| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| chek wrote: | | ...Stephen Jones has detected its chemical presence... |
He detected thermate? Really? You learn something new everyday...Anyway it's Steven with a "V." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Well if I might in turn ask you where you got the idea that thermite was the only agent used?
|
Why is it chek, that in virtually every single post you try to put words in other people's mouths?
I do not think explosives were used at all. So asking me "where you got the idea that thermite was the only agent used?" is totally inappropriate.
But, in any event, can you make a case for thermite/ate being used for building demolition? |
Why is it Ignatz that you put forward a strawman argument and then think you've shown something?
Your logic seems to be that the type of thermite you once looked up (and never again) wouldn't cause x so therefore x didn't happen. Its presence is proven. And despite the Pixels input it doesn't occur 'naturally' by accident..
And the WTC looks like a pretty fine example of demolition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: | | ...Stephen Jones has detected its chemical presence... |
He detected thermate? Really? You learn something new everyday...Anyway it's Steven with a "V." |
You're absolutely right. Thanks for correcting me.
Yes he did. The link to his pdf file showing this is posted earlier in the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Your logic seems to be that the type of thermite you once looked up (and never again) wouldn't cause x so therefore x didn't happen. Its presence is proven. And despite the Pixels input it doesn't occur 'naturally' by accident..
|
No. My logic is that thermite isn't used in CD as it isn't a demolition agent.
I've looked long and hard for examples of thermite in CD and not found one. CD experts don't use it. Can you help here?
You're welcome to the last word here chek. You have no concept of rational discussion, and I won't waste any more time with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What did he say he found? Some sort of sulphur compound or something wasn't it? He didn't find thermite, thermate or even super-thermite, or whatever it's being called this week. I think the distinction is somewhat important. Now you can ask yourself where the sulphur came from and you can come up with some theories. You could then weigh the likelyhood of each of these theories against each other. You could in the process of weighing up perhaps do some experiments to try and falsify your theories. You might then come to some kind of conclusion. But that conclusion is then a completely different kind of thing with a corresponding difference of certainty than simply saying "he found thermate and done proved it scientifically."
There just seems to me to be a lack of a cerain kind of process happening here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Your logic seems to be that the type of thermite you once looked up (and never again) wouldn't cause x so therefore x didn't happen. Its presence is proven. And despite the Pixels input it doesn't occur 'naturally' by accident..
|
No. My logic is that thermite isn't used in CD as it isn't a demolition agent.
You might change your mind about that if you were driving an MBT for a living somewhere dangerous.
I've looked long and hard for examples of thermite in CD and not found one. CD experts don't use it. Can you help here?
Try reading the material, dumping your preconceptions and opening your eyes. You might find that helps..
You're welcome to the last word here chek. You have no concept of rational discussion, and I won't waste any more time with you. |
I can only lead horses to water...they have to do the rest themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | What did he say he found? Some sort of sulphur compound or something wasn't it? He didn't find thermite, thermate or even super-thermite, or whatever it's being called this week. I think the distinction is somewhat important. Now you can ask yourself where the sulphur came from and you can come up with some theories. You could then weigh the likelyhood of each of these theories against each other. You could in the process of weighing up perhaps do some experiments to try and falsify your theories. You might then come to some kind of conclusion. But that conclusion is then a completely different kind of thing with a corresponding difference of certainty than simply saying "he found thermate and done proved it scientifically."
There just seems to me to be a lack of a cerain kind of process happening here. |
Erm... not wishing to be rude, but judging by your speech patterns, I'd guess tne process is 'braindeath', but I'm no expert.
Seek expert opinion if you find it becoming tiresome.
im |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: |
The main reason it (or rather its more exotic cousin thermate - used by the military to slice through tank armour with a hi-velocity jet of molten metal) comes up in sites such as this is because Stephen Jones has detected its chemical presence. He had just published that part of his findings when he was spiked.
|
No it isn't. Armor piercing rounds use shaped charge warheads:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shap ed-charge.htm |
You're right - and what do you suppose the shaped charge is directing, huh? |
The metal liner. It fires the metal liner into the tank. No thermite involved.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@chek: Charmed I'm sure. Perhaps you should try playing the ball instead of the player.
Last edited by jsut_peopel on Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: |
The main reason it (or rather its more exotic cousin thermate - used by the military to slice through tank armour with a hi-velocity jet of molten metal) comes up in sites such as this is because Stephen Jones has detected its chemical presence. He had just published that part of his findings when he was spiked.
|
No it isn't. Armor piercing rounds use shaped charge warheads:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shap ed-charge.htm |
You're right - and what do you suppose the shaped charge is directing, huh? |
The metal liner. It fires the metal liner into the tank. No thermite involved. |
You're right. No thermite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You're right. No thermite.
|
Well, then, case closed. WTC was brought down by planes. Next topic. Sorry, couldn't help myself, just using some loose-change-logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
You're right. No thermite.
|
Well, then, case closed. WTC was brought down by planes. Next topic. Sorry, couldn't help myself, just using some loose-change-logic. |
Correct me if I go wrong - but here you are freshback from googling 'exotic thermate compounds with additional chemical additives' (or variations therof) and found no such weapon anywhere on the internet.
Be careful though - I'm sure you're tripping a whole bunch of Homeland Security search keywords right there. Unless they already recognise your IP range so you're ok.
Let's try a bit of lateral thinking.
Two possibilities spring to mind.
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It does exist but nobody's talking about it.
Well, we know it does exist, so why might it exist?
Hmm, a compound for cutting through thick steel, not used by civilian's in the metal cutting business (CD companies etc.).
Might there be other uses - the bakery trade? Your local garage?
I don't think so.
So who else might have a use for rapidly cutting through thick steel?
Why of course! The military. They'd have all sorts of uses for such a tool.
Breaking tanks, battleships, hardened bunkers, taking down large bridges - I'm sure they're much more imaginative than I can ever be.
So I would conclude that it is very likely thermate and super-thermate based weapons aren't widely advertised but probably do exist.
Sorry, no links. You'll have to think it through for yourself.
But... why would such things be leaving traces at the WTC that morning?
Did the Security guards there have anti-tank weapons?
I know the Globalisation demos can get a little rowdy, but that's a little over-prepared surely? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Well, we know it does exist, so why might it exist?
Hmm, a compound for cutting through thick steel, not used by civilian's in the metal cutting business (CD companies etc.).
Might there be other uses - the bakery trade? Your local garage?
I don't think so.
So who else might have a use for rapidly cutting through thick steel?
Why of course! The military. They'd have all sorts of uses for such a tool.
Breaking tanks, battleships, hardened bunkers, taking down large bridges - I'm sure they're much more imaginative than I can ever be.
So I would conclude that it is very likely thermate and super-thermate based weapons aren't widely advertised but probably do exist.
Sorry, no links. You'll have to think it through for yourself.
But... why would such things be leaving traces at the WTC that morning?
Did the Security guards there have anti-tank weapons?
I know the Globalisation demos can get a little rowdy, but that's a little over-prepared surely? |
So your argument that thermite/thermate was used is that an appropriate delivery system MIGHT exist?
That isn't even circumstantial evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Well, we know it does exist, so why might it exist?
Hmm, a compound for cutting through thick steel, not used by civilian's in the metal cutting business (CD companies etc.).
Might there be other uses - the bakery trade? Your local garage?
I don't think so.
So who else might have a use for rapidly cutting through thick steel?
Why of course! The military. They'd have all sorts of uses for such a tool.
Breaking tanks, battleships, hardened bunkers, taking down large bridges - I'm sure they're much more imaginative than I can ever be.
So I would conclude that it is very likely thermate and super-thermate based weapons aren't widely advertised but probably do exist.
Sorry, no links. You'll have to think it through for yourself.
But... why would such things be leaving traces at the WTC that morning?
Did the Security guards there have anti-tank weapons?
I know the Globalisation demos can get a little rowdy, but that's a little over-prepared surely? |
So your argument that thermite/thermate was used is that an appropriate delivery system MIGHT exist?
That isn't even circumstantial evidence. |
Not 'circumstantial' but 'physical' evidence.
There is no argument about that.
What's your point?
That there wasn't really molten iron and excessive temperatures high enough to evaporation-erode some of the steel at WTC?
Jones' and others evidence directly contradicts your position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't understand why I am looking for information about explosives. I see no evidence to support their having existed in the first place. You've yet to provide any. I'm not going to do research about a topic that isn't related. When you can show me how it's related, let me know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | I don't understand why I am looking for information about explosives. I see no evidence to support their having existed in the first place. You've yet to provide any. I'm not going to do research about a topic that isn't related. When you can show me how it's related, let me know. |
Fair enough. And although you may not understand, your tactics seem fairly obvious to me, and anyone else following this thread I'd wager. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, my tactics are incredibly transparent. You make statements, I demand proof. You go off and talk about irrelevant things. I demand proof of the first statement. You are still talking about a new topic. I'm still asking for proof of your original statement.
If demanding proof is a "frowned upon" tactic, go ahead and ban me now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | the first bits to fall of are obviously gonna fall ferther than the rest of the debris that hadnt fell yet or fell after. |
No marky, the point about freefall is that everything falls at the same rate. In other words, everything reaches the ground at the same moment. You can't have bits moving faster than others - the collapsing building falls at the same rate as the bits from further up. This is the whole point about freefall, as the building collapsed, everything moves at the same rate.
The problem I have with the 'explosion creates more inertia' theory, is this would only be true if the explosion forced the circled objects directly down vertically and not out away from the building. |
here he goes again  i was under the impression freefall meant something that falls with no resistance i didnt realise the whole building had to hit the floor at once for it to be called freefall, in the case of the towers is what your telling me even possible. the top fell before the bottom there fore the top had an headstart over the rest of the tower, which is what the photograph is showing. the rest of the building isnt far behind. the mass of an object can also make a differance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Quote: | Exactly wrong!!
etc.... |
Thanks for responding.
