9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Thermite
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

It's quite a simple equation...steel can get no hotter than the heat applied to it, end of'

The heat cannot increase beyond heat applied to it, but the temperature can increase under certain conditions.

jsut_peopel
Minor Poster

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

It's quite a simple equation...steel can get no hotter than the heat applied to it, end of'

Ok, well that is gibberish. You seem to be confusing two different things, temperature and, I presume, energy, though I can't be sure from the way you have worded your statement. You need to tighten up your language and then you may start to make some sense.

SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster

Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject:

jsut_peopel wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

It's quite a simple equation...steel can get no hotter than the heat applied to it, end of'

So steel CAN get hotter that the temperature applied to it? you heard it here first folks Rolling Eyes

jsut_peopel
Minor Poster

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

It's quite a simple equation...steel can get no hotter than the heat applied to it, end of'

So steel CAN get hotter that the temperature applied to it? you heard it here first folks :roll:

Strawman. Perhaps if you reword your statement in a such a way that it makes sense, I might be able to give you an opinion on it.

Edit: Come to think of it your straw man doesn't make that much sense either.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

It's quite a simple equation...steel can get no hotter than the heat applied to it, end of'

So steel CAN get hotter that the temperature applied to it? you heard it here first folks Rolling Eyes

Before you claim that something violates the laws of physics, perhaps you should learn a little bit about physics. Start with the fact that heat and temperature, in physics terms, are not the same thing.

SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster

Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

It's quite a simple equation...steel can get no hotter than the heat applied to it, end of'

The heat cannot increase beyond heat applied to it, but the temperature can increase under certain conditions.

Yes if the heat applied to it is greater, so you think NIST may have it right and they didn't tell us the basements turned into a pressure cooker?

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

aggle-rithm wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

It's quite a simple equation...steel can get no hotter than the heat applied to it, end of'

The heat cannot increase beyond heat applied to it, but the temperature can increase under certain conditions.

Yes if the heat applied to it is greater, so you think NIST may have it right and they didn't tell us the basements turned into a pressure cooker?

I doubt the pressure on the metal was much of a factor beyond the first few seconds. Obviously, the fuel, oxygen, and heat were sufficient to get things pretty hot under the rubble. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster

Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject:

I think we'll just have to agree to differ ,you and NIST believe that two below optimal efficiency freefalling fires fuelled by office contents and kerosene with 80 and 60 floors of rubble below them (most of those floors affected by fires blew off to New Jersey in toxic micro particle pyrocrastic flows) and 20 and 40 floors of rubble blanketing them, that had copious amounts of water played on them by the NYFD and were soaked by days of torrential rain somehow turned into a blast furnaces and left pools of molten steel a further six floors of basement rubble below eight weeks later...and I don't.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

I think we'll just have to agree to differ ,you and NIST believe that two below optimal efficiency freefalling fires fuelled by office contents and kerosene with 80 and 60 floors of rubble below them (most of those floors affected by fires blew off to New Jersey in toxic micro particle pyrocrastic flows)

Would you PLEASE stop using terms you don't understand? A pyroclastic flow comes from a volcano, not a building collapse.

Quote:

and 20 and 40 floors of rubble blanketing them, that had copious amounts of water played on them by the NYFD and were soaked by days of torrential rain somehow turned into a blast furnaces and left pools of molten steel a further six floors of basement rubble below eight weeks later...and I don't.

Argument from personal incredulity.

Firefighters didn't start pouring water on the fire until rescue operations were suspended. By this time, it was so big and so hot that water was ineffective.

Also, do you know there are coal mine fires that have been burning for decades? Do you think it never rains there, or no one has ever tried to put them out? It's not as easy as you think.

SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster

Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject:

Don't patronise me son, a pyroclastic flow occurs anywhere a dust cloud is thermally heated. Extraordinary that I should be spoken down to by an apologist for the Nist explanation for these pools of molten steel found in the WTC 1,2 and 7 basements 8 weeks post 9/11. I'm not going to let you waste any more of my time on this.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

Don't patronise me son, a pyroclastic flow occurs anywhere a dust cloud is thermally heated.

