ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags part 2 , loose change , 911 conspiracy theory

Closed Thread
Old 26th May 2006, 03:25 AM   #321
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
Chipmunk Stew say

“He (wrongly) concludes that there was literally molten steel at Ground Zero”

No, he says, “molten metal,” which is direct testimony from workers at the scene. Jones guesses that it is steel, but he openly admits that this is a guess. It cannot be molten aluminum, because aluminum does not glow red.
Pick any metal you want--it doesn't matter which. The "glaring point of idiocy" I was referring to was Jones' suggestion that this molten metal points to thermite (or one of its cousins). Again, on what planet does thermite (or one of its cousins) provide the continuous heat source that is required to keep [your choice of metal here] molten for hours/days/weeks at a time?

It is idiotic to observe molten metal at the scene long after the collapses, and from that to formulate a hypothesis of thermite.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 03:50 AM   #322
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
Tell me that it would have been unreasonable to cart all of the WTC steel to a secure location, tagged, and ready to be inspected at a later date. It’s not just about, “who is an expert.” It’s also, “did they do their job.”
They did do (and still are doing) their job:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

And in reference specifically to the collection of samples: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
Modeled on computers. That’s grade-school investigation. Real investigators don’t model, they study evidence. Stop telling me that the NIST people were real investigators. Because they sure didn’t act like real investigators. Was it their fault, or their superiors fault? I don’t know. That’s not my concern. I’m concerned with the report.
"The" report, as I said before, is an executive summary.
Tell me this is grade-school investigation: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
And this is not: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 03:59 AM   #323
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
Once again, A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is evidence, It is not a conclusion, but it is evidence.
Why don't you try to track down that firefighter, and ask him what he meant by that, and if, in his expert opinion, he believes that the possibility of a controlled demolition ought to be seriously investigated?
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 04:05 AM   #324
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,824
Quote:
Modeled on computers. That’s grade-school investigation.
Nonsense. Computer modeling is a very critical tool for failure analysis these days. Saying otherwise is naive and childish.

Quote:
Real investigators don’t model, they study evidence.
Which is what NIST did. They have done simulations, tested pieces, all kinds of experiments have been run to analyse evidence.

Quote:
Stop telling me that the NIST people were real investigators.
No. They are real investigators. Childishs demanding that they are not is silly.

Quote:
Because they sure didn’t act like real investigators.
Your opinion, and a poorly formed one at that.

Quote:
Was it their fault, or their superiors fault? I don’t know. That’s not my concern. I’m concerned with the report.
You obviously have not read much of the report.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 04:13 AM   #325
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,824
About computer modelling from someone who forgot more engineering that Mutton-Head will ever learn:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=214

Quote:
Finite-element models properly constructed are so accurate and so predictive that they have taken the place of physical models for testing candidate designs. Boeing, for example, designed the airframe of the 787 Dreamliner and tested it for handling characteristics, lift/drag and other aerodynamic concerns, and structural integrity without ever building a physical model of it to any scale. No wind-tunnel testing is needed. These models are actually more useful than physical models because they are automatically instrumented to provide immense amounts of data that cannot be determined or measured in physical models.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 04:15 AM   #326
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Some things I'd like to address, and readdress as I didn't have time to do so last night:

Molten aluminum:
http://www.laaluminum.com/Plant_Tour/plant_tour.htm - specifically http://www.laaluminum.com/Plant_Tour...InCrucible.jpg shows molten aluminum, glowing red, at ~1300F

http://www.alliedmetalcompany.com/ - specifically http://www.alliedmetalcompany.com/images/moltenal05.jpg also shows red hot aluminum as does http://media.www.kykernel.com/media/...epublisher.com (http://media.collegepublisher.com/me...s/d676oeaq.jpg)

Interesting side-note on properties of aluminum
Quote:

