9/11 Poll

Scott3x what you are telling me is that this was not a pyroclastic flow. A pyroclastic flow is hot, not warm. It is not a dust cloud. It is not a debris cloud. It is not a dust avalanche.

Pyroclastic flows are in the hundreds of degrees range. A so-called cold pyroclastic flow is 250 degrees C.

If this were a true pyroclastic flow it should have set fire to most of the buildings it engulfed. Anyone caught in the dust cloud would have been killed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For someone who claims to have researched it (with the implication that he's gone into considerable depth on the subject), and to declare himself to be the "proof", then it was either deliberate misdirection or idiocy.
No other possibility.
If he's researched it he KNOWS that fire can melt steel or he's completely misunderstood the subject: lying or idiocy (for making the claim in the first place), if he hasn't then he's lying about the research.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you underestimate the fervour of some Star Wars fans ;-). While most if not all of the people who put in "Jedi" may not actually believe in the force as depicted in the Star Wars series, I myself can attest that my belief system is a lot closer to the Star Wars' mythos than a tradional christian one.

I believe the part after the colon was a hedge; 'many is the time'; even you implicitly admit that science doesn't -always- get over-ridden by plot requirements in the sci fi genre. From what I've seen, Star Trek has at times been fairly good in using real science, for instance. Perhaps the importance of science fiction can be further highlighted by a passage I recently read in a collection of works from science fiction author Robert Heinlein, who passed away about 20 years ago. In the editor's foreward, it states:
This volume grew out of the special event, "Heinlein Retrospective", which was held on the sixth of October 1988 at the National Air and Space Museum in conjunction with the posthumous award of the NASA Medal for Distinguished Public Service, the highest civilian honor accorded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in recognition of an individual's contribution to the space program."

Tell me, why do you think he was awarded this medal? Personally, I think that science fiction is essentially in keeping people interested in science; without it, I think that many might forget how important it is for the future of mankind. Many TV programs, such as the CSI series, show how important it is in the present day as well.

I think that not all entertainment is alike. To be sure, there certainly is some truth in The Network's Beale character when he stated that the entertainment industry was in the "boredom-killing business". But I think there is some delicious irony that such a line (and many other good ones) would be delivered in a movie.

I remember once seeing an anime movie; at the beginning of the movie, a crowd sits down in a movie theater; there is silence before the movie starts, than it goes to another scene. I'm not sure if it was intentional but I came away from that scene thinking they were implying that the movie theater had become something like a church. And while some may scoff at the comparison, I don't. Honestly, if we looked at the amount of people who attend movie theaters vs. the amount of people who attend church, I'm fairly sure who would come out winning hands down. And yes, while some of the stuff in movie theaters may be fluff, there are many movies that I don't think I'll ever forget.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hmm .. interesting.. and what was Chewbacca's opinion on religion? What about Flash Gordon? Jar Jar Binks?

Perhaps we could ask a Cylon about 9/11. ?

 

Nope, I usually find the "science" on Trek to be little short of execrable.
Even from the original series, before it became a hand-holding "let's all hug and make up" new-age promotion.

More by accident than design.

That would be because Heinlein actually cared about science (unlike a number of scriptwriters for Trek*) and the fact that large numbers of NASA personnel grew up on his work, and came to appreciate science themselves.
CSI?
Oh yes the series that once stated "We have the proof now, oil is heavier than water so that's our clue..." That was in the first episode I ever saw - I never watched another.