Erm, no... It's a quickly moving mass of superheated volcanic ash and gases. No one was smothered or incinerated by the dust cloud at Ground Zero. There was no pyroclastic flow at WTC. There was a massive dust cloud.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

Two freefallen smokey carbon fires with 80 and 60 floors of rubble below them and 40 and 20 floors of rubble above them effecting pools of molten metal under a further six floors of basement rubble eight weeks later, is this (what NIST are trying to push) commensurate with the known laws of physics? YES OR NO?

As I said previously, don't quote NIST reports or your interpretation of them at me.

Go cut a vertical steel column with thermite.

Seriously, how hard is it to do?

I mean here, I'll even do some of the work for you:

Thermite:

http://www.unitednuclear.com/chem.htm (near the bottom)

Steel:

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/market_sectors/bridges/bridge_rela ted_products/tubes/

Now get going, be the first person in the "truth" movement to get up and actually do some kind of experiment.
_________________

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

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

Don't patronise me son, a pyroclastic flow occurs anywhere a dust cloud is thermally heated.

Is misleading your middle name? You really need to check your facts before pompously - and wrongly - correcting someone who doesn't need correcting.

Sheriton is quite correct. While volcanoes produce the most commonly seen pyroclastic flows, all such flows do not have to originate in volcanoes, or support exactly the same composition.

Such flows are a suspension in hot gas of particles fine enough to behave like a fluid.
It was dense enough to turn the area under it to black darkness and some people were even picked up and carried along by it.
It wasn't as hot as a volcanic eruption at that location, but it was still hot enough to expand to many times the original volume of the building in a short time, and flow between buildings in typical ground hugging fashion.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:40 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

What strange and uninformed fixations you have.
Can you explain - rationally - what effect you think ordering people to satisfy your cranky notions of validity achieves?

Anyway, regardless of how it was used - can you please explain why a
hi-speed steel cutting compound like thermate is present at WTC?
Along with all that excessive heat and molten steel?

And we'll pretend we never heard - or laughed so much - at the natural 'blast furnace effect baloney, which is another of those 'accepted' phenomena that nobody ever heard of pre-911.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:22 am Post subject:

chek wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

Don't patronise me son, a pyroclastic flow occurs anywhere a dust cloud is thermally heated.

No. Jeff King incorrectly used the term on his website, and now CTers use it because it sounds more exotic and science-y than "dust cloud". There was no pyroclastic flow at Ground Zero.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:24 am Post subject:

chek wrote:

Anyway, regardless of how it was used - can you please explain why a
hi-speed steel cutting compound like thermate is present at WTC?

It wasn't. That's the whole problem with your argument. Don't you get it?

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:07 am Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

Anyway, regardless of how it was used - can you please explain why a
hi-speed steel cutting compound like thermate is present at WTC?

It wasn't. That's the whole problem with your argument. Don't you get it?

Here's the deal.

WTC7; the excessive heat (producing molten iron and the witness of the evaporation eroded steel), together with the NORAD non-response are taking down the house of cards you work so hard to defend.

That's what you don't get.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

Anyway, regardless of how it was used - can you please explain why a
hi-speed steel cutting compound like thermate is present at WTC?

It wasn't. That's the whole problem with your argument. Don't you get it?

Bold words for a man without evidence.

Getting back to the "pyroclastic flow" at Ground Zero and people supposedly carried off by the dust cloud, this video puts that silly idea to rest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebCiecqbdws

It shows a lot of dust, to be sure, and debris going by at a potentially deadly pace, but clearly it's not composed of the hot gases and dense mass of particulates that characterizes a pyroclastic flow.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

Anyway, regardless of how it was used - can you please explain why a
hi-speed steel cutting compound like thermate is present at WTC?

It wasn't. That's the whole problem with your argument. Don't you get it?

Ah, but the evidence is there. All that's missing (at present) is the political will to act on it.

There is no denying (apart from the futile attempts of those such as yourself) the excessive temperatures present at ground zero. This is documented and even causes you to invent the entirely novel concept of 'natural blast furnaces'. Thousands of degrees above jetfuel and frictional heating.

The NORAD excuse is still not played out, but will be. You can't eliminate all traces of evidence from such a vast bureaucracy, and investigation will discover as yet unpublished details of the actions of the principles involved. What's the betting there's a few high level suicides when that day comes.

And then dear old WTC7. Five years in preparation and STILL no report, because no matter how they tweak the model it just won't fall down. And it especially won't fall down in the fashion it did. Of course, they haven't been allowed to include explosives in their model so far.