The pure metal has a melting point less than 1200ºF and does not exhibit the color changes before melting so characteristic of most metals. For this reason, aluminum does not tell you when it is hot or ready to melt. The oxide or "skin" that forms so rapidly on its surface has a melting point almost three times as high (3200º+F). To add to this confusion, aluminum even boils at a lower temperature (2880ºF) than this oxide melts. The oxide is also heavier than aluminum and, when melted, tends to sink or be trapped in the molten aluminum. For these reasons, it is easy to see why as much as possible of this oxide "skin" must be removed before welding. Luckily, the reverse polarity half of the AC arc does an outstanding job of cleaning off quantities of this oxide ahead of the weld!
from http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowl...nt/tigalum.asp

That said, I am not saying it _was_ or _was not_ molten aluminum that was observed; merely that it is possible for aluminum to glow red.

Now, on to the claim that "real investigators don't model [using computers]".
Yes, they do:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
http://www.arengineers.com/Services/Simulation.htm
http://granitestategraphics.com/
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 04:33 AM   #327
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
Actually, now that I think about it, I find Gravy to be unnecessarily insulting.

“they deliberately distort the truth all the time. Their dishonesty is an absolute insult to thinking people.”

I will also no longer respond to Gravy. He can likewise apologize if he wishes.
Do you deny that the 9/11 "truth" seekers lie ?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 04:37 AM   #328
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is a reasonable expert. Honestly I’m getting tired of repeating myself.
So a firefighter making a comparison is evidence of controlled demolition ?

Boy, your definition of evidence is lacking, to say the least.

Quote:
Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, and taken to a secure location.
Why ? There was no question as to the initial cause of the buildings' collapse.

Quote:
“Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how.
Terrorists. They flew planes into buildings.”

No, I want to know everything. That means, listening to firemen, analizing steel from the crime scene.
You mean YOU analysing steel ? Or experts ? If the latter, already been done.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 04:45 AM   #329
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head
I want to ask again, do any of you know the difference between evidence and conclusion?
First, learn what evidence is. Then we'll talk.

Quote:
The wacky kooky Cters are saying that if a firefighter says, “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building,” that is evidence. Evidence, not conclusion. The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.
Yes and I look at my computer and call it a cow. What's your point ?

Originally Posted by Mutton-Head
Similes, metaphors, assumptions. My investigation would have included real interviews with the firemen gesturing and using similes. I would have compared their expert testimony with the steel from the towers.
What makes you think they didn't ?

Quote:
Like I said, and I will repeat myself yet again, the tower didn’t have to be reconstructed right away.
Exactly how would they have stood ? And where would they build them ?

I would have just made sure that it wasn’t discarded. It had to be cleared anyway, why not put it somewhere. Tell me that it would have been unreasonable to keep the steel, and not discard it, just like any crime scene investigator would do.

Quote:
If the damage was completely inconsistent with a controlled detonation, then guess what, you just ruled it out. Conclusively. This is very basic investigation procedure.
Exactly. Then we agree.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 04:45 AM   #330
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
100% right on what I'm trying to convey. Thank you Macky, that was it exactly. I see your mathematical explanation. (I admit, it's been years since college physics.) There seems to be dispute though over those numbers for mass. Also, I believe that 30% to crush the structure and throw material and pulverize concrete is not enough. I believe it would be much higher. My intuition (and other researchers) tells me that even 100% would not have been enough. But, that's only my intuition, so for now, that discussion will have to wait.
Please show your calculations showing how much high explosives (use any high explosive you'd like) is necessary to pulverize 3.3 million sq. ft. (the square footage of the concrete floors per tower) of 4" thick (I'm estimating conservatively here) concrete. Yes, you have to show your math. I think you will find it is a ridiculously high amount, and the force necessary would have also been enough (since explosions project forces outward in all directions) to send chunks of material to New Jersey and Brooklyn (and I'm not talking about blowing paper here).

Does that seem feasible to you?

Quote:
Thanks for info on the firemen. That may be my next course of research. Perhaps I can get information from/about these guys that extends beyond Google and People magazine. Man I'd sure love to talk to some of them.

