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.
Reply
Old 7th September 2016, 08:42 AM   #161
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: 27,911
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
The physics are fundamentally different than what you are claiming. In order for a loud sound to be produced some energy would have to be transmitted into the air somehow. If the charge doesn't transmit energy into the air then you wouldn't hear it.
This is what's technically known as "bollocks". Explosives cut steel by producing a focused supersonic jet, which inevitably makes an extremely loud noise. If the charge doesn't transmit energy into the air around it, then it isn't transmitting any energy with which to cut the steel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped...#Munroe_effect

Thermite cuts steel by melting it, which it does very directionally because it cuts most other things by melting them, so in general it only cuts downwards; this is why it's very difficult to damage vertical structural members with it, and impossible to do so very efficiently. It could not possibly produce the ejecta you repeatedly claim as evidence of explosives, because it doesn't explode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

If you're claiming that nanothermite cuts metal by some third physical principle, then please go ahead and explain exactly how it works. References would be nice.

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 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 7th September 2016, 08:45 AM   #162
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
...There is a physical explanation that explains the existence of the video evidence of ejecta plumes (which you keep referring to as "demolition squibs" without evidence that they have any relation to explosives used for demolition, which is what you define demolition squibs to be), therefore the video evidence is not video evidence of explosives; it's video evidence of ejection of smoke and/or dust laden air...

Dave
I just think that you're wrong about this claim.

What is this evidence?

If it does exist, then it should be available to be produced for inspection, shouldn't it.

Or when you say it exists, do you mean it exists in some existential religious or metaphysical sense?
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 08:58 AM   #163
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,081
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
What do you think is the actual theory regarding the controlled demolition of the towers?

Do you think that the scientific theory for controlled demolition involves holograms?
There is no controlled demolition of the towers. Fire caused the collapse. You can ask the person who designed the structure of the towers if they collapsed as he thought they could. But no, you google up liars, and repeat the lies that were dumbed down to fool gullible peolpe.

You made up this nonsense...
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
A history lesson might be in order here. Back when we were preparing for the Atlanta Olympics, President Clinton attended a G-x meeting in Athens and he became interested in how the meeting was being secured against terrorism and investigated the methods that were being used and then applied those same methods for securing the airspace over the Olympics.

The requirements were very stringent, and included an 8-minute response time for scrambling interceptors in the event of a hijacking. Several exercises were accomplished in order to validate the system and the results of at least three of them were made public. The first exercise targeted the twin towers and it was a fiasco that was canceled prematurely because it was a complete failure. At this time the FAA and the military used completely different radar equipment with completely different displays and it was impossible for them to communicate with one another.

About a year later, once the new protocols were implemented, every FAA flight controller had a counterpart at NORAD who had the exact same display in front of him as that seen by the controller. He also had direct communication with his counterpart in the event of a hijacking. The FAA controller counterpart at NORAD had authority to scramble interceptors. They did at least two exercises where the results were made public where they performed flawlessly. This was the state of our air defenses when President Bush was sworn in.

Compare this to the protocol that was in effect on 9/11. From the 9/11 Commission Report we know that the controller, upon declaring a hijacking, had to notify his superior and that this notice had to be promulgated up the chain of command to the Secretary of Transportation who then notified the Joint Chiefs who then promulgated the notice down to the flight line where the interceptors were scrambled.

True. Look it up. The 9/11 Commission Report is there for anyone to read.

Coincidentally, the 9/11 timeline shows that it was 8 minutes from the time the Joint Chiefs were notified to the time the interceptors were scrambled. Failing this requirement by even a second would have triggered a Congressional investigation into the matter.

So.... you make the call. Profits or stupidity?
You made up the themite nonsense you googled and found lies which match your biases formed long ago; and science is not used, you use common sense, ignore science and picked lies made up by nuts like Harrit and Jones.

The article is BS, and the news magazine for science says so. All reality based researchers know Jones and Harrit made up the conclusion of CD and thermite. There is no evidence, and you failed to present evidence. You have BS opinions, no evidence.

Got the source for the "most secure airspace" yet?