Yet the explanation is all too clear to those such as yourself. The building was 'an unusual construction - and even more marvellously, recently discovered to be on fire from top to bottom. I wonder how come NIST never noticed that before?

But of course they know that steel frame buildings don't collapse through fire, and asymmetric damage if anything, will cause an asymmetric fall.

Oh, and there's a 'silly' description of a man being picked up and carried due to the density of the flow inthis following extract. Picked up and carried for a block by the cloud.

The Geological Survey reference(the most commonly experienced type of Flow) quoted earlier does not disqualify the hot WTC dustcloud being described as such.

"However it does appear that for at least a minute, the dust cloud behaved as a separate fluid from the ambient air, maintaining a distinct boundary. There are several pieces of evidence that support this:

The WTC dust clouds inexorably advanced down streets at around 25 MPH. This is far faster than can be explained by mixing and diffusion.
As the dust clouds advanced outward, features on their frontiers evolved relatively slowly compared to the clouds' rates of advance. This indicates that that clouds were expanding from within and that if surface turbulence was incorporating ambient air, it's contribution to expansion was minor.
The top surface of the clouds looked like the surface of a boiling viscous liquid - churning but not mixing with the air above. Sinking portions of the clouds were replaced by clear air, not a mixture of the cloud and air.
The dust clouds maintained distinct interfaces for well over a minute. Mixing and diffusion would have produced diffuse interfaces.
There are reports of people being picked up and carried distances by the South Tower dust cloud, which felt solid.
New York Daily News photographer David Handschuh recalled:
Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was [an urge] to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave-- a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet and I wound up about a block away."

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Ah, but the evidence is there. All that's missing (at present) is the political will to act on it.

Evidence of what? Are you ready to tell us what you think happened on 9/11?

I didn't think so.

Quote:

There is no denying (apart from the futile attempts of those such as yourself) the excessive temperatures present at ground zero. This is documented and even causes you to invent the entirely novel concept of 'natural blast furnaces'. Thousands of degrees above jetfuel and frictional heating.

Quote:

The NORAD excuse is still not played out, but will be. You can't eliminate all traces of evidence from such a vast bureaucracy, and investigation will discover as yet unpublished details of the actions of the principles involved. What's the betting there's a few high level suicides when that day comes.

Quote:

And then dear old WTC7. Five years in preparation and STILL no report, because no matter how they tweak the model it just won't fall down.

Who's "they"?

Quote:

And it especially won't fall down in the fashion it did. Of course, they haven't been allowed to include explosives in their model so far.

Quote:

Yet the explanation is all too clear to those such as yourself. The building was 'an unusual construction - and even more marvellously, recently discovered to be on fire from top to bottom. I wonder how come NIST never noticed that before?

Why do you think they never noticed it before? Because they haven't consulted YOU personally about it?

Quote:

But of course they know that steel frame buildings don't collapse through fire, and asymmetric damage if anything, will cause an asymmetric fall.

WTC7 ended up largely resting against a building across the street. Sounds pretty assymmetric to me.

The problem you guys keep getting into is that you think if something "looks" like phenomenon A, then it IS phenomenon A. Calling the dust cloud a "pyroclastic flow" is another example of this.

Quote:

Oh, and there's a 'silly' description of a man being picked up and carried due to the density of the flow inthis following extract. Picked up and carried for a block by the cloud.

The Geological Survey reference(the most commonly experienced type of Flow) quoted earlier does not disqualify the hot WTC dustcloud being described as such.

Yes, you can describe it as a big ball of cotton candy if you want. You just end up sounding like an idiot.

Quote:

"However it does appear that for at least a minute, the dust cloud behaved as a separate fluid from the ambient air, maintaining a distinct boundary. There are several pieces of evidence that support this:

The WTC dust clouds inexorably advanced down streets at around 25 MPH. This is far faster than can be explained by mixing and diffusion.

Possibly. How about the monstrous blast of air displaced by a collapsing building?

Quote:

As the dust clouds advanced outward, features on their frontiers evolved relatively slowly compared to the clouds' rates of advance. This indicates that that clouds were expanding from within and that if surface turbulence was incorporating ambient air, it's contribution to expansion was minor.
The top surface of the clouds looked like the surface of a boiling viscous liquid - churning but not mixing with the air above.

There's that phrase "looked like" again.

