur eutectic is 996C degrees. The paper leaves room for higher temperatures, but it leaves NO ROOM for lower temperatures. And it is also interesting that this minimum temperature of 996 Celcius for the molten Fe-S eutectic only exists if the Sulfur content of the eutectic mix is precisely 31.40%. if there is deviation either side by a percentage point or two for the sulfur content, the liquid eutectic can only exist at MUCH HIGHER temperatures, actually approaching the melting point of iron.

    So i ask which is more likely - did this sulfidation occur as the temperature cooled from 2500C to 1000C (as would happen if thermate residue splashed on the steel), or did sulfidation occur at precisely 1000C as it heated up from room temperature, and just happened to find itself in the presence of an iron sulfur eutectic with precisely 31.40% content sulfur.

    Also sulfur evaporates at 444 degrees Celcius, so if you choose the second option, you have to explain how free sulfur can itself exist liberated from any calcium sulphate compounds, but also how this free sulfur (once liberated) can avoid being evaporated as the temperature gradually rises to 1000C in order that the theoretically liberated free sulfur forms the iron sulfur eutectic.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2008
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Headspin, I believe you are truly amazing in this debate; I admit that at times you speak of things that even I can't really follow. However, I don't think that using terms like 'moron' really helps the debate. If I can't always follow you, it stands to reason that others might not as well. You may have noticed that I frequently criticize my opponents when they insult me with such terms, so I would be remiss if I didn't ask you to also try to restrain yourself. I can easily understand that as time has gone by, you may have gotten frustrated with people who apparently make the same arguments over and over. I myself have certainly gotten frustrated when I see this. However, I have a great fear that if people start to think that it's ok to swear at each other that this debate can go from substantial issues into an insult fest.

    Perhaps I have a bit of a thin skin, but when people insult me with terms like 'moron', 'stupid' and other such words, it actually hurts me emotionally. As you may remember, there was one point where such an insult coming from Geoff (who I still consider to be my main opponent even if he's apparently taking a hiatus from the frey) caused me to stop posting altogether until the issue was cleared (Geoff was apparently aggrieved over something I said). While this may not happen in the case of others, I'm certainly afraid that it might eventually lead to the tit for tat name calling I'd really like to avoid.
     
  9. ScyentsIzLief Banned Banned

    Messages:
    107
    Sounds pretty pansy to me.

    I think you need to remember that this a forum and everyone is anonymous. Don't take things personally. You shouldn't give people reasons to call you a moron anyhow. You avoid this stating claims that make sense, have evidence to back it up, and not denying others' evidence just because it questions your value system. For example, the mods put this thread here because they simply can't imagine the U.S. government doing this to the people to further their agenda. The 9/11 truth questions their belief system so they combat it by dismissing it altogether. Sometimes you get called a "moron" or a "sheep" for doing that. Or because you simply make a stupid claim because you have nothing left

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Hope this helps.
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I know you are, but what am I? Nya Nya, etc

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    The fact that this forum is generally anonymous in the sense that we don't know each other in the physical world doesn't make me feel that insults shouldn't be taken personally.


    Personally, such terms are good for one thing, and one thing alone; to fend of violence of some sort or other. In any other circumstance, I don't think that -anyone- should be called a 'moron'. Even if the person actually has an IQ of 51-70.

    As you may have surmised from that last statement, I decided to wiki the term. This is what I came up with:
    ******************************
    Moron was originally an English scientific term, coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard from the Greek word moros, which meant "dull" (as opposed to "sharp"), and used to describe a person with a mental age located between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale. It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51-70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0-25). The word moron, along with others including "retarded", "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, though these words have all now passed into common slang use, exclusively in a derogatory context.

    In his later years, starting from the 1920s, Goddard recanted his previous theories.
    ******************************
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)

    Ironically, even though both 'idiot' and 'imbecile' were classified as of a lesser IQ then moron, I think i'd prefer those terms then moron; something about moron I particularly don't like; I even dislike it more then 'stupid'. I do believe there are worse, ofcourse, but I won't mention them here

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    Claims that make sense to whom? And who decides what is and what isn't evidence? I contend that these things are not so easy to resolve as one might think.


    I could go for that anyway.


    Sheep I can handle

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    I just don't think the term 'stupid' has to be used. I believe I have used 'absurd', and even that NIST did some very 'shoddy' work (I was feeling particularly angry that day

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). I suppose suggesting that certain NIST individuals as well as others in high places are guilty of high treason might be considered a tad worse, but no base insults there at any rate

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Besides, if people are so cavalier about accusing 19 alleged hijackers, I don't think it's wrong to suggest others may well have been the true culprits. Ridiculous and ridicule in my view, is where I'm not sure (I don't think I've used them here anyway). Anything beyond that is off limits for me, unless, as I mentioned, it's used to deter actual violence (as in, swear strongly at someone who's considering mugging you, say).