What is a squib? Show me one. You really don't understand why the air was ejected...
http://forgifs.com/gallery/d/234760-...-collapses.gif
Watch out, air is being ejected...
http://i.imgur.com/ZZzt77Y.gif
oh noes, squibs, wait, no squibs, air ejected...
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...4c0meizgif.gif
oops, squibs debunked by seeing, again

Show me some damage to steel by thermite on 9/11? Go ahead, produce evidence, or your claims are fantasy.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 7th September 2016 at 09:00 AM.
beachnut 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 7th September 2016, 09:00 AM   #164
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: 27,911
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
What do you think is the actual theory regarding the controlled demolition of the towers?
There isn't one. There's just a vague suggestion that explosives were used somehow. Please feel free to present a complete and reasonable hypothesis stating how explosives could have been installed, where they were needed and how they worked, with numbers - because you need numbers to debunk peer reviewed publications, apparently.

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 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 7th September 2016, 09:03 AM   #165
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: 27,911
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
I just think that you're wrong about this claim.

What is this evidence?
What evidence? I said that you have offered no evidence that the ejecta are "demolition squibs", and that there was an explanation that didn't involve explosives. You are well aware that this explanation exists, as it's been stated in the last few posts.

Again, why do you think we're stupid enough to fall for your games?

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 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 7th September 2016, 09:17 AM   #166
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
What do you think is the actual theory regarding the controlled demolition of the towers?

Do you think that the scientific theory for controlled demolition involves holograms?
I think a "scientific theory" for "controlled demolition" should include both reliable science and reliable information about controlled demolition.

Inventing just-so-story devices based on unknown principles in order to solve the technical failure of your "scientific" "theory" about "controlled demolition" is a form of conceptual/informational/logical failure quite familiar to any regular readers here.

I'm expecting delivery of a soviet era smoke generator soon. I'll loan it to you so you can blow the requisite volume of smoke up our asses for this quality of discussion.
Jrrarglblarg 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 7th September 2016, 09:22 AM   #167
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
100mph wind generates 0.17psi loadimg on a window. 200mph wind generates 0.7psi. 1/2 psi would be an increase in pressure equivalent to a 5÷145 % decrease in volume of the space.
If you place a layer of flour on a table 10 feet off the ground and drop a book on it so it lands flat, the flour will cover a LARGE area of the floor below the table
I like this approach, too. It introduces other factors, mass of the fluid and the Bernoulli effect, into the mix. The 1/2 psi that you're defining is due to the decrease in pressure caused by the velocity of the air, I think, or by the inertia of the fluid impinging on the surface. It's not exactly the same thing as the pressure differential that is necessary in order to cause the 100-200 mph fluid flow velocity, I don't think.

The fluid will naturally move from the higher pressure to the lower pressure. The pressure differential required to establish the target velocity of the column of air in the specified amount of time is one of the numbers that I'm asking about. If this number cannot physically be achieved (if this differential pressure can't be generated) for some reason or another in the model, then this means that the theory is invalid.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 09:24 AM   #168
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,081
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
I like this approach, too. It introduces other factors, mass of the fluid and the Bernoulli effect, into the mix. The 1/2 psi that you're defining is due to the decrease in pressure caused by the velocity of the air, I think, or by the inertia of the fluid impinging on the surface. It's not exactly the same thing as the pressure differential that is necessary in order to cause the 100-200 mph fluid flow velocity, I don't think.

The fluid will naturally move from the higher pressure to the lower pressure. The pressure differential required to establish the target velocity of the column of air in the specified amount of time is one of the numbers that I'm asking about. If this number cannot physically be achieved (if this differential pressure can't be generated) for some reason or another in the model, then this means that the theory is invalid.
Prove it, show the numbers. So far all you have is nonsense opinion based on lies you googled up about ceiling tiles with themite, the super secret stuff you made up which leaves no evidence on WTC steel.
And you have the "most secure airspace" BS you made up, or blindly repeated when you found it from 9/11 truth lies.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 7th September 2016, 09:26 AM   #169
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
...Where is the iron from the ceiling tiles when the super secret thermite, now in ceiling tiles, made by elves in some super secret lab you can't name...


...Where do you get this stuff?
Read the journal article in the OP. Actually read it.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 09:28 AM   #170
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Union drywall workers certainly know what drywall looks like, so there's that. And they'll certainly be familiar with electrical and plumbing subsystem components because their trade interfaces directly with them any time they penetrate the wall, and all the others they see while covering the stud bays with drywall.