Thanks to Manny for the fire fighters union. However, I have to admit that it makes me chuckle. I can hardly even get MY union representatives to call me back, and I pay them $800 bucks a year. Ha!
This would qualify as real research however, I suggest you go this route if you really want answers to the firefighter quotes you cite.

Quote:
I don't trust the NIST report. Also to Manny, my assertion that they ignored the central steel core wasn't an outrageous lie. It was an exageration. The NIST grossly misrepresented it.
The NIST publications (there are dozens of them pertaining to the WTC collapses) are here. Please tell us which report and which assertions found in those reports you have problems with. Use page numbers also, so we can follow along.

Quote:
For every single hypothetical question that evreybody has asked, I have at least one or two good hypothetical answers, that make sense, and are plausable, in my opinion. That's why I keep digging. If I find anything that I think is significant, I will let you all know.


Rock on
Good luck!
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 04:49 AM   #331
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by hellaeon View Post
I would like to know why you would rig up explosives to a building AND slam planes into it. According to the main catalog of 9/11 theories, the explosives were needed to bring down the building. Wouldnt that be a huge waste to smash a few planes into it and cause the grounding for a couple of days of all aircraft?
I've asked this one more than once. Never got an answer. I support CTers don't want to think about that. Bush is evil, you see. No reason needed.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 04:57 AM   #332
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
I believe that 30% to crush the structure and throw material and pulverize concrete is not enough. I believe it would be much higher. My intuition (and other researchers) tells me that even 100% would not have been enough. But, that's only my intuition, so for now, that discussion will have to wait.
Well, change the damn numbers and do the math again. See where that brings you in terms of TNT load.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 04:59 AM   #333
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
I inadvertantly made a thermite bomb while grinding down a VW alternator bracket on a grindstone which was mounted on a very rusty support structure. Sparks ignited the aluminium filings/rust flakes and suddenly I had drops of molten metal burning holes in the floor. Adding water made life even more interesting for a period...

EB.
Reminds me of the time I was working on my car, and accidentally dropped a wrench so that it fell just perfectly and made contact w/ both terminals on the battery. It turned glowing red almost instantly, and melted (and I mean molten steel dripping off of it) within a second or two. I was terrified the battery would explode, but it didn't.

Yes kids, cover those battery terminals when working on a car.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 05:04 AM   #334
gruk
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 159
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Darat hits the crux of the problem here.

The firemen claim they heard explosions. Mutton-head says this means there must have been explosives.

Now, I have never been near a burning skyscraper when it has fallen, so I wonder, are explosions inconsistent with what is expected for such an event?

If you want to argue that explosions are evidence against the building-falling-on-its-own scenerio, then you have to be able to show that a building-falling-on-its-own would NOT cause explosion like sounds.

So let's get to the real crux of the matter here. On what do you base the implicit assumption that a skyscraper inferno, loaded with all types of things that explode when heated, will not produce explosions or things that sound like explosion when it falls on its own?

How do explosions rule out the conventional explanation?
Technically, what we call explosions are shockwave fronts, usually (maybe always) caused by high-pressure gas being released VERY rapidly. A mini-example of an explosion can be made and studied in the safety of your own home. Buy a rubber balloon, fill it with air and tie it off. Now prick it with a needle. Instant explosion. Not very powerful, but still an explosion.

Now, does this mean we can have explosions without explosives? Obviously. Your bretah isn't an explosive. The balloon isn't an explosive. But we still have a very small explosion.

There's lots of things in a skyscraper that contains pressurised gas. There's fire extinguishers everywhere. There's probably flammables in quite a few places. There's material that can give off extremely flammable gasses when heated. There's probably flammable dust (not as much as in a flour mill, mibnd you).