*Any TV programme that has personnel screaming "We're going to blow up, the power is rising symptomatically!" has serious faults: one with the actors who don't know the word "asymptotically" (presumably, since "symptomatically" means it has to be symptomatic of something), another with a script writer that doesn't know (or care) that an asymptotic rise means it will never reach the danger point (should have been exponetially?) and a third with an audience that accepts such laxity.
That's when I stopped watching Trek.
FYI I also gave up on Inspector Morse when a supposed Oxford graduate asked some one "Are you inferring I made a mistake?"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have never seen the minimum temperature of pyroclastic flows defined anywhere. However, I will for the moment assume that it is defined somewhere as being 250C+. This may, in fact, be why the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site states that the WTC buildings had "Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds" but makes no mention of pyroclastic flows. The problem when dealing with terms that few people have even heard of is that some confusion may ensue and terms can at times be used somewhat incorrectly. However, whether or not one can officially define the dust clouds that occurred on 9/11 as a pyroclastic flow, there is no doubt that many of its characteristics are indeed characteristic of such a flow. This is made clear in video clips such as this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO_Tz3FhkMo&search=pyroclastic flow

Perhaps what occured was what we could call a 'pyroclastic flow lite'. While it may not have been quite as hot as a volcanic eruption, it certainly was hot enough to do a lot of damage, as can be seen in photos here a little down the page here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread208489/pg1

 

Mostly, I am a believer in the Law of Allowance. One should be free to choose one's own path in life, including their opinions and beliefs, they should be free to express them, and discuss them. For the most part, there are SO many people on this forum, generally you can always find someone that expresses your point of view, or pretty close to it, can't you? So what's the point of one more voice? I am content to allow people to just, "be." I have just enjoyed mostly passively reading the posts. What incensed me to write was that there was someone in the forum that would NOT allow someone to just "be." I have noticed that there are other opinions that aren't allowed either, I find that disturbing as well.

This was such a glaring case of conflict of interest, it was screaming to be pointed out, was it not? Since no one else was going to do so, it motivated me to do so.

British statesman Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil in America is for good men to do nothing."

My suggestion about Stryder being an agent for the dominant paradigm? Yes, true my good man, highly unlikely, I will admit. I could find no other plausible explanation for his behavior. How does one seriously discontinue discussion of a topic because they find the topic not suited to their tastes, especially if they are supposed to remain an impartial moderator!? In my nation (the USA for those from other regions of the world) we used to believe in the right to holding a variety of opinion.

“ If you're the kind of fly,” I see, so you don't believe in asking questions, and anyone who does deserves no respect and should be insulted and banned? Anyone has a right to your opinion? That sort of deal?

Technicalities. Whatever. Yes, yes, you are correct. Under the proper conditions fire can incinerate/soften steel. And you want me to believe office furniture, and a bunch of jet fuel that burned off in the first few minutes produced said conditions? :thumbsup:

You hold your view, I'll hold mine. Do we need to generate negative energy in the process, why not just discuss like adults why we hold our views and dispense with the fallacious ad hominem attacks?

The point of my post was not to argue the specifics of 9/11. I am sure that has been already discussed to death. However, I do have lots of new stuff if you are interested that might blow your minds, but off course, they must be open first. And clearly, only those who already know what is reality, and what is myth would be interested. Added to that, I am not allowed to post links.

I have noticed that scott3x does a more than capable job and separates the "wheat from the chaff," as it were, in breaking down the 9/11 myth.

 

I see other possibilities, some of which I have mentioned before:
1- He misinterpreted something he read.
2- He read from a bad source.
3- His english needs a bit of work and thus he didn't properly convey what he wanted to say.
4- He made some typos.

Perhaps it's a combination of the above. While I believe idiocy is a better term than idiot, I still think it's unnecessarily derogatory and any of the above explanations would be more on the mark.

 

Very funny ;-).

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Admittedly, I don't know much concerning the science in Star Trek; if they're off on this that or the other thing, I don't really care, as I just like the story line. However, I have heard from others who claim to know of such things that some of it is good.

Oli, I have a strong feeling that you are being excessively uncharitable here

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Atleast we can agree that some science fiction is good then, laugh ;-).

Aw c'mon, it's a TV show; I'd just imagine they said the right thing; or bring it up the mistake with others and perhaps teach them something ;-). It's different when it comes to 9/11. In this case, who's mistaken when it comes to what happened to the WTC buildings is a very big deal indeed.