Quote:

Sinking portions of the clouds were replaced by clear air, not a mixture of the cloud and air.
The dust clouds maintained distinct interfaces for well over a minute. Mixing and diffusion would have produced diffuse interfaces.

According to...?

Quote:

There are reports of people being picked up and carried distances by the South Tower dust cloud, which felt solid.
New York Daily News photographer David Handschuh recalled:
Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was [an urge] to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave-- a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet and I wound up about a block away."

Yes, eyewitness accounts are so reliable. How many other people report getting thrown a block by the "flow"? Surely, there must have been hundreds.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

What strange and uninformed fixations you have.
Can you explain - rationally - what effect you think ordering people to satisfy your cranky notions of validity achieves?

Basically the refusal to even attempt to reproduce the events indicates that said event is not possible to reproduce. NIST made full scale mock ups for fire testing, yet the CTists refuse to do so. This is because they are liars and hypocrites. They complain that NIST did not investigate the events fully, and yet they fail to even attempt their own experiments, and claim that there is evidence for their conclusions.

I don't have cranky notions. You want an independent investigation, why can't the CTists start the ball rolling themselves? Why? Because they have nothing to go on. So put up or shut up. Show some real evidence.

Quote:

Anyway, regardless of how it was used - can you please explain why a
hi-speed steel cutting compound like thermate is present at WTC?
Along with all that excessive heat and molten steel?

Quote:

And we'll pretend we never heard - or laughed so much - at the natural 'blast furnace effect baloney, which is another of those 'accepted' phenomena that nobody ever heard of pre-911.

But you fail to put forward and test any theories of your own. Hypocrisy?
_________________

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

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

chek wrote:

Ah, but the evidence is there. All that's missing (at present) is the political will to act on it.

Evidence of what? Are you ready to tell us what you think happened on 9/11?

Whatever happened is probably beyond what I could ever conceive. Killers have rationales all their own. A Federal Prosecutor and Grand Jury is probably the the best method available to answer that question in depth.

Quote:

Only if you accept questionable evidence and uninformed interpretations as irrefutable. Where do you get the idea that jetfuel was the only available fuel in the towers? How many of the people who reported "molten steel" were qualified to identify the material they saw? Are YOU qualified to say for sure that a chunk of concrete melded with steel could not have been produced in the conditions of the fire/collapse? What credentials do you have to back this up?

"Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site."

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:
"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

"American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack."

And the last recorded equivalent of the meteorite (heat fused steel and concrete) was seen at Chernobyl after the meltdown.

Quote:

What do you think NORAD should have done, given the fact that they were geared to protect the country from OUTSIDE threats, no hijacker had ever used the hijacked plane as a missile before that day, air traffic controllers couldn't give them a precise position, and, of course, they only had a limited amount of fuel to accomplish their mission (much less, if they had rocketed at full speed the way some CT's claim they should have)?

Well they should have intercepted like they had done 67 times in the previous 9 months of course. All this horse about couldn't is just that.
This http://www.standdown.net/ gives a simplified view, but Tarpley's 'Synthetic Terror' is far more enlightening, particularly about the 'drills' that degraded the NORAD effort to uselessness. These were not accidental by any stretch of the imagination, they were organised, ordered and controlled.
According to Tarpley 15 known 'drills' took most air defences away from the east Coast. 8 aircraft were left to chase 22 radar blips.
I predict there'll be a spate of top level suicides come the day.

Quote:

And then dear old WTC7. Five years in preparation and STILL no report, because no matter how they tweak the model it just won't fall down.

Who's "they"?

Duh - NIST ????

Quote:

And it especially won't fall down in the fashion it did. Of course, they haven't been allowed to include explosives in their model so far.

Do you have evidence that they haven't been "allowed" to include explosives? Would you say they also haven't been "allowed" to look into magical gremlins, and that's why they haven't produced a detailed report on the lack of gremlin evidence?

Cute and about the level I've come to expect from you by now. Identical to one of your always supportive sockpuppets in fact. No wonder I get confused about who said what.

"In December of 2005, 9-11 Research published an update of the Mirage essay, Building a Better Mirage, Version 1.0, addressing NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers. The main difference between NIST's Final Report and its Draft is that the final version contains a perfunctory and misleading reply to criticisms that NIST failed to address evidece of controlled demolition."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html
Even though it's the moist obvious.

Quote:

Why do you think they never noticed it before? Because they haven't consulted YOU personally about it?