Add some burning kerosene, drop a couple of hundred tons of weight on a floor and, well, you will have explosions. I would've been surprised, hadn't there been explosions.
gruk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 05:39 AM   #335
LostSoul
New Blood
 
LostSoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 22
I meant to post this a few days ago. Its the article I got my sig quote from.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/....1685aadf.html
__________________
I.D. is to science what Tiger Woods is to bowling.

"Conspiracy theories are, first and foremost, the defense of the weak. They relieve the believer of responsibility for their circumstances and, consequently, for their actions." - Jonathan Gurwitz
LostSoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 06:15 AM   #336
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so. That doesn’t make it “conclusive proof,” but it is evidence.
Yes, evidence is very important. However, it is important to START with the evidence and allow it to lead you where it will. If you START with a pre-conceived notion (such as "explosives were used in the WTC") then the evidence could lead you astray.

Here's a hypothetical example: Supposing I believe that a giant purple salamander is going out every morning and eating all the newspapers off the neighbor's driveways. I want to test this hypothesis by going out at 5:30 AM, right after they are delivered, and confirming that the newspapers are in fact lying on the driveways. An hour later, I go check them again. If my hypothesis is true, then the newspapers will be gone. Thus, the purple salamander hypothesis is proven.

See the problem here? I am so focused on my pre-conceived belief about what is happening, I fail to consider other, more mundane explanations.

That is why falsifiability is so important. If the purple salamander hypothesis were wrong, how would I know? Certainly not by watching the newspapers and finding that, in fact, the neighbors themselves are picking them up and taking them into their houses. I could simply say, "They beat the purple salamander to it", or "the purple salamander was sick today".

If your explosives hypothesis were wrong, how would you know?

Quote:
Evidence should be in the report, and then refuted. It should not be omitted.
If EVERY eyewitnesses impressions of what MIGHT have happened were included as evidence in the report, then it would be a very thick and largely meaningless document.

Let me tell you why every single conspiracy theory was not addressed in the report: It's because the authors never dreamed that anyone would have a problem with the idea that two airliners loaded with jet fuel crashed into the buildings at crusing speed, and as a result the buildings fell down.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 06:31 AM   #337
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
As a continuation to my previous post, let's examine the issue from another viewpoint. Let's look at the hypothesis that the airliners crashing into the building started a chain of events that caused them to collapse.

The most obvious evidence that this is true is that the buildings were observed collapsing only once in their almost 30-year history, and airplanes crashed into them only once in the same period. The crashes occured first, the buildings collapsed second. This in itself is not sufficient proof. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because A preceded B does not mean that A caused B. However in this case, since both A and B were unique, it is extremely likely that A caused B. We need corroborating evidence, though.

The hypothesis states that the crash sites resulted in structural weakness in the buildings, and the weight of the buildings ABOVE the crash site caused the collapses. Here's where the corroborating evidence comes in: If this were true, then we would expect the building with the MOST weight above the weakened area to collapse first.

(This may seem to be similar reasoning to the "salamander" test described in my last post -- the main difference is that THIS test is designed to CORROBORATE very compelling already-existing evidence.)

And guess what...THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! Of course, you could always say that explosives were set off in this way to MAKE it consistent with the "official version", but that raises several unanswered questions. Why, at this point in the investigation, is it necessary to posit explosives? How could the "evildoers" behind the conspiracy foresee the need for this corroborating evidence, and yet leave so many of what CT's call "inconsistencies"?

I'm not saying, of course, that these two pieces of evidence were sufficient to explain the collapse. However, as more and more corroborating evidence is added, it becomes less and less likely that the hypothesis is wrong. Such corroborating evidence is plentiful in the official reports that CT's find so questionable.

