Originally posted by: LunarRay
But, that is the point, I think. Someone observes what they say is molten something. They eliminate aluminum cuz of the color. They theorize there is not much else of any volume to account for the flow volume ergo it must be Steel or Iron from a Thermate/Thermite event. They are backing into the proposition of the desired conclusion... But, it is reasonable IF the assumptions made are reasonable... No?
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: LunarRay
But, that is the point, I think. Someone observes what they say is molten something. They eliminate aluminum cuz of the color. They theorize there is not much else of any volume to account for the flow volume ergo it must be Steel or Iron from a Thermate/Thermite event. They are backing into the proposition of the desired conclusion... But, it is reasonable IF the assumptions made are reasonable... No?
If we proved it wasn't steel, would that change a truther's mind about the conspiracy? Nope. They'd move on to the next allegation.
Look, there are car accidents between two cars where not every aspect of the wreckage can be explained, and you want every single piece of inconsistency from multiple skyscraper collapses explained to perfection?
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
That's because the truther links are generally crap. They take things out of context, they make massive assumptions, and they generally lack any sort of scientific rigor. You're new to these stupid arguments but pretty much every link posted by event8horizon or any of these other guys has been ruthlessly debunked in the previous 9/11 thread.
TLC, myself, and a whole of other people have taken the time to point out the massive logical fallacies, the ridiculous assumptions, or the straight up manipulation of the truth to truthers, yet they continually come back and post the same ridiculous links that aren't facts, evidence, or analysis.
Go dig up the last huge thread we had on this retarded subject and read it. Don't be surprised to find that every single thing posted here has been posted before. Don't be surprised to find that all of these links about thermite or whatever other shit is the flavor of the week has already been taken through the wringer.
Look, truthers have had 8 full years to find a piece of hard evidence of a greater conspiracy and have failed. They have failed to provide a single scientific or circumstantial piece of evidence that indicates anything other than the planes brought down the towers, so excuse all of us if we're a little sick of rehashing the same conversations with people who think they're simply more clever than everyone else out there.
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So is the issue solved now? George Bush did it, we're all in agreement now? The debate is over?
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: LunarRay
But, that is the point, I think. Someone observes what they say is molten something. They eliminate aluminum cuz of the color. They theorize there is not much else of any volume to account for the flow volume ergo it must be Steel or Iron from a Thermate/Thermite event. They are backing into the proposition of the desired conclusion... But, it is reasonable IF the assumptions made are reasonable... No?
If we proved it wasn't steel, would that change a truther's mind about the conspiracy? Nope. They'd move on to the next allegation.
Look, there are car accidents between two cars where not every aspect of the wreckage can be explained, and you want every single piece of inconsistency from multiple skyscraper collapses explained to perfection?
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So is the issue solved now? George Bush did it, we're all in agreement now? The debate is over?
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So is the issue solved now? George Bush did it, we're all in agreement now? The debate is over?
Actually, it was Obama. While he was forging his birth certificate he said to himself, "hey, now I'm a guy that hates America... so why don't I plant explosives in the WTC and shoot a missile at the Pentagon?"
Originally posted by: shira
How can this thread still be continuing? Theories involving vast conspiracies, requiring countless people in TWO politically-opposite administrations to all stay silent, CANNOT be valid.
Think about it: If the Obama Administration had ANY knowlege/evidence whatsoever that WTC7 was an "inside job," they'd blow the lid off of this thing. They would LOVE to blow the lid off.
Originally posted by: shira
How can this thread still be continuing? Theories involving vast conspiracies, requiring countless people in TWO politically-opposite administrations to all stay silent, CANNOT be valid.
Think about it: If the Obama Administration had ANY knowlege/evidence whatsoever that WTC7 was an "inside job," they'd blow the lid off of this thing. They would LOVE to blow the lid off.
Originally posted by: munky
Moreover, this possibly goes beyond Bush, as deep as the CIA, NSA, DoD, and other entities. Also, you're assuming that Obama is the one in charge. I would argue against that.