You'd expect NIST to at least report such a wondrous sight in their own freaking preliminary report, surely?

Quote:

But of course they know that steel frame buildings don't collapse through fire, and asymmetric damage if anything, will cause an asymmetric fall.

WTC7 ended up largely resting against a building across the street. Sounds pretty assymmetric to me.

Looks like a folded up bedspread to me, and most people who see it comment on the compact pile of rubble left at the end. Maybe your perceptions are different (for whatever reason).

The problem you guys keep getting into is that you think if something "looks" like phenomenon A, then it IS phenomenon A. Calling the dust cloud a "pyroclastic flow" is another example of this.

Wrong - Hoffman defines more than one characteristic. Although I can understand why you'd want to play down the volcanic eruption association.

Quote:

Yes, you can describe it as a big ball of cotton candy if you want. You just end up sounding like an idiot.

Yes you sure do - repeatedly, like now.

Quote:

Possibly. How about the monstrous blast of air displaced by a collapsing building?

Accounted for and discounted as the primary feature. Read Hoffman's paper again.

Quote:

There's that phrase "looked like" again.

Imagine that - in a description. Whatever next? A simile?

Quote:

According to...?

We're still on the Hoffman paper here. Keep up.

Quote:

Yes, eyewitness accounts are so reliable. How many other people report getting thrown a block by the "flow"? Surely, there must have been hundreds.

Maybe there were, maybe others weren't so lucky as to survive it either.
Similar to the hundreds of other witnesses to the multiple large and small explosions occurring that day, and live on air. And then suddenly never heard of again.

I'd believe the testimony of a witness over your poisonous sophistry any day, but then that's me.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

What strange and uninformed fixations you have.
Can you explain - rationally - what effect you think ordering people to satisfy your cranky notions of validity achieves?

Basically the refusal to even attempt to reproduce the events indicates that said event is not possible to reproduce. NIST made full scale mock ups for fire testing, yet the CTists refuse to do so. This is because they are liars and hypocrites. They complain that NIST did not investigate the events fully, and yet they fail to even attempt their own experiments, and claim that there is evidence for their conclusions.

That's certainly one loony-tunes way to look at it. Another more likely in the adult world is that if even half-baked investigations burn through millions of dollars, let alone a rigorous one.

I don't have cranky notions. You want an independent investigation, why can't the CTists start the ball rolling themselves? Why? Because they have nothing to go on. So put up or shut up. Show some real evidence.

Quote:

Anyway, regardless of how it was used - can you please explain why a
hi-speed steel cutting compound like thermate is present at WTC?
Along with all that excessive heat and molten steel?

It wasn't. Stop claiming that it was. As I already pointed out elsewhere, all the elements that were found that "point to thermite" are present in many other things. To claim that thermite was present is like finding a steel ruler and a rubber in a pencil case and claiming that they are evidence for a car wheel.

It was - stop claiming that it wasn't. Thermate compounds have been found. And they do not occur naturally, despite what you may have heard. I believe the type to be have such a strong signature, it will be as traceable as the anthrax attack DNA strain. I understand Bob Bowman is looking forward to getting to the bottom of that aspect. Dr. Bob does not have a high opinion of military traitors.
If you really contend that identifying separate elements rather than compounds is what chemical analysis is all about, then go post on an entertainment forum or something as inconsequential as your apparent understanding of the grown up stuff.

Quote:

And we'll pretend we never heard - or laughed so much - at the natural 'blast furnace effect baloney, which is another of those 'accepted' phenomena that nobody ever heard of pre-911.

But you fail to put forward and test any theories of your own. Hypocrisy?

No point in jumping to conclusions before all the facts are known eh?
I'm quite happy to wait for the new Enquiry, and then all that unpleasant stuff that will follow.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

What strange and uninformed fixations you have.
Can you explain - rationally - what effect you think ordering people to satisfy your cranky notions of validity achieves?

Basically the refusal to even attempt to reproduce the events indicates that said event is not possible to reproduce. NIST made full scale mock ups for fire testing, yet the CTists refuse to do so. This is because they are liars and hypocrites. They complain that NIST did not investigate the events fully, and yet they fail to even attempt their own experiments, and claim that there is evidence for their conclusions.

That's certainly one loony-tunes way to look at it. Another more likely in the adult world is that if even half-baked investigations burn through millions of dollars, let alone a rigorous one.