All the CT's have is purported "inconsistencies", which are not consistent with each other, are not sufficient to disprove the rock solid "official" hypothesis, and are ultimately not helpful in determining exactly what happened.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

Last edited by aggle-rithm; 26th May 2006 at 06:37 AM.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 06:34 AM   #338
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile Theorists without portfolio

Originally Posted by milesalpha View Post
Thanks for mentioning this, it is something I have noticed as well while butting heads with revisionists. I would add that, in the same way that CTs lack structural engineers, the revisionists lack real historians. I have been confronted with enough "articles" from psychiatrists, lawyers, political figures to paper a wall, but almost nothing from a trained historian (as opposed to an "internet-trained" historian). Not to mention that both sides want one more big investigation that, they fervently believe, will conclude that their side was right after all.
Well, that's exactly right, both with 9/11 nuts and Holocaust denier nuts. Fred Leuchter was NOT an engineer...he just claimed to be one. Gerhard Rudolf was NOT a chemist...he also claimed to be one. Their "reports" were shot down by highly qualified experts in these fields. David Green, the guy who did the report shredding Rudolf is a Ph.D. in chemistry who works with the US Army on CW. So David Irving ripped Green as being a "computer expert," not a chemist, as if Irving would know the difference.

The deniers and nutters are interesting in their arguments...as a writer, I'm interested in HOW arguments are framed...and nutters take this condescending tone. They sound like this: "I am smarter than you are. I am making a statement. It is your job as my student to go out and do the research yourself and come back with a term paper that matches my conclusions...and while you're at it, you find the 'smoking gun' that proves my theory. Do my work for me, and then join my crusade."
Kiwiwriter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 06:38 AM   #339
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile Why I don't go to "Loose Change"

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Just to get banned ?

Non merci.
And the other reason being...unlike conspiracy theorists, I have a life.

More importantly, I lack the exaggerated sense of self-importance conspiracy theorists seem to have, in which they think they are the sole bringers of truth to the universe, and therefore are the center of it...both in the evil conspiracy's attempt to destroy them and the world adulating them.

That's why they get angry when they're ignored by the government and derided by the rest of the world. Bringers of truth think they deserve better.
Kiwiwriter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 06:39 AM   #340
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile Who's interesting around here?

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Oh, I think you'll find I'm not all that interesting...
Well, at least the avatar is interesting, and I still can't figure out how to post one of my own.

But everybody has some reason to be interesting to others...heck, look at how many people are fascinated with the lives of Kato Kaelin, the Olsen twins, Uri Geller, and Paris Hilton!
Kiwiwriter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 06:43 AM   #341
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile Splitting off from me? YIIIIIIIPE

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
My suggested starting post for split.

???
Actually, I'm kind of honored that I was chosen as the chop point. Haven't been here more than a few days and as many posts and I saw myself as starting a massive thread. I haven't had this much reaction to something I wrote since I started my day-by-day history of World War II 11 years ago.

Of course, that was split between folks who loved it and those who were torqued off that I dishonored the Italian Army or didn't include the 99th Messkit Repair Battalion.
Kiwiwriter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 06:55 AM   #342
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,824
Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter View Post
Of course, that was split between folks who loved it and those who were torqued off that I dishonored the Italian Army or didn't include the 99th Messkit Repair Battalion.
You brassed off the Fighting DinnerTrays? Man, you were playing with fire!
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 06:59 AM   #343
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile Criticism from the C-ration fans

Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
You brassed off the Fighting DinnerTrays? Man, you were playing with fire!
Yes...I think that was a direct cause of the later accusations I got of plagiarism and imposture, and the guy who demanded my web page be banned. That individual also said the world would be a better place if I was dead.

I challenged him to repeat those views to my wife and daughter, and he promptly apologized....publicly.
Kiwiwriter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:24 AM   #344
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,774
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head;1662022[B
Huntsman says[/b]
“and thermite is not an explosive, either”

Some notes from Steven Jones’ paper
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. “

Notice “cutter charges,” not “explosive.”

“Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job.”

Notice thermite and explosives.

It seems you did not pay close attention to these points when reading the paper.
Actually, it seems you have no freaking clue on the subject. You may have read it, but you don't understand it.

A cutter charge is, specifically, an explosive. It is, more specifically, a high-speed explosive, typically a shaped charge, that is used to cut through an object.