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: shira
How can this thread still be continuing? Theories involving vast conspiracies, requiring countless people in TWO politically-opposite administrations to all stay silent, CANNOT be valid.
Think about it: If the Obama Administration had ANY knowlege/evidence whatsoever that WTC7 was an "inside job," they'd blow the lid off of this thing. They would LOVE to blow the lid off.
Not the way I see it. Doing so could hurt the administration more than benefit them by weakening their power. If blowing the lid revealed just how much the Bush administration was a greedy corrupt bunch of criminals, what would spare the Obama administration from the same scrupulous judgment, especially if he continues Bush policies? Moreover, this possibly goes beyond Bush, as deep as the CIA, NSA, and other entities. Also, you're assuming that Obama is the one in charge of his administration. I would argue against that.
As I noted elsewhere in this thread, NIST's argument is based in Loony Tunes physics. Their separating between stage 1 and stage 2 is like Wile E. Coyote standing on top of a pillar of rock which crumbles below while he hangs in the air, only after which can he free fall to the ground. In real world physics, the coyote would fall right along with the crumbling rock, with the resistance provided by that rock keeping his fall observably below that of free fall.Originally posted by: kylebisme
...NIST was eventually persuaded to to admit [WTC7's period of free fall acceleration], as documented here:
...In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).
In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
...
You can observe the fall of WTC7 from best two angles I've seen, compared to what little NIST released of their simulations, in this video.
...such video evidence demonstrates that for the period of free fall, not only were the north face columns not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building.
The temps were measured remotely using AVIRIS.Originally posted by: munky
Did anyone measure the temperature of the hot debris down there? How do you know the temps weren't hot enough to melt steel? You sound just like the NIST report, stating that because the jet fuel fire could not be hot enough to melt steel, then the reports of molten steel in the rubble are irrelevant to the "investigation." That doesn't sound like an investigation, but a high school science lab report.
You're kidding, right?If water seeps through the debris, then how good of an insulator is it? Where is the evidence that it acted like an insulator?
Are you kidding me?You wanna talk about physics, energy is spent pulverizing concrete and crushing steel. Energy which is spent doing that work is not converted into heat. You can't say you had X amount of PE stored in the building and claim most of it got converted into heat. And whatever did get converted into heat, where is the evidence showing it's enough to raise and maintain the temperatures, despite being cooled by fire fighter efforts?
Do more than look at the pictures. Actually read it and you might begin to comprehend some things, though with your apparent lack of understanding regarding physics, it may go over your head.You're linking me to a site which I already looked at, despite its obvious "debunking" bias. But can the debunking site stand up to its own debunking?
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: shira
How can this thread still be continuing? Theories involving vast conspiracies, requiring countless people in TWO politically-opposite administrations to all stay silent, CANNOT be valid.
Think about it: If the Obama Administration had ANY knowlege/evidence whatsoever that WTC7 was an "inside job," they'd blow the lid off of this thing. They would LOVE to blow the lid off.
Not the way I see it. Doing so could hurt the administration more than benefit them by weakening their power. If blowing the lid revealed just how much the Bush administration was a greedy corrupt bunch of criminals, what would spare the Obama administration from the same scrupulous judgment, especially if he continues Bush policies? Moreover, this possibly goes beyond Bush, as deep as the CIA, NSA, and other entities. Also, you're assuming that Obama is the one in charge of his administration. I would argue against that.