    Definitely. It allowed me to expand on my reasoning ;-).
     
  11. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    I’ve been trying to get Scott to state clearly what the theory is. I have asked many times. I keep hearing about thermite cutting steel and explosions destroying concrete but we have our favorite structural engineer talking about melting steel. So it doesn’t seem to fit. The conspiracy theorist has the luxury of being vague and then saying ‘all those things happened’. That way no theory could ever be invalidated, it just gets added to the list.

    Jones found elements whose chemical signature is not distinct to nanothermate.

    Jones needs to demonstrate that there is no way those spheres/chips (whatever it is this month) could be there due to the materials in the buildings.

    The other problem is demonstrating with certainty that they were not there as part of the original construction or clean up.
     
  12. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    I agree with Scott (jesus christ..did I just say that?) Keeping things "above the belt" in this debate is one of the reason this thread is still around. It would be very, very easy for this thread to de-volve into insult fest. As most participants think the other side's argument is ridiculous. The only reason the mods allow this thread to even exist is because actual science is being discussed..sometimes. I've actually learned a few science facts from participating in this thread, and my involvement in it has to do with that, and practicing up on my debating skills. (Y'all have seen me try different types of arguments) Keeping it civil, and discussing the science will keep this thread alive. If I start telling Scott to "Pull his head out of his fucking ass, wipe the shit from his eyes and actually look at this..<insert point being made>" He's going to stop listening to the points I'm trying to make. He will only see me as the guy who insulted him. So lets continue and try to keep it clean.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You fucking idiots!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    j/k
     
  13. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    If he saw the results of molten metal then why did he only refer to melting girders? Girders are not liquid. Why not mention molten metal? He didn’t and this is consistent with his earlier description.


    That's a poor analogy. Ice can be a solid at -1C and a liquid at 1C. The change of state is not so black and white with steel and we are talking about a much larger range of temperatures. It can be changing states long before it is actually liquid.

    If you don’t want to have your honesty called into question you should be more careful when quoting ‘melting’ as ‘melted’.

    My argument is supported by his explanation of very soft glowing steel and his belief that the fires alone were responsible. If you are going to use his words (occasionally), shouldn’t you take into account his analysis?


    There have been other examples of fires causing steel frames to collapse…..

    Is it superjumbothermite?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There is an article stating that he inspected 40,000 tons. That is more than 10%

    If you understand science you will know that a scientific hypothesis is not just a guess. He believes that the evidence supports the hypothesis doesn’t he?

    His conclusion did not involve explosives and made no mention of liquid steel.

    http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm

    “Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says.

    "Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."”


    Am I twisting his words with my insane logic?
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You've actually agreed with the 'above the belt' thing before, laugh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    Something I constantly fear. Or that, at the very least, people get so upset with each other they simply throw in the towel and the thread deep sixes.


    You know, I've been thinking about all of this. I think that, in my case, the real issue is that I frequently don't understand why others could think that 9/11 was anything but an inside job. Certainly not the people who have been going at it with me for ages, such as Geoff, shaman and Kenny. I like to think that Geoff has left the scene because he's having doubts concerning the official story though (allow me to dream ;-)). However, as I've spoken to you guys more and more, I begin to see that there is a -lot- of info out there that can get one to believe that the official story is, in fact, true. If it were so easy to debunk I would have done so ages ago; and yet, here I am, more then 2 months after I started, and although I may dream that Geoff is having doubts and some progress has been made in the discussion, things haven't changed all that much. But then, in a way, what was I expecting? It's been 7 years since 9/11 so a few months shouldn't really make monumental changes. Still, I'm hoping we don't have to wait 50+ years and -still- have people doubting the established alternate story, as people do concerning Roosevelt's foreknowledge concerning Pearl Harbor.


    I'd like to think that some moderator out there actually thinks that some of the alternate story might be true instead of this thread only being tolerated because it brings up a bit of science...


    So you're not even interested in persuading us alternate story believers of the veracity of the official story?


    Not necessarily. When it comes to such things, only the gods themselves know what will happen

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I may:
    1- Criticize you for insulting me, then proceed to respond to your point.
    2- Halt all discussion until I understand why you insulted me (this happened once with Geoff)
    3- Go play World of Warcraft and forget about you insult prone people for a while (I've definitely done this many times ;-))
    4- Some combination of the above and/or another, unforeseen action ;-).


    Laugh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Sounds good to me.
     
  15. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    You are the one who made the leap that the deterioration of the steel must have been due to evaporation.

    Paraphrase.

    Don’t be stupid you cannot present evidence from WTC7 to determine what happened at WTC1+2. I would not attempt to debunk one by discussing the other.

    From “Microstructural Analysis of Steels from Buildings 7, 1, and 2 of the World Trade Center,”

    "A eutectic microstructure was seen within the "slag" of iron oxides and iron sulfides. If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is 940oC. It appears that the severe "erosion" was due to the sulfidation and oxidation (i.e. hot corrosion) of the steel followed by the liquid "slag" attack of the grain boundaries. "


    Temperatures at 2500 and the only evidence is some splashing that could also be sulfidized steel? That's not particularly convincing.

    Interesting comment from Ryan Mackey

    “Thermate also contains barium – roughly ten times as much barium as sulfur, in the form of barium nitrate before ignition – and there is no evidence of barium.”

    What do you think?

    Don’t know. So far I have gone by their conclusions that it wouldn't as chemistry is not my thing. So you disagree with their comment above regarding FeO and FeS?
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2008
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Honestly, I'm not sure if Headspin knows how those conclusions were reached, but to be fair, no one is claiming that he's the person who made those conclusions to begin with. The people who allegedly made those conclusions were experts in such things. Thus, I think that the question of how the conclusion of evaporated steel was made should be asked to the people who allegedly made them:
    Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Jonathan Barnett

    I have in the past said that their claims should be investigated. Yes, yes, perhaps the reporter(s) in the New York Times got it all wrong, but why, after all these years, has no one asked the investigators themselves? That in and of itself should give us reason for concern.
     
  18. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Their conclusions were that the fires caused steel to weaken which let to collapse.

    Perhaps people have and they were laughed at for asking stupid questions.
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    A -tentative- conclusion (and a poor one at that), at the very least in the case of Abolhassan.


    Must you continue with 'stupid' this and 'stupid' that? Can you atleast switch to absurd? I've used absurd but never 'stupid'.

    In any case, I see personally believe that the question has great merit and would be most interested to know if he was or was not asked concerning this. I'd ask him myself if I knew how to, but seeing as he refuses to even consider Steven Jones' evidence, I have a feeling he might be even less interested in responding to an internet poster concerning this.

    Anyway, in my search for information regarding evaporated/vaporized steel on the internet, I found quite a blog. For a while I have doubted that nuclear devices were involved in the collapse of the WTC buildings. I doubted it because I found very few people believing this to be the case; all I can remember is that there was just a claim that there was a lot of tritium at ground zero and that no one wanted to examine the debris for radioactivity.

    A nuclear device or devices could also easily account for vaporized steel and would substantially lessen the amount of explosives required to bring down the towers. I'm still not sure if they were used, but after reading a fair amount from the below mentioned site, it seems fairly likely.

    Anyway, here's the link:
    http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
     
  20. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    No the mod's put this here because there is a lot of bullshit that people like to peddle. I mean all this about putting explosives in a building and flying aircraft into it? Why not just through a small nuke into it too while you are at it and glass the place? The reason why not is it's basically absurd.

    While there might well of been some behind the seen's manipulation to force an attack, I wouldn't suggest that the attack was planned and carried out under US supervision. That would be like shooting yourself in the foot and claiming the enemy did it and eventually of course getting a gangrene infection and having that whole leg amputated.
     
  21. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Wow...Scott..a mini nuke?..Really? The author talks about the one million degree temperatures that a nuke would create...but completely fails to mention one very important aspect. When you heat up air...it expands..the hotter you heat it up and the more rapidly you heat it up, the faster and stronger it expands. You set off a nuke of any size, and you're going to create a TREMENDOUS shock wave and a boom that would deafen anyone in the near vicinity...and a light bright enough to blind you. Honestly Scott, this one is just ridiculous. Clearly we don't see a super-sonic shock wave emanating from the building at any point...nor do we see any light emissions that are brighter than the sun. Cross that one off your list.
     
  22. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    You seem keen to ask him about his comment. Why don't you email him and ask him? While you are at it you should explain to him why you think his conclusions were poor.

    Actually I use absurd all the time and have been conscious of it. I will make an attempt to use a thesaurus when insulting your posts from now on Scott. Okay?
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    If I had his email address, I'd give it a shot, but I couldn't find it; perhaps for good reason, he's fairly well known and might not want to get flooded. I don't think it'd be a good idea to tellhim that I believe his conclusions were poor if I wanted to get a response back; I'd be surprised if I got a response even without doing this.


    Woot

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page