IN contrast, cratering charges tend to be low-speed and unshaped.

Cutter charges also must be placed directly onto the structures they are intended to cut, in order to work correctly. You don't place a cutter charge on a piece of drywall and expect it to cut the steel column behind it. You have to open up the wall and put it on the column, or use a significantly larger amount of explosive. If you only set explosive on one side of a sturcture instead of both (still assuming you have direct contact), it requires four times the amount of explosive. Each little bit of distance you go away increease the amount of explosive needed exponentially. Either way, the explosives argument is an exercise in nonsense. You get one of two possible scenarios:

1. The charges were placed correctly. No one working noticed the people cutting holes in walls, no one noticed the drywall patches, no one noticed the work during the weeks that would have been required assuming the best circumstances and unrestricted access. No securoty guards noticed demolition or construction teams. THis is nonsense.

2. The charges were not placed ocrrectly, and larger amounts were used. No one noticed the 50lb. charges sitting under thier desk. Notice that a block of C-4 weighing in at about 2.2 lbs. is about the size of a brick. For relatively small steel columns (1 inch), assuming you're a few feet away, you're still looking at requiring something on the order of 3 to 4 of these blocks. And that's to cut a single, relatively small column. IF they had enough to cut all the columns in the building, considering the size of the columns, one floor would have been pretty well unuseable, because it'd be too hard to walk around the huge piles of explosive laying around everywhere.

Now, on thermite, is is NOT explosive, and is NOT used as a "cutting charge" by anyone who still has functional brain cells remaining. Thermite is an incendiary. It burns bright, hot, and fast. It also contains no sulfur.

Thermite is specifically used in the military for destruction of property. Not by cutting, but my melting huge freakin holes in it. Have to leave a vehicle behind? Set off a thermite grenade on the hood, it'll melt through the engine block...enemy can't use it. You cut use it to cut steel, but it wouldn't be very effective. The reason being that once it starts burning, it only goes one direction. Down. Through whatever is under it. So if you want to cut a vertical steel column, you have to actuall drill holes in the column for the thermite to go in, and hope the thermite spreads enough on the way down to cut it.

In any case, a thermite reaction would have left molten steel, as well as significant residues of aluminum oxide and melted iron (not steel) from the thermite itself. This was not found.

Jones is speaking far outside his field, in areas he has no knowledge or experience in.

Last edited by Hellbound; 26th May 2006 at 07:26 AM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:33 AM   #345
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,824
Originally Posted by Huntsman View Post
2. The charges were not placed ocrrectly, and larger amounts were used. No one noticed the 50lb. charges sitting under thier desk.
'Finally, something to put my printer on!'
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:49 AM   #346
azazal
Ninja Wave: Techno Ninja
 
azazal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
'Finally, something to put my printer on!'
Printer nothing, I have 50 lbs of thermite under my desk as a foot rest
__________________
_____________________________________________
My gun collection has killed 5 fewer people than the Kennedy clan has with cars, airplanes and golf clubs. - Ranb
azazal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:52 AM   #347
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barrett's Privateers
 
Hutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: About 7 Miles from the Saturn 5B
Posts: 6,785
Slight change of subject while we await Mutton-Head's return...

please see this thread--http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=4997

Here is a CT (and Mr.Pickering does think something smells about 9-11) who actually goes out and asks expertise--and when the conclusion doesn't go his way, he posts it anyway. Note the reaction.

I invited Mr. Pickering to come over here and post--I also promised that we would be politer than his reception on LC, or, to quote:

Hutch wrote:
Quote:
If you do take me up on this, I will promise to (1) post links for you if you PM them to me until you have sufficient posts to do so and (2) slap upside the head any JREF'er that gets out of line with you.
You have been warned...
__________________
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. What? Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here! Boom. Sooner or later. BOOM! -LT. Cmdr. Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5
Hutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:54 AM   #348
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Good morning!

Since somebody asked to tell them that this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf was grade-school investigation.

