9/11 Poll

[stereologist]

These are photographs of avalanches. A snow avalanche is also a dense cloud of particles. It is ground hugging and exhibits the cauliflower look of dense fluids in motion.

So when you state:

In attempting to describe a phenomena that has never occurred before, we attempt to use terms that are close to it; pyroclastic flows are what most closely resembles what happened on 9/11.

You are in fact not using even common terms such as a debris avalanche, but instead use a loaded word improperly.

 

[stereologist]

Oops I seem to b e limited 1 photo link per post.

 

[DiamondHearts]

What the Internationalists within our government, in Europe, and the (hmmm. . . I had better not mention them, it looks like that is a quick way to get censored. The ******** in Israel or the "Mossad") have done to the international world political scene and economy is unconscionable. What does this have to do with my ego?

Agreed. The most convenient method to curtail intellectual debate is personal attacks. Something which the posters on this forum are masters in, something which the moderators allow (provided its done by acceptable groups).

Yeah, while we're on that subject, I CAN'T FIND the rules. I mean, in the sign up, it said it was moderated for things like language, sexual content, and nudity, but no where did it mention anything about IDEAS or RADICAL THOUGHT, or even OFFENSIVE IDEAS or THOUGHT.

Interesting that foul language, sexual content, and at times nudity is perfectly acceptable. Yet if you espouse an unpopular view, your posts will be deleted, the moderators will issue personal attacks against you and mock you, and more than likely you will be banned.

So I just want to read the rules on censorship and thought-crime if someone can provide the link for me, I would very much appreciate it. I have read the postings of several Muslims who seemed to want to express their views concerning Zionism, but apparently they are continually censored? I want to know if there is freedom of speech on this board, or if it is a place where group think must be maintained. If it is the latter, than yes, Oli, perhaps I should not waste my time here. Like cable and satellite TV in America, it would be nothing more than another brainwashing tool. I got rid of my TV because all it told were lies, why would I want to participate in something I can't speak the truth in?

Its up the sole discretion of the moderators. Personal attacks are completely acceptable if done by the acceptable groups. If someone on the defensive responds in even a mildly offensive way, he will be banned forever. No questions asked. If someone attempts to ask about whether this banning is acceptable, he will be informed vaguely that this member deserved it.

You should check the posting history from two posters: Kadark and Lord_Voldemort. Both were banned for their political views.

I am not really concerned at this point with the nuts and bolts of the discussion. What concerns me is the shutting down of dissent. That speaks volumes more to me about the truth of what occurred on that sad day in September, than any other disagreement about science or "the facts." The simple unwillingness to discuss the issue from the citizens that support the official myth, should tell those that are unsure of what happened to take a closer look at everything that is available out there.

I can tell you are well-informed. Now it is unacceptable for Non-Muslims to question 9/11, usually they are personally attacked and discredited, but Muslims who deny 9/11, they can be jailed for having sympathy to terrorism, even if they condemn the attack. This shows just to what extent double standards are practiced and thoughtcrime (as you put it, 1984) can be punished.

 

[leopold]

Like I said, there seems to be some REAL censorship issues of IDEAS as opposed to language or images, etc. I find that troubling.

post them here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2256479#post2256479

 

[shaman_]

According to 911review.com, shortly after 9/11, he stated:
"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

He doesn’t represent NIST, nor was he part of the investigation. What is the point of posting his views? Oh so you can actually seem to be ‘winning’ on one (irrelevant) point. Truther tactics....

However, even NIST later admitted that the fires in the WTC buildings could not have melted the steel. And they're perfectly correct in this. The problem is that molten metal was seen before and after the WTC collapse; since the fires couldn't have done it, ……

.. and everything after that point becomes irrelevant speculation. The fires most certainly could have done it.

We'll see how long this thread lasts before it is shut down. So far Scott is just rehashing the same old manure which has been addressed numerous times.

 

[scott3x]

According to 911review.com, shortly after 9/11, he stated:
"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

He doesn’t represent NIST, nor was he part of the investigation. What is the point of posting his views? Oh so you can actually seem to be ‘winning’ on one (irrelevant) point. Truther tactics....

The point is not irrelevant; before FEMA's report, by which time Kevin Ryan had made it abundantly clear that the fires couldn't have melted the steel (and was fired shortly thereafter), many people believed that the fires did just that.