Again, I'd just do the same as the above CSI example with oil, kind of like you just did by explaining asymptotic. Instead of focusing on their errors, you could be teaching people about them; when people deal with concepts they're not all that familiar with (such as the actors on CSI, I would assume), there's bound to be a fair amount of mistakes. But by dealing with them, even if imperfectly, I think they bring up a lot of things that people may have been unaware of entirely before. And while some of the information may be mistaken, I have a feeling that in such shows much more of it is on the mark.

Sorry, but that one just went over my head.

 

And yet not nearly enough. The main problem as I see it, is that it really is fairly complicated. Discussing the issues with people who hold opposing views is not for the light of heart I think ;-).

I have found that it is frequently very hard to find people with open minds in regards to what happened on 9/11. As a matter of fact, I don't even apply this solely to official story believers. I think that people in general have a hard time accepting that due to various circumstances, many people have come to very different conclusions on what happened that day. Even I at times have suspected that some of the people who have disagreed with me may in fact know the truth but simply be part of the cover up; however, part of the way I am enables me to have a strong capacity to put myself in the shoes of others; to try to see things their way. This, in turn, has gotten me to see that this generally isn't a case of the disinformation agents vs. people struggling to get the truth out, but rather a case of people simply not agreeing because of the aforementioned various circumstances, which are frequently fairly complex.

Not quite; if that were truly the case, it'd just be you and me here (because we have a lock on what is reality, natch ;-).)

That'll change once you get past a certain amount of posts. I can't remember the number.. 10 or 20 I think.

Thanks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I believe the issues you're bringing up here may coincide with the issues that stereologist brought up and which I addressed in post 66.

 

What we are dealing with here is something that is unique in the history of building demolitions. Never before has a building of this magnitude been taken out, to my knowledge, by a controlled demolition. Due to the inherent danger and incalculable variables, there is no municipality that would allow this, it would be insane! (And we haven't even discussed the asbestos problem.) But I am speaking off the cuff here.

"pyroclastic flow" is not a "set" defined state. There is variance, a sliding scale involved if you will. What one needs to keep in mind, is that this term is originally used when talking about volcanoes and geological forces, NOT building demolitions. There is also something called a "pyroclastic surge," which is similar, but it's composition, temperature, and ratio of gas to solids is different, as well as how far it can travel. From the description, it sounds much more like what we are talking about, a low level, low temperature "pyroclastic surge."

The reason the only place molten metal was found, is because it all ran, like all liquid, down to the lowest point. I don't know if you noticed, but the building was pretty much pulverized, not much left of it, eh? Where else would the molten metal go?

As far as your heated language and you getting all upset? For people that only wish to expose the truth? It is not an exercise in defending an ego or projecting a world view, it is about bringing the light of day, and shining the candle of truth in the darkness.

I whole heartedly agree with you on this one, indeed, as your colorful language so adamantely states. "bullshit." You are indeed correct, the only way for us to positively know ANYTHING about that day and what went on at that CRIME SCENE is to comb the scene for evidence, and analyze the evidence for clues as to what happened. Instead, what did the American people get? You guessed it, just as you yourself said, "bullshit."

So good sir, Occam's razor states, via Wikipedia: The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

The government violated the first rule of a crime scene and had all of our evidence shipped off to China immediately. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck. . . .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not by a long shot. Here's another blurb that accompanies a video recording of one fairly well known example:

Seconds before the WTC South Tower collapse, tons of molten metal was seen pouring out of the building. What caused large quantities of molten ferrous metal to be in the WTC South Tower? One answer could be Thermite. Thermite is used in controlled demolition and high temperature molten iron is formed as a by-product​

And the video ietself:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3408887492231274773

There's also much more evidence of molten metal, as made clear in 9/11 Research's article Molten Metal.

Or so you believe. You may want to read Steven Jones' paper "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method"; For those who so dislike "truther" websites, you can even download it from NIST's website now:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

He starts on page 16; by page 17, he brings up 4 possibilities to explain the molten metal, the second one being the one that NIST went with. They are:
1. Perhaps the structural steel in the buildings melted nad is flowing out.
2. Perhaps it is molten aluminum from the aircraft that melted and is flowing out, perhaps with added organics from burning office materials.
3. A mix of the two (above) including office materials, etc.
4. Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)

He then does experiments to determine which one holds up. From his work, it's clear that the only one that holds up to testing is #4. But don't take my word for it; read it yourself.