Based on what truthers have said around the internet, here is a starter list of everyone involved in their delusional conspiracy:
The Bush Administration
FDNY
The Federal and State court systems in nearly every state
NYPD
NY Port Authority
Witnesses and Security staff in the Pentagon
The Victims of 911
The Media (not limited to CNN, CNBC, Fox, CBS, ABC, BBC)
Popular Mechanics
FEMA
NIST
PBS Nova, who created a documentary explaining how the towers fell
Governor Pataki (for selling "evidence")
NYC scrap yards (same as pataki)
Most of the structural engineers of the world
Structure Magazine
The CIA
The FBI
The NSA
The American Society of Civil Engineers
NORAD
THE USAF
The FAA
The Silverstein Group
Silverstein's insurance companies
Demolition experts who placed chargers in buildings
People who worked at the offices where the explosives were installed
That's just a limited list and you're trying to tell me that within these TENS OF THOUSANDS of people, not one has come forth in eight years and said anything, not one has left an anonymous letter, a suicide note, or ANYHTING that would indicate this conspiracy happened?
Your "free fall acceleration" claim has already been debunked in this thread. You either don't realize it or refuse to recognize that fact. But apparently you want to waste everyone's time pretending that you still have a solid claim. Not only that, but you clearly do not understand the structural aspects of the failure in WTC7. If you did you wouldn't have used the Wile E. Coyote analogy. However, you already did which makes you look like the Looney Tuner.Originally posted by: kylebisme
In an effort to get this thread back on topic, I'm going to quote parts of the OP with a bit of bolding for emphasis:
As I noted elsewhere in this thread, NIST's argument is based in Loony Tunes physics. Their separating between stage 1 and stage 2 is like Wile E. Coyote standing on top of a pillar of rock which crumbles below while he hangs in the air, only after which can he free fall to the ground. In real world physics, the coyote would fall right along with the crumbling rock, with the resistance provided by that rock keeping his fall observably below that of free fall.Originally posted by: kylebisme
...NIST was eventually persuaded to to admit [WTC7's period of free fall acceleration], as documented here:
...In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).
In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
...
You can observe the fall of WTC7 from best two angles I've seen, compared to what little NIST released of their simulations, in this video.
...such video evidence demonstrates that for the period of free fall, not only were the north face columns not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building.
Again, I will only respond to posts here which address WTC7's period of free fall acceleration, so please don't waste your time posting comments for me with regard to anything else.
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: shira
How can this thread still be continuing? Theories involving vast conspiracies, requiring countless people in TWO politically-opposite administrations to all stay silent, CANNOT be valid.
Think about it: If the Obama Administration had ANY knowlege/evidence whatsoever that WTC7 was an "inside job," they'd blow the lid off of this thing. They would LOVE to blow the lid off.
Not the way I see it. Doing so could hurt the administration more than benefit them by weakening their power. If blowing the lid revealed just how much the Bush administration was a greedy corrupt bunch of criminals, what would spare the Obama administration from the same scrupulous judgment, especially if he continues Bush policies? Moreover, this possibly goes beyond Bush, as deep as the CIA, NSA, and other entities. Also, you're assuming that Obama is the one in charge of his administration. I would argue against that.
Based on what truthers have said around the internet, here is a starter list of everyone involved in their delusional conspiracy:
The Bush Administration
FDNY
The Federal and State court systems in nearly every state
NYPD
NY Port Authority
Witnesses and Security staff in the Pentagon
The Victims of 911
The Media (not limited to CNN, CNBC, Fox, CBS, ABC, BBC)
Popular Mechanics
FEMA
NIST
PBS Nova, who created a documentary explaining how the towers fell
Governor Pataki (for selling "evidence")
NYC scrap yards (same as pataki)
Most of the structural engineers of the world
Structure Magazine
The CIA
The FBI
The NSA
The American Society of Civil Engineers
NORAD
THE USAF
The FAA
The Silverstein Group
Silverstein's insurance companies
Demolition experts who placed chargers in buildings
People who worked at the offices where the explosives were installed
That's just a limited list and you're trying to tell me that within these TENS OF THOUSANDS of people, not one has come forth in eight years and said anything, not one has left an anonymous letter, a suicide note, or ANYHTING that would indicate this conspiracy happened?