However, even NIST later admitted that the fires in the WTC buildings could not have melted the steel. And they're perfectly correct in this. The problem is that molten metal was seen before and after the WTC collapse; since the fires couldn't have done it...

.. and everything after that point becomes irrelevant speculation. The fires most certainly could have done it.

No, they couldn't have. But feel free to point out any evidence that suggests that they had even the slightest chance of doing so. I certainly have plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that NIST had to imagine heat and use tweaked computer models in order to get the towers even to the point of "collapse initiation". Here's a good link to see their imagined heat:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration

Here's the same link at a part where it's showing how their model ignored conduction:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#conduction

The same link again, this time critiquing NIST's "Global Analysis":
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#analysis

We'll see how long this thread lasts before it is shut down.

You may be right that it will be shut down soon. I would argue that this speaks more of the moderation then of the validity of the arguments I and others have made here in favour of the inside job theories, however.

 

[scott3x]

In attempting to describe a phenomena that has never occurred before, we attempt to use terms that are close to it; pyroclastic flows are what most closely resembles what happened on 9/11. This was clearly demonstrated in one of the videoclips from 911 Eyewitness that I linked to before:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1381525012075538113

This is becoming quite disturbing at this point Scott3x.

You are describing an avalanche of material as a pyroclastic flow. That is misleading, purposely misleading. The video makes the same misleading statements.

The only thing that the video has in common with a pyroclastic flow is that the dust cloud is acting as a dense fluid. That does not mean it is even close to the density of a pyroclastic flow.

Look, perhaps you're some great techy on pyroclastic flows. But for most people, the fact that it acts like a pyroclastic flow is enough to describe it as such. Another good point concerning the dust is made on 9/11 Research's short article titled Vast Volumes of Dust:

Dust From Collapses Expanded to Many Times The Towers' Volumes

Both Towers exploded into vast dust clouds, which photographs show to be several times the volumes of the intact buildings by the time the destruction reached the ground. The dust clouds continued to expand rapidly thereafter, growing to easily five times the buildings' original volume by 30 seconds after the initiation of each collapse.

The dust clouds rapidly invaded the surrounding city, filling the cavernous spaces between nearby skyscrapers in seconds. Eyewitness reports were consistent that it was impossible to outrun the dust clouds. Photographs can be used to calculate the speed at which the dust cloud from the North Tower grew. There is a photograph of the North Tower dust showing the spire and showing dust 700 feet in front of the nearest part of the building's footprint. That distance is calculated using buildings as reference points. Since it is known from real-time movies that the spire fell about 30 seconds after the initiation of the collapse, and that it took about 10 seconds for the bottom of the dust cloud to reach the ground, the average speed of advance on the ground in that direction was approximately 35 feet per second.

Another feature of the dust clouds was that they upwelled in immense columns, climbing to over the height of Building 7 (over 600 feet) in the seconds immediately after each collapse.

Such behavior clearly indicates the input of huge quantities of heat far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce.​

 

[stereologist]

But for most people, the fact that it acts like a pyroclastic flow is enough to describe it as such.

This did not act like a pyroclastic flow. It acted like a debris avalanche. Speed has nothing to do with it. That's just a smokescreen, no pun intended, to misrepresent the facts.

Such behavior clearly indicates the input of huge quantities of heat far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce.

This too is wrong and misleading. This is the behavior fluids of various densities.

 

[stereologist]

Dust From Collapses Expanded to Many Times The Towers' Volumes

I forgot to mention this claim. I'm sorry but that deserves a Homer 'doh'. Dust occupies more volume that solids.

Now here is a link to a debris avalanche albeit a small one.

http://geology.com/articles/yosemite-rockfall.shtml

Look at the photos and listen to your narrative. I made small adjustments to your statements.

Dust From Collapses Expanded to Many Times The Rock's Volume

The rock exploded into vast dust clouds, which photographs show to be several times the volumes of the intact rocks by the time the destruction reached the valley. The dust clouds continued to expand rapidly thereafter, growing to easily 20 times the rock's original volume by 30 seconds after the initiation of the collapse.

The dust clouds rapidly invaded the surrounding talus slope, filling the valley space in seconds. Eyewitness reports that it was impossible to outrun the dust clouds. Photographs can be used to calculate the speed at which the dust cloud from the collapse grew. The average speed of advance on the ground in that direction was approximately 35 feet per second (likely that this was moving significantly faster).

 

[stereologist]

the average speed of advance on the ground in that direction was approximately 35 feet per second.