The ceiling tile installers are another trade, with specific trade subject matter experts, who are familiar with all the various building and infrastructure subsystems normally encountered in their trade. You may be personally unfamiliar with the multitude of objects beneath the drywall but people who look at them every day are not fools.
That's pretty much what I just said, isn't it?
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 09:31 AM   #171
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,418
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
You want to keep ignoring evidence by simply claiming that it isn't evidence.

If there is no other physical explanation that can explain the existence of the video evidence of the demolition squibs other than that they were part of a controlled demolition, then the video evidence doesn't just disappear. It's still video evidence.
Do you know what a bellows is, and how it works?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 7th September 2016, 09:33 AM   #172
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,209
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
The most serious theory is that the ceiling tile system was used. But you're probably right. I'll bet that all those union drywall hangers know nano thermite when they see it.
What Union drywall hangers? Do you have names? What company did they work for?

How many ceiling tiles were used? How much thermite? When was this done?

How would thermite in ceiling tiles cut massive steel columns?

How come not a single solitary video of the thousands captured that day contains any bright flashes associated with thermite?
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 7th September 2016, 09:34 AM   #173
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Thanks beechnut for carrying out and showing where I was going.
And there you have it folks. I put out numbers-- accurate numbers and calculations- without ANY CONTEXT, and the dude ran with em like he knew what they meant.
How do they relate to Windows Breaking? What do they mean? C'mon, steveupson. Tell us how they relate. I know, and so do most of the scientifically literate here, but do you?
__________________
"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 7th September 2016, 09:36 AM   #174
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
That's pretty much what I just said, isn't it?
Nope, that's pretty much the opposite of what you've been saying in this thread: that mystery workers installed mystery devices with which they were unfamiliar and misinstalled a significant percentage of them.
Jrrarglblarg 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 7th September 2016, 09:39 AM   #175
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,209
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Read the journal article in the OP. Actually read it.
That isn't a journal, it's an article from a magazine.

Why do you have so much trouble with little things like this?


It also contains this footnote:

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

Why do you think that is?

Bolding Mine.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 7th September 2016, 09:43 AM   #176
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,418
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
What Union drywall hangers? Do you have names? What company did they work for?

How many ceiling tiles were used? How much thermite? When was this done?

How would thermite in ceiling tiles cut massive steel columns?


How come not a single solitary video of the thousands captured that day contains any bright flashes associated with thermite?
Magic. It's nano-thermite, nano-thermite can do anything.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 7th September 2016, 09:50 AM   #177
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
T
If you're claiming that nanothermite cuts metal by some third physical principle, then please go ahead and explain exactly how it works. References would be nice.

Dave
“Reaction rates between nanosize aluminum
and metal oxides can be significantly greater
than those observed with traditional micron-size
thermite powders. Reactions occurring between
metal and metal oxide powders are accompanied
by the generation of high temperatures
(>3000 K). Super-thermites, formed by mixing
of aluminum and metal oxide nanopowders result
in energy release rate by two orders of
magnitude higher than similar mixtures consisting
of micron size reactants” [22].

[22]Reactivity_of_Nanosize_Aluminum_with_Metal_Oxides_ and_Water_Vapor

"Conclusion
The field of nanoscale thermite reactions is a relatively new field of research,
but already it has shown that a spectrum of thermite reactivity is able to be
produced with combustion velocities ranging from less than one meter per second,
to the current maximum of two thousand four hundred meters per second. The
thermites have been shown to have sensitivities tunable by varying particle
sizes and preparation amenable to different methods. Preliminary experiments
have shown these thermites to be superior replacements for current energetic
materials in certain applications. There are many thermite systems incompletely
characterized and with no studies yet carried out for practical application
feasibility so this field can only grow."

ipo.waw.pl/wydawnictwa/cejem/2-2010/full/Klapotke.pdf


There really isn't a lot of information in the public domain.

And the physics are definitely not "bullocks." The only way that (audible) sound can be produced is by energy being transmitted into the air.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 09:51 AM   #178
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,081
"Truther scientists" get article published in EuroPhysics News magazine

Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Read the journal article in the OP. Actually read it.
Did you read it? It is based on speculation as pointed out in the NOT Journal, it is a New magazine, EuroPhysics News magazine.
They published the fake conclusion article from nuts in 9/11 truth to show the speculation, the fantasy minded nuts in 9/11 truth, exposed as speculators in woo.