I never mentioned all those entities and thousands of people. Only a few top level people at agencies like DoD and CIA would need to know in order to involve those agencies and others. There's definitely no reason to suspect that the NYPD and FDNY were in on it, nor did I ever claim that to be the case. That's a really naive way to look at things if you believe everyone involved was necessarily in the know about who and what was behind the incident.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The temps were measured remotely using AVIRIS.Originally posted by: munky
Did anyone measure the temperature of the hot debris down there? How do you know the temps weren't hot enough to melt steel? You sound just like the NIST report, stating that because the jet fuel fire could not be hot enough to melt steel, then the reports of molten steel in the rubble are irrelevant to the "investigation." That doesn't sound like an investigation, but a high school science lab report.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/o...-0429/thermal.r09.html
Nothing indicates that the temps were anywhere near hot enough to melt steel.
otoh, a high school lab report wouldn't even make the assumption that an unidentified metal was definitely steel and it melted because there was thermite in the rubble pile, even though it's not proven there was any thermite there in the first place. The dolts making that claim would get an F from any science teacher for making such baseless, unfounded claims and probably be considered idiots of the class.
You're kidding, right?If water seeps through the debris, then how good of an insulator is it? Where is the evidence that it acted like an insulator?
Let me explain it in a way you might understand. Wrap yourself in a wool blanket. Does it help to retain your body heat? Of course it does. Now pour water over the blanket. Does the water seep through? Sure. Does that mean that the blanket is not a thermal insulator? Of course not.
Are you kidding me?You wanna talk about physics, energy is spent pulverizing concrete and crushing steel. Energy which is spent doing that work is not converted into heat. You can't say you had X amount of PE stored in the building and claim most of it got converted into heat. And whatever did get converted into heat, where is the evidence showing it's enough to raise and maintain the temperatures, despite being cooled by fire fighter efforts?
Here's a simple experiment. Grab a coat hanger and start bending it back and forth. Now touch the points where the bend is. Is it hot or not? It damn sure is because a good portion of the energy put into the bending of the metal is converted to heat.
As far as evidence showing there's enough energy to raise the temperatures to what was observed, the website I linked explains that already. You also need to keep in mind that there were many combustible items in the rubble so once that heat is there those items continue to stoke the fires. Additionally, the web page also shows that adding water and iron can generate even more heat.
Do more than look at the pictures. Actually read it and you might begin to comprehend some things, though with your apparent lack of understanding regarding physics, it may go over your head.You're linking me to a site which I already looked at, despite its obvious "debunking" bias. But can the debunking site stand up to its own debunking?
Originally posted by: kylebisme
As I noted elsewhere in this thread, NIST's argument is based in Loony Tunes physics. Their separating between stage 1 and stage 2 is like Wile E. Coyote standing on top of a pillar of rock which crumbles below while he hangs in the air, only after which can he free fall to the ground. In real world physics, the coyote would fall right along with the crumbling rock, with the resistance provided by that rock keeping his fall observably below that of free fall....such video evidence demonstrates that for the period of free fall, not only were the north face columns not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building.
Again, I will only respond to posts here which address WTC7's period of free fall acceleration, so please don't waste your time posting comments for me with regard to anything else.
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Again, I will only respond to posts here which address WTC7's period of free fall acceleration, so please don't waste your time posting comments for me with regard to anything else.
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
First, remember this partial list addresses every single truther argument out there. Your flavor of trutherism might be slightly different.
So those top people planted the explosives themselves? You're telling me that top people at the DoD went to the buildings and put bombs there? They couldn't have because they don't have the knowledge or the manpower to do it. They would have needed to issue orders to some group of experts to do it for them.
How about the NIST? They're an independent agency, so why did they conclude that the planes brought the buildings down? Same for FEMA.
What about at the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA? All of them launched or assisted in investigations around the events of 911 and ALL of them universally concluded that terrorists did it with no outside help.
What about Silverstein and his insurance companies? The insurance companies, if there was any inkling of an inside job could have withheld payment and fought tooth and nail before paying Silverstein. Outside of their dispute as to whether the planes were one or two events, they all paid up without so much as a peep.