I don't have cranky notions. You want an independent investigation, why can't the CTists start the ball rolling themselves? Why? Because they have nothing to go on. So put up or shut up. Show some real evidence.

Quote:

Anyway, regardless of how it was used - can you please explain why a
hi-speed steel cutting compound like thermate is present at WTC?
Along with all that excessive heat and molten steel?

Quote:

And we'll pretend we never heard - or laughed so much - at the natural 'blast furnace effect baloney, which is another of those 'accepted' phenomena that nobody ever heard of pre-911.

But you fail to put forward and test any theories of your own. Hypocrisy?

No point in jumping to conclusions before all the facts are known eh?
I'm quite happy to wait for the new Enquiry, and then all that unpleasant stuff that will follow.

Last time I checked, steel didn't cost millions of dollars, and thermite didn't cost millions of dollars. The test isn't being done because it would prove you wrong.

I see you're quite happy to sit around and wait for a new enquiry rather than start one yourself. That's because a new enquiry wouldn't prove anything other than what the old one did.

End of story.
_________________

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

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Whatever happened is probably beyond what I could ever conceive. Killers have rationales all their own. A Federal Prosecutor and Grand Jury is probably the the best method available to answer that question in depth.

So you believe that someone who is subject to the judgement of a Grand Jury, and is therefore not a foreign terrorist, is a killer?

See, you CAN conceive of something, however vague it is. I believe you have a very specific idea of what happened, but you don't want to say it out loud for fear of sounding like a lunatic. The same reason every other conspiracy theorist has failed to answer the simple question, "what do you think happened?"

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

What strange and uninformed fixations you have.
Can you explain - rationally - what effect you think ordering people to satisfy your cranky notions of validity achieves?

Basically the refusal to even attempt to reproduce the events indicates that said event is not possible to reproduce. NIST made full scale mock ups for fire testing, yet the CTists refuse to do so. This is because they are liars and hypocrites. They complain that NIST did not investigate the events fully, and yet they fail to even attempt their own experiments, and claim that there is evidence for their conclusions.

That's certainly one loony-tunes way to look at it. Another more likely in the adult world is that if even half-baked investigations burn through millions of dollars, let alone a rigorous one.

I don't have cranky notions. You want an independent investigation, why can't the CTists start the ball rolling themselves? Why? Because they have nothing to go on. So put up or shut up. Show some real evidence.

Quote:

Anyway, regardless of how it was used - can you please explain why a
hi-speed steel cutting compound like thermate is present at WTC?
Along with all that excessive heat and molten steel?

Quote:

And we'll pretend we never heard - or laughed so much - at the natural 'blast furnace effect baloney, which is another of those 'accepted' phenomena that nobody ever heard of pre-911.

But you fail to put forward and test any theories of your own. Hypocrisy?

No point in jumping to conclusions before all the facts are known eh?
I'm quite happy to wait for the new Enquiry, and then all that unpleasant stuff that will follow.

Like you tested your fatuous 'gypsum' theory you mean?

At least Jones has done the work (and debunked the fantasy office contents - and gypsum - baloney for good measure).

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

chek wrote:

You're trying to trap me aren't you?
Get me to say something I'll regret later.
But OK, I'll be the one to say it out loud.
It is well known in CT circles that 911 was planned and executed
by rogue elephants within the Bush/Cheney regime.
Don't quote me, but that's what I heard.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Like you tested your fatuous 'gypsum' theory you mean?

At least Jones has done the work (and debunked the fantasy office contents - and gypsum - baloney for good measure).

Umm, since when was that my theory?

What work has Jones done? Found some chemicals in a collapsed building? How does that prove anything other than chemicals were present? It doesn't prove thermite, it doesn't prove demolition, it doesn't prove inside job, it doesn't prove anything. At all. Try again.
_________________

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

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:17 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

Like you tested your fatuous 'gypsum' theory you mean?

At least Jones has done the work (and debunked the fantasy office contents - and gypsum - baloney for good measure).

You know, I bet lawyers clamour to get you on their clients' juries.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

chek wrote:

Like you tested your fatuous 'gypsum' theory you mean?

At least Jones has done the work (and debunked the fantasy office contents - and gypsum - baloney for good measure).

You know, I bet lawyers clamour to get you on their clients' juries.

You know, I bet you've got nothing but insults left now.
_________________

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

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 4 of 6

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum