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 debate , tfk , tony szamboti

Reply
Old 24th June 2016, 12:57 PM   #161
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,599
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
I agree, but in normal speech rather than scientific speech/writing I think the collapse speed is close enough to render the use of 'virtual' acceptable, or at least acceptable enough to counter the accusation of outright lying in this example. However, I agree that he is lying and/or incorrect by his strong implication that this collapse speed is evidence for controlled demolition.
Then I am virtually the fastest man in the world...
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2016, 01:03 PM   #162
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
I agree, but in normal speech rather than scientific speech/writing I think the collapse speed is close enough to render the use of 'virtual' acceptable, or at least acceptable enough to counter the accusation of outright lying in this example. However, I agree that he is lying and/or incorrect by his strong implication that this collapse speed is evidence for controlled demolition.
But, it's not "virtual free fall" (acceleration, not speed!)

It doesn't look anything like "virtual free fall"

The graph below shows the difference between something that does fall "in free fall" & femr's calculation of what a particular point on the roofline of WTC 7 did.


While I believe that femr's plot has some artifacts that are purely the result of his analysis methods (the high, positive acceleration prior to t0, is a clear example), his curve is "representative" of the actual acceleration over the 4 second interval.

In other words, the acceleration started small, increased gradually, oscillated above & below G, and then dropped off. Over that entire 2.25 second period, it never stayed constant for any interval of time.

And, if you can do a "visual integration", you can see that the time-weighted average "a" over the 2.25 second interval will be "less than G".

(In my early numerical integrations of my own curves, it came out to be about 0.94G.)

An object that goes into real free fall has its acceleration start at zero, suddenly & discontinuously drop to exactly "G", and then stay constant. As shown in the blue line on the graph above.

The real acceleration of any particular point on the roofline had none of these "free fall" characteristics.

Gage & Chandler's constant chattering about "virtual free fall" is precisely an erroneous artifact of Chandler's choice to measure the slope of a "linear interpolation" of the calculated velocity data.

Chandler knows this. I told him so about 10 years ago. Many others have done so, too. He simply isn't honest enough to address the issue.

Gage is merely clueless.

If you measure the slope of the "linear interpolation of ANY velocity data, you will ALWAYS get a "constant acceleration.

Regardless of how scattered, how non-linear, the velocity data might be.

In other words, a linear interpolation of any velocity data will ALWAYS return a constant acceleration ... no matter how non-constant the acceleration may be.!

The "constant acceleration" is exclusively the result of his poor choice of analytic method.

THAT is the issue.

An accurate statement is that "the acceleration over that period was variable, with an average value that was "close to G".

Which means that the resisting force was "small compared to the weight of the building".

It's crucial that you include the "... compared to the weight of the building" in that description.

Something can be "small, compared to Mt. Everest".
That's not really very small.

The weight of WTC 7, while inconsequential compared to Mt. Everest, was still a huge number.

The resistance was NOT "virtually zero".!
The resistance was variable & small, "compared to the weight of the building".

Last edited by tfk; 24th June 2016 at 01:11 PM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2016, 01:05 PM   #163
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
Then I am virtually the fastest man in the world...
In direct contrast, that kitten in your avatar is, IN REALITY, not virtually, the happiest animal on the face of this planet.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2016, 01:41 PM   #164
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 399
I am virtually John Holmes.
waypastvne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2016, 01:50 PM   #165
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
I am virtually John Holmes.
Dead?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2016, 07:30 PM   #166
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Gee, I wonder who it was that wrote this: "It's also interesting to see the explosion about two floors below the fire line in WTC7 a few minutes before it collapses. I guess you don't see that."
This is interesting.

The video posted is clearly of WTC 1 and 2 (mainly 1). The text in my post does say WTC7. Then, in the next paragraph I clearly mention both towers.

Either there was a typo, or someone got creative and edited the database where the posts are stored.

I was not talking about WTC7. The video does not show WTC7. It clearly shows WTC1 and 2. I was talking about building 1 and 2. To be perfectly clear, the fire line I was referring to can be seen at the end of the video. The end of the video focuses on WTC1, so it should be pretty obvious that I was talking about WTC1.

So, I either made a typo, or someone has added a new trick to their magic bag.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2016, 07:32 PM   #167
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Chandler knows this. I told him so about 10 years ago. Many others have done so, too. He simply isn't honest enough to address the issue.
What experiments have you performed to prove that Chandler is wrong? Please post a link to your YouTube channel so I can watch your experiments.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2016, 09:18 PM   #168
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What experiments have you performed to prove that Chandler is wrong? Please post a link to your YouTube channel so I can watch your experiments.
LMFAO.

You REALLY need "an experiment" in order for you to understand that "a linear interpolation of ANY velocity data set, no matter how scattered, will ALWAYS return a constant acceleration"???

You are seriously THIS clueless???
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2016, 10:49 PM   #169
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What experiments have you performed to prove that Chandler is wrong?

David Chandler Debunked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 04:43 AM   #170
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 471
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
But, it's not "virtual free fall" (acceleration, not speed!)

It doesn't look anything like "virtual free fall"
I agree. I also agree with the criticisms of Richard Gage's use of 'virtual'. It's one of those words like 'pure', 'everyone', 'mostly' etc., that in casual conversation can take on any degree you like because, in casual conversation they do not have a rigidly defined meaning in terms of degree.

Everyone knows this technique is mostly used as a defense against being accused of lying; i.e., to include these kinds of words virtually throughout your speech so you can't be accused of pure, outright lying. Most politicians do this, most of the time.

Nevertheless, the fact is that skyeagle409 claimed Richard Gage said the tower fell at 'free fall speed' (skyeagle409's words) and Richard Gage didn't actually say that. That's the only point I was making.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 07:24 AM   #171
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
I agree. I also agree with the criticisms of Richard Gage's use of 'virtual'. It's one of those words like 'pure', 'everyone', 'mostly' etc., that in casual conversation can take on any degree you like because, in casual conversation they do not have a rigidly defined meaning in terms of degree.

Everyone knows this technique is mostly used as a defense against being accused of lying; i.e., to include these kinds of words virtually throughout your speech so you can't be accused of pure, outright lying. Most politicians do this, most of the time.

Nevertheless, the fact is that skyeagle409 claimed Richard Gage said the tower fell at 'free fall speed' (skyeagle409's words) and Richard Gage didn't actually say that. That's the only point I was making.

Free fall and virtual free fall are in the same sinking boat of Richard Gage because videos and photos depict falling debris outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 09:32 AM   #172
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
This is a serious stretch:


Originally Posted by Tony
It would also be interesting to hear anyone try to deny there were charges in WTC 7 when the fireman talking to Brian Williams says “the building would either come down on its own or it would be taken down”. To be able to make the statement “or it would be taken down” infers that there were indeed already charges in the building.
The context he leaves out is "the building had become unstable" (it's in the video he quoted).
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 25th June 2016 at 09:38 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 09:58 AM   #173
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,705
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This is a serious stretch:
It's utterly mental. To be able to make the statement "or it would be taken down" implies no more than that the building may end up so structurally unstable as to require demolition at some future, unspecified, date, by some method as yet undetermined. As usual Tony seems to be displaying the classic broken thought processes that lead to trutherdom.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 11:01 AM   #174
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,096
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This is a serious stretch:



The context he leaves out is "the building had become unstable" (it's in the video he quoted).
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It's utterly mental. To be able to make the statement "or it would be taken down" implies no more than that the building may end up so structurally unstable as to require demolition at some future, unspecified, date, by some method as yet undetermined. As usual Tony seems to be displaying the classic broken thought processes that lead to trutherdom.

Dave
the average, ordinary person with no agenda would follow the conversation easily.
Hell, even a Redneck from Texas would paraphrase it as "If it don come down on its own, somebuddy gonna hafta take it down. Ain't nobuddy gonna fix that ****"
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 11:27 AM   #175
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Gage says, "It's symmetrical and at virtually freefall speed."

Maybe if you chose to actually listen to what people are saying, you would stop being a skeptic.

Gage is not lying. You are. The text you have written does not match Gage's statement. That means you are lying, not him.
Thanks for pointing out Gage's choice of weasel word. Just wtf does " virtually free fall speed" mean? Note I'll even excuse the erroneous terminology of using "speed" where "acceleratiin" would be correct in the phrase.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 11:39 AM   #176
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
This is interesting.

The video posted is clearly of WTC 1 and 2 (mainly 1). The text in my post does say WTC7. Then, in the next paragraph I clearly mention both towers.

Either there was a typo, or someone got creative and edited the database where the posts are stored.

I was not talking about WTC7. The video does not show WTC7. It clearly shows WTC1 and 2. I was talking about building 1 and 2. To be perfectly clear, the fire line I was referring to can be seen at the end of the video. The end of the video focuses on WTC1, so it should be pretty obvious that I was talking about WTC1.

So, I either made a typo, or someone has added a new trick to their magic bag.
Aaaahahahahaha..... sure, sure, FF, TPTB, worried that you were ""winning" saw and took this opportunity to make you look foolish btw editing the number 7 instead of 1,.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 12:05 PM   #177
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Aaaahahahahaha..... sure, sure, FF, TPTB, worried that you were ""winning" saw and took this opportunity to make you look foolish btw editing the number 7 instead of 1,.
As if he needed help...
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 12:10 PM   #178
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
LMFAO.

You REALLY need "an experiment" in order for you to understand that "a linear interpolation of ANY velocity data set, no matter how scattered, will ALWAYS return a constant acceleration"???

You are seriously THIS clueless???
Yes, yes he is.
I would have thought that anyone having completed grade 11 math would recognize that a straight line will always have a constant slope and that if one draws a straight line on a graph, that the resultant constant slope of that straight line is a construct, an approximation, of the reality of the graphed points. Furthermore, and entering into undergraduate science ( in my day first year students needed to take either physics, chemistry and biology, or a double math in lieu of one of the hard sciences) , calculating error margins was an extremely serious part of one's labs. The resultant margins were posted on the graph of each point.
The rate of collapse was of little import for NIST, as it could contribute nothing wrong the stated tasks that NIST were given. Thus it's only of passing interest, not subject to strict scientific examinaton. IMHO

HOWEVER, Chandler was disputing that and absolutely stating that the rate of fall did say something about how the collapse came about. This being his focus it would/should have been incumbent on Chandler then to demonstrate how close to reality his numbers for each graphed point were. In what would have earned him a failing grade in my undergraduate physics lab, he ignored margins or error.

Worse still HE draws a straight line "best fit" on a portion of the graph and claims that this personal, human contrived, slope represents what occurred in reality. Doing so would also have earned him a failing grade in my first year undergrad physics labs. We would have been required to state that our experimental data showed (in this case) that the acceleration was x (+/-y)m/s 2

femer2 also did much the same and IIRC also tried to claim a level of precision that he simply could not justify.

I have no qualms about expecting various locations on the collapsing structure to have momentarily exceeded 'g' , given the complexity of the interior collapse. Various lab demonstrations illustrate that certain locations in a system of connected elements can be induced to exceed 'g' with no other input force to the system other than gravity.
Whether or not this over 'g' actually occurred in these collapses is not particularily relevent. What is relevent is that individual locations/structural members in such a system WILL NOT necessarily behave like a strict Newtonian point mass.

Yet truther cannot grasp this concept. Not unexpected given that they cannot grasp the concept of "best fit" constructs.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 25th June 2016 at 12:22 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 12:11 PM   #179
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
As if he needed help...
The joke's on TPTB, since they neglected to substitute a pic of WTC7 as well.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 12:34 PM   #180
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It's utterly mental. To be able to make the statement "or it would be taken down" implies no more than that the building may end up so structurally unstable as to require demolition at some future, unspecified, date, by some method as yet undetermined. As usual Tony seems to be displaying the classic broken thought processes that lead to trutherdom.

Dave
On top of that this was a member of the FDNY. Explosive demolition is not used in NYC. He would matter of fact say this meaning explosives when their use would be unprecedented?

I wonder if all the other buildings that "had to come down" were rigged also.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 01:03 PM   #181
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Oy vey, Tony is saying that there cannot be said to be photographic evidence that explosives were not used because there aren't photos of every column and beam.
By his own measure though he demonstrates that there is no photographic evidence of a column or beam showing that it was subject to explosives.
Does he expect that explosive use becomes probable in a God of the Gaps logical fallacy?

He notes that thermite is a possibility because of "reports" of molten steel in the rubble pile.
No, that does certainly not indicate thermite much less thermite use on the standing towers.
My Post 122 addresses this fallacious linking of reports of molten steelike to supposed thermite use.
Quote:
It would also be interesting to hear anyone try to deny there were charges in WTC 7 when the fireman talking to Brian Williams says “the building would either come down on its own or it would be taken down”. To be able to make the statement “or it would be taken down” infers that there were indeed already charges in the building.
How does it follow that a FF expects a building would have so much structural damage that it could not be repaired and would have to be taken down, requires that the FDNY would require this building be brought down immediately and in an operation that the FDNY has never employed before?
I fail to see any logic in TSz's statement that this statement somehow imllies, let alone proves, explosive demolition.
However, even if it did, it then would imply that the reason for it was public safety, certainly not part of some vast conspiracy.

David Chandler is touted as an expert in determining that the North Tower was brought down by explosives? Chandler is a high school physics teacher with absolutely no chops to make such claims and indeed every point he makes in the video Tony links to, has been debunked thoroughly.
"Sounds"of explosives but absolutely no scientific examination of the sounds in comparison to what would be required to several the columns in the WTC structures. No if only someone or some engineering group had done exactly that..........

Last edited by jaydeehess; 25th June 2016 at 01:23 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 01:21 PM   #182
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,705
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
On top of that this was a member of the FDNY. Explosive demolition is not used in NYC. He would matter of fact say this meaning explosives when their use would be unprecedented?
I think the word is actually "illegal". But yes, it's utterly absurd that Tony should implicitly be suggesting (a) that the only method of demolishing a building is with explosives, and - even more ridiculously - (b) that speculating that a building may need to be demolished is only possible if you know that demolition explosives have already been placed in that building. Totally, egregiously, mind-bogglingly absurd, though by no means out of the ordinary for Tony.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 02:02 PM   #183
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
The part where Chandler "finds" the explosions in the video is just mind blowing. The mic picked up the rumble of the collapse(proven by his selection of low tones) but missed the high level signal of blast charges. Yes kids, the people reacted to the low level rumble of a building collapse (and the mic picked it up). You might notice no one turned around in the seconds before the building moved.

I suppose you have to play to your audience. Frankly I would be insulted.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 25th June 2016 at 02:09 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 02:33 PM   #184
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
He notes that thermite is a possibility because of "reports" of molten steel in the rubble pile.

I would like for him to explain with a straight face, how thermite leaves behind molten steel for weeks and months.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 02:37 PM   #185
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,603
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
I would like for him to explain with a straight face, how thermite leaves behind molten steel for weeks and months.
A few Truthers tried. We laughed.

(Actually people, including me, tried to analyse the scenario in a rational way. Then we laughed )
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 02:37 PM   #186
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
I would like for him to explain with a straight face, how thermite leaves behind molten steel for weeks and months.
How could he know? That's why we need a new investigation...........












__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 02:58 PM   #187
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
How could he know? That's why we need a new investigation...........
I would like for him to strike a match and then, I would like for him to explain why the match doesn't stay lit for weeks and months.

I hope he gets the hint.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 05:21 PM   #188
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
I would like for him to explain with a straight face, how thermite leaves behind molten steel for weeks and months.
Actually to be honest, thermite could cause molten metal weeks after the collapses but so could a chimney effect both produce microspheres, of various metals.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 06:04 PM   #189
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Newly archived copy: http://www.webcitation.org/query?url...ate=2016-06-25 (short url: http://www.webcitation.org/6iXe8irIY)


Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I've archived it also at http://web.archive.org/web/201606240...nd-7-t768.html but it's less obvious how to do it again, past the first time. Perhaps just accessing this URL suffices, but I'm not sure: http://web.archive.org/save/http://t...nd-7-t768.html
It works but it erased the older one. I'm sticking to webcitation from now on.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 06:47 PM   #190
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Actually to be honest, thermite could cause molten metal weeks after the collapses but so could a chimney effect both produce microspheres, of various metals.
Not wirhout a massive amount of, "leftover" thermite or spectacular insulative properties of the rubble.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 06:57 PM   #191
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Actually to be honest, thermite could cause molten metal weeks after the collapses but so could a chimney effect both produce microspheres, of various metals.

Many people are unaware that rust generates heat, and in some cases, rust can start fires. Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot, and hot enough to set other materials on fire.

As far as molten metal at WTC ground zero is concerned, I've noticed molten aluminum dripping from the northeast corner of WTC 2 prior to the building collapsing. That location is where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest and I might add that much of the façade of the WTC Towers was aluminum as well.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 06:59 PM   #192
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Not wirhout a massive amount of, "leftover" thermite or spectacular insulative properties of the rubble.
Actually carbon and microspheres left over from thermite would be enough to cause some interesting chemical reactions, that could cause long lasting low temp molten metal.
The same microspheres though also form in chimney effects and they are more likely to cause the same effects.
The stage for unusual chemical reactions was set, when the first plane hit and ignited the fires.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 07:07 PM   #193
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Many people are unaware that rust generates heat, and in some cases, rust can start fires. Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot, and hot enough to set other materials on fire.