Did you think your failure to understand fluid mechanics could save the fantasy of CD. You can't source your claim of "most secure airspace", and then you make up BS about intercepts, and claim all these source, but failed to produce one source.

Did you read it and understand the lies?

Go ahead make my day, pick one of the many delusional claims, and back it up with evidence, science, facts. Make my day.

The paper makes up BS, and claims based on no evidence, no facts, and are basically lies, or misleading claims.
Quote:
Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.
No explosives were used on 9/11, and no evidence for other devices were found. The idiots in the article are basing this on seeing, they see a building collapse and have no clue fire did it. Fires not fought.

This is an outright lie, fire can cause a building to collapse, fire causes massive damage to steel...

You believe liars, and you make up BS/Lies or you repeat them, like your "most secure airspace" you can't defend; have you retracted that lie yet?
The ceiling tiles is an insane claim too, but I am sure you have the numbers and heat calculation to show how that would work. How many pounds of thermite is in the 1.8 million ceiling tiles with radio transmitters? Who installed the tiles to kill fellow Americans, and how do you ignore the 19 murderers who came here to kill Americans? Are you anti-American, or what?
Why do you apologize for 19 murderers with far out fantasy invented by old men with delusions of CD, and super secret thermite?

Why do you fail to understand the article is in a New Magazine, not a Journal?

Why was no steel subjected to the high temperature of thermite on 9/11, no evidence for any damage by your thermite in your fantasy? Is it magic thermite?
Why does themite have ten times less heat energy than gasoline...? Plastic? Less heat energy than paper, and wood? Why?
Does your secret thermite have more energy? How is that possible?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 7th September 2016 at 09:55 AM.
beachnut 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 7th September 2016, 10:02 AM   #179
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Lots and lots of handwaiving and ridicule and not a single member here has the guts (honor or basic decency) to answer one simple question posed to them.

A simple honest question.

How did you learn that your bicycle pump/bellows/falling book theory is correct?
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 10:14 AM   #180
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,081
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
... President Clinton attended a G-x meeting in Athens and he became interested in how the meeting was being secured against terrorism and investigated the methods that were being used and then applied those same methods for securing the airspace over the Olympics.

The requirements were very stringent, and included an 8-minute response time for scrambling interceptors in the event of a hijacking. Several exercises were accomplished in order to validate the system and the results of at least three of them were made public. The first exercise targeted the twin towers and it was a fiasco that was canceled prematurely because it was a complete failure. At this time the FAA and the military used completely different radar equipment with completely different displays and it was impossible for them to communicate with one another.

About a year later, once the new protocols were implemented, every FAA flight controller had a counterpart at NORAD who had the exact same display in front of him as that seen by the controller. He also had direct communication with his counterpart in the event of a hijacking. The FAA controller counterpart at NORAD had authority to scramble interceptors. They did at least two exercises where the results were made public where they performed flawlessly. This was the state of our air defenses when President Bush was sworn in.

Compare this to the protocol that was in effect on 9/11. From the 9/11 Commission Report we know that the controller, upon declaring a hijacking, had to notify his superior and that this notice had to be promulgated up the chain of command to the Secretary of Transportation who then notified the Joint Chiefs who then promulgated the notice down to the flight line where the interceptors were scrambled.

True. Look it up. The 9/11 Commission Report is there for anyone to read.

Coincidentally, the 9/11 timeline shows that it was 8 minutes from the time the Joint Chiefs were notified to the time the interceptors were scrambled. Failing this requirement by even a second would have triggered a Congressional investigation into the matter.

So.... you make the call. Profits or stupidity?
Can you sources this? Or is this BS you made up?

Then you project, as you have been doing massive hand-waving.
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
... Lots and lots of handwaiving ?
You wave your hands and make up, "most secure airspace", then you hand-wave and make up "intercept rules", and on topic you hand wave and claim thermite did it, but fail to produce evidence of damage to WTC steel.

Why are you unable to produce evidence?
Why can't you explain what the cut and paste about thermite is about, and how it supports the CD fantasy?
is there more energy in your secret thermite, from the article, is there more energy? Why would you bring thermite if gasoline has more heat energy? or paper?
Why would you imagine Americans killed Americans on 9/11? Why do you give a free pass to 19 murderers by blaming what they did on people you can't name.
You are the one who achieved LEO of woo by hand-waving.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 7th September 2016, 10:18 AM   #181
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,856
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Lots and lots of handwaiving and ridicule and not a single member here has the guts (honor or basic decency) to answer one simple question posed to them.

A simple honest question.

How did you learn that your bicycle pump/bellows/falling book theory is correct?
This is kind of an epistemological question. How do we know that Newton's laws are correct? or Boyle's gas laws? Most of these mechanical laws are verified with experiments and then they can be "applied" to real world situations.

In the case of "over pressure" this is an application of Boyle's law.

The air in the towers is being compressed because it can't escape the falling floors and debris driving them. Sa,me amount of air... squeezed into less volume raises its pressure.

Next the pressurized air will find the weakest part of the containment and break through if it's not rated high enough to resist the pressure. Windows have a pressure rating!

The expulsions most likely are the tell tale signs of pressurized gas busting through and escaping carrying "stuff" with it... Smoke, for example is stuff suspended in air. The air is hot... it is therefore at a lower pressure and lighter per unit volume (Boyle's gas laws again) and it rises.

Could this expulsion be a smoke gun? Sure. Is it likely? You tell us. Could it be an "exlosion" probably NO because the velocity ofile of the gas demonstrated above is not how the gas from an explosion behaves!

No one saw the o ring on the Challenger. But engineers using settled knowledge about the behavior of materials at different temps realized that the o ring would not perform at the low temps it was initially exposed to... hot explosive fuel was able to escape and the rest is sad history. Can this be "proven"? Depends on what you consider proof and evidence. Not witnesses... no recovered O ring... Not unlike a lot of the undoing of the WTC buildings.... all seen and experienced from afar. And not instruments measuring stuff real time.
JSanderO 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 7th September 2016, 10:24 AM   #182
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
If you want controlled demolition to be the only explanation, as you apparently desperately want to do, you need to provide evidence.
I'd be happy if he managed to provide evidence that it is one explanation.
__________________
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 7th September 2016, 10:25 AM   #183
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
The physics are fundamentally different than what you are claiming. In order for a loud sound to be produced some energy would have to be transmitted into the air somehow. If the charge doesn't transmit energy into the air then you wouldn't hear it.
It would also not produce the ejections you are calling "demolition squibs", for the same reason.
__________________
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 7th September 2016, 10:34 AM   #184
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,710
If an explosives "charge" doesn't transmit energy into the air, then what the hell is it good for?
carlitos 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 7th September 2016, 10:47 AM   #185
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: 27,911
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
“Reaction rates between nanosize aluminum
and metal oxides can be significantly greater
than those observed with traditional micron-size
thermite powders[...]
Yes, we know all this. None of it describes a novel physical principle for severing iron structural members; it simply indicates a large variation in combustion rates. How are you claiming the steel was actually severed, if not by the excessively slow thermal method or by the extremely loud Munroe effect?

Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
And the physics are definitely not "bullocks." The only way that (audible) sound can be produced is by energy being transmitted into the air.
Again, lack of reading comprehension. It was your claim of some unknown third principle of severing steel that I described as bollocks. So far, you're not doing much to prove me wrong.

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

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 7th September 2016 at 10:49 AM.
Dave Rogers 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 7th September 2016, 10:50 AM   #186
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: 27,911
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
A simple honest question.

How did you learn that your bicycle pump/bellows/falling book theory is correct?
No, you first. How did you learn that the ejecta were "demolition squibs"?

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 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 7th September 2016, 01:27 PM   #187
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,710
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
The physics are fundamentally different than what you are claiming. In order for a loud sound to be produced some energy would have to be transmitted into the air somehow. If the charge doesn't transmit energy into the air then you wouldn't hear it.
Then please describe how the charge supposedly does its work. What is the mechanism you propose?

Edit: It's actually a repeat of a question already asked - if there is no blast then why are there "squibs" indicating (you say) demolition? Your "squibs" must be the result of a blast, no? No blast, no squibs. Squib-free zone.