What about PBS and Popular Mechanics? Both are private entities that studied the events and concluded the same thing.
See? Even your tiny conspiracy involves thousands.
Originally posted by: kylebisme
As I noted elsewhere in this thread, NIST's argument is based in Loony Tunes physics.
Page 37 of the NIST report you refer to has an excellent graphic illustrating all the structure in the way which would have provided resistive force to keep the acceleration of the fall observably below that of free fall if the official explanation had any basis in reality. Again, to have free fall under those conditions you'd need the weakened part of the structure to collapse first, clearing space for the upper portion to only then fall at free fall, Wile E. Coyote style.Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: kylebisme
As I noted elsewhere in this thread, NIST's argument is based in Loony Tunes physics. Their separating between stage 1 and stage 2 is like Wile E. Coyote standing on top of a pillar of rock which crumbles below while he hangs in the air, only after which can he free fall to the ground. In real world physics, the coyote would fall right along with the crumbling rock, with the resistance provided by that rock keeping his fall observably below that of free fall....such video evidence demonstrates that for the period of free fall, not only were the north face columns not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building.
Again, I will only respond to posts here which address WTC7's period of free fall acceleration, so please don't waste your time posting comments for me with regard to anything else.
page 37
It can be accurate because by measuring the heat that is escaping the insulator at the surface and knowing the insulation properties of the material above the heat source, along with its thickness, the actual heat in the debris can be calculated rather easily. Nothing in the AVIRI data indicates that the heat was anywhere near hot enough to melt steel.Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The temps were measured remotely using AVIRIS.Originally posted by: munky
Did anyone measure the temperature of the hot debris down there? How do you know the temps weren't hot enough to melt steel? You sound just like the NIST report, stating that because the jet fuel fire could not be hot enough to melt steel, then the reports of molten steel in the rubble are irrelevant to the "investigation." That doesn't sound like an investigation, but a high school science lab report.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/o...-0429/thermal.r09.html
Nothing indicates that the temps were anywhere near hot enough to melt steel.
otoh, a high school lab report wouldn't even make the assumption that an unidentified metal was definitely steel and it melted because there was thermite in the rubble pile, even though it's not proven there was any thermite there in the first place. The dolts making that claim would get an F from any science teacher for making such baseless, unfounded claims and probably be considered idiots of the class.
You're kidding, right?If water seeps through the debris, then how good of an insulator is it? Where is the evidence that it acted like an insulator?
Let me explain it in a way you might understand. Wrap yourself in a wool blanket. Does it help to retain your body heat? Of course it does. Now pour water over the blanket. Does the water seep through? Sure. Does that mean that the blanket is not a thermal insulator? Of course not.
I never claimed there was thermite, so drop the diversion. The better question is how would a remote temperature measurement be accurate if it was measuring the temps through your supposed insulator?
Are you kidding me?You wanna talk about physics, energy is spent pulverizing concrete and crushing steel. Energy which is spent doing that work is not converted into heat. You can't say you had X amount of PE stored in the building and claim most of it got converted into heat. And whatever did get converted into heat, where is the evidence showing it's enough to raise and maintain the temperatures, despite being cooled by fire fighter efforts?
Here's a simple experiment. Grab a coat hanger and start bending it back and forth. Now touch the points where the bend is. Is it hot or not? It damn sure is because a good portion of the energy put into the bending of the metal is converted to heat.
As far as evidence showing there's enough energy to raise the temperatures to what was observed, the website I linked explains that already. You also need to keep in mind that there were many combustible items in the rubble so once that heat is there those items continue to stoke the fires. Additionally, the web page also shows that adding water and iron can generate even more heat.
Do more than look at the pictures. Actually read it and you might begin to comprehend some things, though with your apparent lack of understanding regarding physics, it may go over your head.You're linking me to a site which I already looked at, despite its obvious "debunking" bias. But can the debunking site stand up to its own debunking?