Well, this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf is grade-school investigation.
Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious. So, let’s get to my suspicions. First, some background. Anybody please correct any errors that you think I have made:

My biggest question has always been how did the core columns break apart? Or, how did they bend upon themselves in a “Z”-like pattern such that the top of the building fell straight downward? That's the "fell in it's footprint," concept. The center of gravity of the building never deviated horizontally. No, I don’t build skyscrapers, but I have been told that the core columns are essential to the buildings vertical strength. In my understanding, they make sure that floors do not pancake immediately after the building is finished. In my understanding, they are made of pieces of steel which are approx 3 stories high, and are welded together. I also believe that they are all cross-braced to each other.

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 9-11%20Picture5[1].jpg (70.1 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg 9-11%20Picture6[1].jpg (54.8 KB, 5 views)
Mutton-Head is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 07:55 AM   #349
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,824
Originally Posted by Hutch View Post
You have been warned...
(slap!)

OW! Hey! No preempting!
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:02 AM   #350
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,824
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
Since somebody asked to tell them that this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf was grade-school investigation.

Well, this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf is grade-school investigation.
Because you can't understand some basic concepts, they are doing grade-school work? I think not.

Quote:
Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious. So, let’s get to my suspicions. First, some background. Anybody please correct any errors that you think I have made:

My biggest question has always been how did the core columns break apart? Or, how did they bend upon themselves in a “Z”-like pattern such that the top of the building fell straight downward? That's the "fell in it's footprint," concept. The center of gravity of the building never deviated horizontally. No, I don’t build skyscrapers, but I have been told that the core columns are essential to the buildings vertical strength. In my understanding, they make sure that floors do not pancake immediately after the building is finished. In my understanding, they are made of pieces of steel which are approx 3 stories high, and are welded together. I also believe that they are all cross-braced to each other.

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?
What you say is technically true, but what you find wrong fails to account for the sheer mass of the building.

Let me ask this: How did you expect the building to fall? Why?

ETA: Is it me, or is this starting to sound a lot like its leading to Roxdog 'telescoping' complaint?
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:09 AM   #351
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
to answer

Quote:
Let me ask this: How did you expect the building to fall? Why?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg taiwan_six_s[1].jpg (52.0 KB, 18 views)
Mutton-Head is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:10 AM   #352
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Quote:
Construction of the towers began in 1968 and was completed in 1972 and 1973. During the period, implementation of an innovative elevator system halved the number of elevator shafts. The express elevators took people to "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, where they could board local elevators. Also unique was the grouping of columns into the core and perimeter of the building, a structural system called a "tube".

To meet the challenges of wind load, gravity load and related architectural stresses, the WTC's structural engineers took a then-unusual approach in its construction: instead of employing a traditional grid-like plan with beams evenly spaced throughout a floor, the WTCs columns were grouped in the building's core and perimeter. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 133 feet (27 by 41 meter) and consisted of steel box columns running from the bedrock to the tops of the tower. The columns tapered to the top, where they transitioned to lightweight H-beams, but the exact dimensions are unknown as the blueprints are under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority and are not public domain. Each tower had 240 steel perimeter columns (from 2.5 inches thick at the bottom tapering to .25 inch at the top [6.3 to 0.6 cm]) placed 14 inches (36 cm) around the perimeter. This signature feature of columns grouped in the core and perimeter allowed large tracts of uninterrupted floorspace, a significant marketing feature for the towers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:16 AM   #353
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,824
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
to answer
It is nonsensical to expect all buildings to fall that way, especially for such a massive building as the WTC. Do a search on pancake collapse and you will find plenty of examples of buildings collapsing straight on their footprint.

The examples you show, we'll we don't know diddly about what failed on them.

ETA: Having looked the names of your links I can note that your collapsed buildings seem to all come from earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause both a toppling collapse as well as pancake collapse. Selective selection from Dr. Jones file does not impress me.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.

Last edited by kookbreaker; 26th May 2006 at 08:18 AM.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:31 AM   #354
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
It is nonsensical to expect a high-rise steel structure to "pancake."
The reasons are:

1. They are designed to have much more vertical strength than horizontal strength
2. Most importantly, it has never happened. I can not go on Google and find an example of something that has never happened. That is silly.
Mutton-Head is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:34 AM   #355
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Brick houses "pancake." Smaller apartment buildings "pancake." A high-rise steel structure whose height is several times its width and depth has NEVER pancaked.
Mutton-Head is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:38 AM   #356
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Quote:
1. They are designed to have much more vertical strength than horizontal strength
How should it have collapsed? Please show your work (math).

Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
It is nonsensical to expect a high-rise steel structure to "pancake."
The reasons are:

...
2. Most importantly, it has never happened. I can not go on Google and find an example of something that has never happened. That is silly.
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
(source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:39 AM   #357
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
Since somebody asked to tell them that this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf was grade-school investigation.

Well, this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf is grade-school investigation.
Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious. So, let’s get to my suspicions. First, some background. Anybody please correct any errors that you think I have made:

My biggest question has always been how did the core columns break apart? Or, how did they bend upon themselves in a “Z”-like pattern such that the top of the building fell straight downward? That's the "fell in it's footprint," concept. The center of gravity of the building never deviated horizontally. No, I don’t build skyscrapers, but I have been told that the core columns are essential to the buildings vertical strength. In my understanding, they make sure that floors do not pancake immediately after the building is finished. In my understanding, they are made of pieces of steel which are approx 3 stories high, and are welded together. I also believe that they are all cross-braced to each other.

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?
Mutton-Head, please look carefully through the document you just referred to as "grade-school investigation". For one thing, this document is a supporting document to the investigation and analysis, describing in detail the material collected, and the method of collection and identification. It's not an analysis in and of itself.

What this document does show is many representative examples of the structural members used in the buildings. Attached is one example showing a section of a core column member near where the plane hit WTC1, from pages 43 & 49. As you can see (I encourage you to look at all the images in the document), the steel is twisted and deformed in a way that's consistent with crushing forces and inconsistent with explosive forces.

For another thing, NIST fully accounted for the core, as you can see in their supporting document on the Design and Construction of Structural Systems: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
And its appendices: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/appendixes_april0505.htm
Attached Images
File Type: jpg core column.JPG (69.2 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg column diagram.JPG (123.9 KB, 13 views)

Last edited by chipmunk stew; 26th May 2006 at 08:51 AM.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:44 AM   #358
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
It is nonsensical to expect a high-rise steel structure to "pancake."
The reasons are:

1. They are designed to have much more vertical strength than horizontal strength
So you're saying that something that is designed not to fall CANNOT fall ? Can you see the error in that ?

Quote:
2. Most importantly, it has never happened. I can not go on Google and find an example of something that has never happened. That is silly.
So precedents do not exist ? How can you have anything happening if the fact that it never happened before precludes it from ever happening ?

Grade-school indeed.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:47 AM   #359
azazal
Ninja Wave: Techno Ninja
 
azazal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
Brick houses "pancake." Smaller apartment buildings "pancake." A high-rise steel structure whose height is several times its width and depth has NEVER pancaked.

Why does L'Ambiance Plaza in Bridgeport CT come to mind...
__________________
_____________________________________________
My gun collection has killed 5 fewer people than the Kennedy clan has with cars, airplanes and golf clubs. - Ranb
azazal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2006, 08:48 AM   #360
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
to answer
Quote:
Let me ask this: How did you expect the building to fall? Why?
You expected it to fall like those earthquake victims? Why? The base of the buildings was not compromised (unless you subscribe to the bombs-in-the-basement theory), and there was no lateral ground motion, as there is in the type of earthquake in which buildings typical fall over like that. The weakness on the WTC towers began high up near the top of the buildings. What physical condition was present that would cause them to topple over like that?
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.