Slow blast?
Medium blast?
Fast blast?
Medium fast blast?
Slartibartfast?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 7th September 2016 at 01:46 PM.
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 7th September 2016, 01:33 PM   #188
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,638
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Then please describe how the charge supposedly does its work. What is the mechanism you propose?
Faith.................
__________________
"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 7th September 2016, 01:39 PM   #189
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Even if part of the WTC7 achieved free fall acceleration, it still is possible for a collapsing building to exhibit the same behavior without the use of explosives. Plus they only used averages of acceleration to make their conclusion. More precise analysis shows that constant acceleration of g cannot be claimed. Free fall is the favorite unsupported claim of Truthers because it snares the unscientific layman and sloppy engineer and sloppy scientist, and really it means nothing.
It is amazing that some Truthers have posted photos that depict the collapse of the WTC Towers and using those photos in support of their claim the buildings fell at free fall speed without taking into an account that debris in those photos are outpacing the collapse of those buildings which should have told them the buildings were not collapsing at free fall speed or even near free fall speed.
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 7th September 2016, 01:47 PM   #190
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Really?
Why can't anyone explain where they learned about the demolition squibs being something other than demolition squibs?
Very simple! There were no sound of demolition explosions at the very second those squibs were observed nor were such explosions detected by seismographs in the area at the very instant those sequibs were observed.

Secondly, it would have been impossible to place huge amounts of explosives in secret.

Thirdly, in order for explosives to be effective against steel frame buildings, demolition explosives must not only be firmly attached to steel columns, the steel columns must be structurally pre-weakened, a vety noisy and filthy operation that would not have gone unnoticed inside a crowded building.

Did you teally think that thousands of feet of detonation wire would have gone unnoticed within the WTC buildings? Did anyone notice secondary explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 suffered major impact damage? No!
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 7th September 2016, 02:00 PM   #191
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Does a book falling transfer enough energy into the air to cause material to be ejected a hundred feet? How much energy is this? What is the velocity of the air that is required in order for it to create this particular ejection pattern. What pressure differential is required in order to accelerate this column of air in the time frame indicated in the recording?
Perhaps, this video, which depicts debris ejected from a building without the use of explosives, can answer your question.

Demolition without explosives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

Here is another photo and notice the squibs of compressed air and remember, no explosives used.

No Explosives Used

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMi...108_093228.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 7th September 2016, 02:10 PM   #192
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,390
I believe R. Mackie the rocket freakin' scientist addressed the dust puffs about 10 freakin' years ago. IIRC he demonstrated and showed the maths that these were not high explosive charges as they were way way too slow and that ejection of air fit what happened more than adequately. I'll be damned if I will look it up, though.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab 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 7th September 2016, 02:22 PM   #193
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Me calling them demolition squibs or pork bellies has nothing at all to do with what caused them.
Then stop referring to them as demolition squibs. They are instances of ejections ahead of the exterior collapse front.

Quote:
You are claiming that because I call them one thing and not the other then we can ignore them entirely.
Nope! If they are important to YOU then YOU do some calculations or do SOMETHING, anything to back YOUR claim that they are in fact caused by explosives of any type, character or flavour of the month.

Quote:
And your repeated insistence that I have no evidence is falsified by the link in the OP. I have a journal article as evidence! You're the one lacking evidence.
The journal cites what, exactly to back the claim that it is evidence of the use of explosives in a controlled demolition?

Perhaps they found a pattern of these ejections that would fit a controlled demolition sequence? Perhaps they have physical, steel structural members demonstrating evidence of the use of steel severing high explosives?

Quote:
As far as what appears to be a random spattering of demolition squibs goes, it's so easily explained that I wasn't taking your question seriously. If there was a controlled demolition of the towers then there was also a serious effort to conceal this fact from the public. The visible demolition squibs indicate the places where this attempt to shield the demolition from public view actually failed. No one that I know of is seriously claiming that these visible squibs are the only instances demolition devices being used. The shaped charges were either installed backwards or some such mistake was made.
Really, and you say both the hilited and that you weren't taking my question seriously.
So, you have some physical evidence of the use of high explosives AND the use of sight and sound dampening measures? Seems this vast, complex, horribly complicated and wholly unnecessary evil plot is getting more complex and complicated as we go. Not to mention that you wholly expect the perpetrators to be sloppy in it's execution.

Quote:
Understand that under any likely scenario, the installers would be completely unaware of what they were installing. This is the type of human error that is expected in this type of exercise.
How does one install high explosives and not know that it isn't the type of equipment that one normally works with? How does one install high explosives on columns and surround those areas with brissance hiding, sound dampening measures without it being seen by tenants?

Really Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do.
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 7th September 2016, 02:23 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 Wolrab View Post
I believe R. Mackie the rocket freakin' scientist addressed the dust puffs about 10 freakin' years ago. IIRC he demonstrated and showed the maths that these were not high explosive charges as they were way way too slow and that ejection of air fit what happened more than adequately. I'll be damned if I will look it up, though.
This IS so last decade for sure.
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 7th September 2016, 02:27 PM   #195
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
That's exactly what is being claimed here, not just by me, but also by the authors of an article that was just published in a very respected peer review journal.
I will question those so-called experts who claim that explosives were used to demolish WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 because there is no evidence.

Quote:
Do you have any evidence that refutes this claim? Any proof at all?
Yes, and we can start here, and remember, I am referring to steel frame WTC buildings.

1. Before explosives at attached to steel columns, the structure must first be pre-weakened. No such pre-weakening evidence was observed at ground zero.

2. No evidence that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were rigged with thousands of feet of det wire and no evidence found within the rubble of the WTC buildings and even wireless demolition leave behind evidence. Have you ever wondered what evidence had determined who was responsible for the downing of Pan Am 103? To make it clear to you, explosives leave behind evidence of which none was found at ground zero.

3. If explosives were attached to the steel columns of the WTC builidngs, the detonations would have sent shock signals through the steel columns and into the ground where the signals would have been generated and detected by seismorgraphs, yet no such signals were detected as proven in the following seismic charts.


Seismic Chart 1

http://dickatlee.com/issues/911/asc/...smograph-1.jpg


Seismic Chart 2

http://dickatlee.com/issues/911/asc/...smograph-2.jpg


4. No explosives seen nor heard as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed.

5. No demolition hardware found within the WTC rubble.

6. If steel frame buildings are not properly pre-weakened before demolition explosives are are firmly attached, this will be the result and notice the steel columns of WTC 1 sitting within a huge bomb crater after its 1993 bombing.


1993 WTC 1 Bombing

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...TF_Commons.jpg


As further proof, it has been determined that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 and fire alone for the internal collapse of WTC 5.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 7th September 2016 at 02:31 PM.
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 7th September 2016, 02:33 PM   #196
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
I believe R. Mackie the rocket freakin' scientist addressed the dust puffs about 10 freakin' years ago. IIRC he demonstrated and showed the maths that these were not high explosive charges as they were way way too slow and that ejection of air fit what happened more than adequately. I'll be damned if I will look it up, though.
I found this post. Explains a lot.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=502
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 7th September 2016, 03:56 PM   #197
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,491
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
You are person who keeps making the false claims, not me. The videos which show these demolition squibs are "evidence" of something.

You are claiming that if this turns out to be "evidence" of controlled demolition, then we can simply ignore the videos because there is no "evidence" of controlled demolition.
Truthers almost never show the video; usually just a screen capture still. And when they show video, it almost never has sound. I wonder why?

Truthers are invited to watch the most complete video from 9/11, and tell us where they think they see or hear demolition charges:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Then you can start with the exploding ceiling tiles and backwards installed shape charges.
Redwood 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 7th September 2016, 04:37 PM   #198
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Lots and lots of handwaiving and ridicule and not a single member here has the guts (honor or basic decency) to answer one simple question posed to them.

A simple honest question.

How did you learn that your bicycle pump/bellows/falling book theory is correct?
I answered the question you put to me, I blew myself up doing an experiment, into the fires that raged in the towers on 9/11/2001.

Now answer my question how do you achieve the highest burn rate for Aluminum?
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 7th September 2016, 04:55 PM   #199
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I found this post. Explains a lot.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=502
You are awesome. I spelled his name wrong and was two years off but I remembered the gist of it. I seem to recall him mathematizing (holy crap, that's a real word!?) what an explosive would do also. There have been so many thorough debunkings it is hard to keep them all straight.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab 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 7th September 2016, 05:11 PM   #200
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Lots and lots of handwaiving and ridicule and not a single member here has the guts (honor or basic decency) to answer one simple question posed to them.

A simple honest question.

How did you learn that your bicycle pump/bellows/falling book theory is correct?

We can take a look here.

Quote:
Matt Komorowsk

Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”


WTC Squibs

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core.

The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core.

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

In other words, the WTC Towers were like giant syringes pushing out lots of air through the path of least resistance as their floors collapsed.
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
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 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.