This is less than 20 miles per hour. Pyroclastic flows move hundreds of miles per hour.

 

[scott3x]

Such behavior clearly indicates the input of huge quantities of heat far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce.

This too is wrong and misleading. This is the behavior fluids of various densities.

Look, I'm fine with the possibility that what happened on 9/11 isn't technically a pyroclastic flow, but is simply the behaviour of fluids of various densities as you say. The point above is that the heat was "far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce".

 

[stereologist]

Look, I'm fine with the possibility that what happened on 9/11 isn't technically a pyroclastic flow

This isn't technically different. It is completely different. This doesn't act like a pyroclastic flow in terms of heat or speed. It was a debris avalanche, a completely different event.

It is becoming shamefully clear that the reason for using the term pyroclastic flow is to mislead people about the amount of heat. To show a volcanic eruption side by side with the WTC is also misleading. The dimensions, speeds, temperatures, and origins of the materials are so incomparable.

Although large, the building is small compared to a volcano. The dust clouds moved at less than 1/10 the speed of a pyroclastic flow. People and buildings overcome by the dust clouds were not incinerated as a pyroclastic flow would have done.

Finally, a building is an empty volume. There is very little matter in a building. The debris avalanche I showed you was a solid block without substantial internal voids and yet it produced a typical cauliflower look by crushing the rock into small fragments that became airborne. The relatively thin sheet like structures in a building are easily broken into small fragments producing a dense cloud of debris.

 

[scott3x]

This isn't technically different. It is completely different...

Alright, I admit I'm no expert on pyroclastic flows. So why don't we just put that one aside for now. Can you address the other issue I mentioned? That is, the "huge quantities of heat, far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce"?

 

[stereologist]

Here is another type of event marked by cauliflower patterns in the debris cloud. It is a density current in water.

This image is from an experimental tank.

This more like the dust clouds of WTC. These move slowly, and are cold.

I'll take a look at "huge quantities of heat" claim now. The one issue that is clear is that the dust clouds were not hot.

 

[stereologist]

I'm sorry I'm already done with that page. It assumes that the expansion has to be heat induced. Why? There are other mechanisms to spread dust.

 

[MacGyver1968]

I'm sorry I'm already done with that page. It assumes that the expansion has to be heat induced. Why? There are other mechanisms to spread dust.

Didn't you know Stereo? When you apply a thin coat of nano-thermite paint to structural steel, it has the amazing quality of being able to super-heat clouds of dust. It also burns for months afterward in the debris pile.

 

[stereologist]

Didn't you know Stereo? When you apply a thin coat of nano-thermite paint to structural steel, it has the amazing quality of being able to super-heat clouds of dust. It also burns for months afterward in the debris pile.

Wow!

I have provided photographs of 3 distinct types of events, none of which require the use of explosives or heat to reproduce. All of them produce cauliflower patterns, yet the term used is pyrotechnic flow. There is a weak excuse that they needed a term and borrowed. I can come up with many terms that are more accurate with no effort: avalanche, debris avalanche, and dust clouds.

It is my belief that the term is being misused to support the claim that large amounts of heat were involved and I want to know why. Why is there need for a lot of heat?

The photos of destruction at street level do not show the signs of a rapidly moving, very hot dense fluid (which are some of the properties of a pyroclastic flow). For example, the cars in one scene show most of their paint and are arranged in a regular fashion.

 

[MacGyver1968]

They need heat...because the general truther theory is that thermite was used to bring down the building. Don't be confused..we aren't talking about regular thermite. This is MAGIC nanothermite...that has amazing qualities..because it has a "nano" in front of the name.

The expanding clouds due to heat is a tell-tale sign of nanothermite use.

Oh...and give up on using logic, reason and common sense in this thread. It has no place in 9/11 truth threads, and, as a general rule, goes completely ignored.

 

[stereologist]

If nanothermite is suspected of use in the WTC tragedy why not say, "a nanthermite cloud" was involved. Why say pyroclastic cloud instead?

 

[Trippy]

Look, perhaps you're some great techy on pyroclastic flows. But for most people, the fact that it acts like a pyroclastic flow is enough to describe it as such.

Irrelevant.
It's still a misappropriation of a loaded term.
Call it what it is - a base surge, or debris flow.
I still haven't managed to come up with a suitably ridiculous analogy to demonstrate just how ridiculous this claim is.