However, you are quoting out of context. You have quoted me, but not the point I was answering.
Marky said;
| Quote: | | the first bits to fall of are obviously gonna fall ferther than the rest of the debris that hadnt fell yet or fell after. |
It was this I was answering.
Yes of course, dust is going to be influenced and swirled by air currents which can clearly be seen on all the collapse videos. Dust is essentially airborne particles and open to other influences, hence it was not mentioned by myself.
I consider dust particles not to be ‘debris’ as in that encompassed into the parentheses of the definition of that which would fall at freefall speed. In other words, as dust is influenced by wind and 'billowed', it is excluded and thus I did not mention it. Neither did I mention bits of paper, or people descending via the use of parachutes - we know they fall at a slower rate so they were omitted too.
I was merely explaining to marky, who obviously had not grasped the concept of what freefall means, his premise being flawed. The premise/theory/idea of the controlled demolition/vacuum not withstanding.
To attempt to ‘prove’ anything by quoting ‘dust falls slower’ is the work of someone desperate to be noticed and appear intellectual. |
you talk rubbish, freefall is something that falls without resistance. where did i mention controlled demolition in this thread? from what your saying if 10 people took it in turns to jump out of a plane 1 second after an other they will all reach earth at the same time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mkpdavies
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Can you think of anything else unusual that happened on Sept. 11, 2001? Something that had never happened before that day? Think hard... |
Regarding the buildings? Not not really.
Planes have crashed into buildings before, bombers even. Never made them collapsed into a pile at all, nevermind in an hour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveyJ
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
"So who else might have a use for rapidly cutting through thick steel?
Why of course! The military. They'd have all sorts of uses for such a tool.
Breaking tanks, battleships, hardened bunkers, taking down large bridges - I'm sure they're much more imaginative than I can ever be."
well by that logic the military would have "all sorts of uses for such a tool" like invisible three inch tall robot soliders with the strength of a normal man, but of course we can never hear about these beacuse the US military is keeping them a secret, but they must have them beacuse think how usesful they would be.
________
video review
Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaveyJ wrote: | "So who else might have a use for rapidly cutting through thick steel?
Why of course! The military. They'd have all sorts of uses for such a tool.
Breaking tanks, battleships, hardened bunkers, taking down large bridges - I'm sure they're much more imaginative than I can ever be."
well by that logic the military would have "all sorts of uses for such a tool" like invisible three inch tall robot soliders with the strength of a normal man, but of course we can never hear about these beacuse the US military is keeping them a secret, but they must have them beacuse think how usesful they would be. |
The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination. |
Well gypsum exists too. And we know for a fact that there was gypsum in the world trade centre buildings as part of their construction. We also know that a delivery system for thermate that would allow it to cut through vertical steel columns is about as likely to exist as those mini-GI Joes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: | | The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination. |
Well gypsum exists too. And we know for a fact that there was gypsum in the world trade centre buildings as part of their construction. We also know that a delivery system for thermate that would allow it to cut through vertical steel columns is about as likely to exist as those mini-GI Joes. |
Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: | | The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination. |
Well gypsum exists too. And we know for a fact that there was gypsum in the world trade centre buildings as part of their construction. We also know that a delivery system for thermate that would allow it to cut through vertical steel columns is about as likely to exist as those mini-GI Joes. |
Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little. |
Well I've read the material. The NIST report may have holes, but this schlock about thermite doesn't even have a structure. It's one big hole with a few disconnected spots of substance.
If I'm wrong, explain to me how this thermate method works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mkpdavies wrote: | | Quote: | | Can you think of anything else unusual that happened on Sept. 11, 2001? Something that had never happened before that day? Think hard... |
Regarding the buildings? Not not really.
Planes have crashed into buildings before, bombers even. Never made them collapsed into a pile at all, nevermind in an hour. |
So in your opinion, all planes that crash into buildings exert roughly equal amounts of force and stress over the lifetime of the 'event', then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: | | The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination. |
Well gypsum exists too. And we know for a fact that there was gypsum in the world trade centre buildings as part of their construction. We also know that a delivery system for thermate that would allow it to cut through vertical steel columns is about as likely to exist as those mini-GI Joes. |
Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little. |
Well I've read the material. The NIST report may have holes, but this schlock about thermite doesn't even have a structure. It's one big hole with a few disconnected spots of substance.
If I'm wrong, explain to me how this thermate method works. |
I fear that from previous experience trying to explain anything to you and your fellows is beyond me.
Maybe you should wait till the movie and comic book come out?
It might be more understandable to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Insults +1
Evidence still 0. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Insults +1
Evidence still 0. |
Only in your not very respected opinion.
Luckily the average IQ of the Grand Jury will be much higher than you and your squad would lead us to believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You think that people with a higher IQ than mine will consider your insults as evidence? I think you have a deep, fundamental, misunderstanding on how logic, reason, and knowledge are supposed to work. (insults+1, evidence still 0) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