Even NIST doesn't go for your lead hypothesis. As to any metal, it doesn't work with aluminum, atleast. Steven Jones explains why, beginning on page 17 of the aforementioned paper:

To test the second hypothesis, we performed experiments with molten aluminum. We melted aluminum alloy in a steel pan and poured out the aluminum. It appeared silvery, not glowing orange as observed at the South Tower. We then heated the steel pan until it was glowing yellow-hot and poured out the aluminum, and the flowing aluminum was still observably silvery. How do you get aluminum to 1000 °C (orange-hot temperature) if the aluminum is liquid and free to flow, unless there’s a big pan in the building to hold the aluminum while you heat it past its melting point?

The reason why hot flowing aluminum appears silvery is very understandable. Simple metals incandesce when you heat them up, and orange hot represents a temperature of about 1000 °C. Aluminum alloy melts at roughly 600 °C. We heated the steel pan and saw the pan glow yellow-orange. However, the melted aluminum contains many free electrons and will therefore reflect more light. Aluminum also has a low emissivity, meaning that the aluminum is glowing/incandescing but only very faintly. In daylight conditions, the liquid appears silvery due to the high reflectivity particularly when poured out. The glowing liquid flowing from the South Tower could not be aluminum because it does not appear silvery -- rather, it has an “orange glow” (in NIST’s words and by observation also).

Also, aluminum is very difficult to ignite. We found that out by directing an oxyacetylene torch onto molten aluminum – and it oxidized but did not ignite with an “unusual flame” – no flame from the aluminum was seen at all.

NIST in a fact sheet in August 2006 stated:

“NIST concluded that the source of the molten material [observed flowing out of WTC2 before its collapse] was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 °C and 640 °C (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 °C) in the vicinity of the fires.
“Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
“Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery.”

“However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.”

I read the word “can” in the NIST report and as a scientist wanted to perform experiments. Why didn’t NIST do the experiments before making that statement (or did they)? Did they even try to mix aluminum with organics and pour the mixture out (like the flowing material at the South Tower) to show that it not only “can” but “will” emit an “orange glow”? We decided to perform the experiment ourselves.

The very next day after reading the NIST fact sheet in August 2006, a colleague and I performed experiments with aluminum mixed with organic materials, mostly wood chips. The flow was silvery and simply did not resemble the orange liquid which poured from the south tower. The organics burned quickly when added to the molten aluminum. The ash floated on top of the aluminum liquid.

A young physics professor told me that he couldn’t believe NIST would not have done the experiment to see if this worked – that one “can” get an “orange glow” by adding organic ash to aluminum. So we did another set of experiments and he joined the effort. This time we used wood ash from my wood-burning stove, pieces of carpet, plastic chips, later glass, and melted it all together with molten aluminum. [By the way, my wood-burning stove is made of steel and I don’t worry a bit that it will melt!] The young physicist doggedly stirred and stirred the mix with a long-bladed screwdriver. He tried to mix the organics in with the molten aluminum, but they would not mix in! It’s like oil and water, the organics tend to float and separate from the molten aluminum. And then in the end we poured the concoction out and the flow still looked silvery. He agreed with that because he saw it. Silvery, not orange. So much for the NIST Fact Sheet30 which states that “the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow.”

If NIST can tell us how to do this trick, we will do the experiment again to test their suggestion. Meanwhile, we have observed that the organics float to the surface but do not make a uniform orange glow. Conclusion: poured out molten aluminum looks silvery (even if heated to the point where iron glows yellow/orange) and does not give the orange glow seen at the South Tower in the flowing material (even when mixed with organic materials). ​

I'm sure many people could come up with various theories that neither the government or the truth movement supports. However, if neither side is going for it, you may consider that there's probably good reason for it.