As far as molten metal at WTC ground zero is concerned, I've noticed molten aluminum dripping from the northeast corner of WTC 2 prior to the building collapsing. That location is where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest and I might add that much of the façade of the WTC Towers was aluminum as well.
What makes you think it is aluminum?
Agreed it can be, but Aluminum is not a good black body radiation source when it is flowing in air.
There are several substances that could be, Plastic, Lead, Glass, Aluminum, with finely devided iron dust.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 07:25 PM   #194
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Actually carbon and microspheres left over from thermite would be enough to cause some interesting chemical reactions, that could cause long lasting low temp molten metal.
The same microspheres though also form in chimney effects and they are more likely to cause the same effects.
The stage for unusual chemical reactions was set, when the first plane hit and ignited the fires.
Granted; on the vast array of chemical reactions, but so widespread and ubiquitous as to keep the rubblw above the melting point of aluminum and/or copper?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 07:59 PM   #195
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Granted; on the vast array of chemical reactions, but so widespread and ubiquitous as to keep the rubblw above the melting point of aluminum and/or copper?
Yes Aluminum melts at 660C, easy in an ordinary carbon fire, although lead would be a more likely molten metal to be found in large masses than copper or iron.

Let's remember the debris had a good amount of Aluminum, molten Aluminum plus finely divided iron oxydizing in air can trigger thermitic reactions.

The reactions will most likely be limited, but would be hard to actually quantify.

The key to understanding them is they have to have Iron Oxidizing with molten aluminum to ignite the reaction, they have to have an aluminum and an oxydant, and they have to have, an energy source to mix the aluminum with the oxidant though induced motion while the temperature and conditions are suitable for ignition.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 08:01 PM   #196
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
What makes you think it is aluminum?
Several reasons. Let's take two. Tons of aluminum was packed into that corner of WTC 2, and in that corner, you can see a raging fire burning out of control at a temperature above the melting point of aluminum.

Secondly, the silvery droplets falling from the same corner was another clue and I've seen similar droplets from burning aircraft as well.


Quote:
Agreed it can be, but Aluminum is not a good black body radiation source when it is flowing in air. There are several substances that could be, Plastic, Lead, Glass, Aluminum, with finely devided iron dust.

The aluminum would have been mixed with other materials normally found in an aircraft, along with contents from within WTC 2.

Let's take a look at this photo, which was taken after a fire. What do you see?


Fire Aftermath Photo

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...l_1551034i.jpg


.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 08:07 PM   #197
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Yes Aluminum melts at 660C, easy in an ordinary carbon fire, although lead would be a more likely molten metal to be found in large masses than copper or iron.

Let's remember the debris had a good amount of Aluminum, molten Aluminum plus finely divided iron oxydizing in air can trigger thermitic reactions.

The reactions will most likely be limited, but would be hard to actually quantify.

The key to understanding them is they have to have Iron Oxidizing with molten aluminum to ignite the reaction, they have to have an aluminum and an oxydant, and they have to have, an energy source to mix the aluminum with the oxidant though induced motion while the temperature and conditions are suitable for ignition.
That, and skyeagle's following post simply bolsters my point that reports of molten metal in many other fires is common.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 25th June 2016 at 08:09 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2016, 12:23 AM   #198
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,603
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Yes Aluminum melts at 660C, easy in an ordinary carbon fire, although lead would be a more likely molten metal to be found in large masses than copper or iron.
The Truther claim is for molten steel, though it's fair to say they rarely manage to be consistent, often lapsing into 'metal', probably through laziness rather than deviousness.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2016, 02:47 AM   #199
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Several reasons. Let's take two. Tons of aluminum was packed into that corner of WTC 2, and in that corner, you can see a raging fire burning out of control at a temperature above the melting point of aluminum.

Secondly, the silvery droplets falling from the same corner was another clue and I've seen similar droplets from burning aircraft as well.
None of these reasons precludes lead, which is a possibility to consider more carefully.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...r-of-wtc2.html


Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
The aluminum would have been mixed with other materials normally found in an aircraft, along with contents from within WTC 2.

Let's take a look at this photo, which was taken after a fire. What do you see?


Fire Aftermath Photo

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...l_1551034i.jpg


.
I see something that might be aluminium oxide or lead. Cars have lead batteries too.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2016, 02:57 AM   #200
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Several reasons. Let's take two. Tons of aluminum was packed into that corner of WTC 2, and in that corner, you can see a raging fire burning out of control at a temperature above the melting point of aluminum.

Secondly, the silvery droplets falling from the same corner was another clue and I've seen similar droplets from burning aircraft as well.





The aluminum would have been mixed with other materials normally found in an aircraft, along with contents from within WTC 2.

Let's take a look at this photo, which was taken after a fire. What do you see?


Fire Aftermath Photo

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...l_1551034i.jpg


.
Aluminum does not mix well, when it flows the materials separate out as the Aluminum oxide forms.

Lead is the more likely candidate, NIST were not aware of the huge UPS, of lead acid batteries in the building, in that area.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 04:24 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.