| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject: ARE OUR CRITICS LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH? |
 |
|
or do they think they have already found it in the official commission report of 2004?
From what a few of you are saying, I think that you are. And your motivation for being here is basically because you hate speculation being treated as conclusive truth?
I think many of you must feel there has been a cover up, and that the official report has serious holes in it?.. or you wouldn't come here so often?
If this is the case then can i make a suggestion:
Non-critics/regular forum members- accept that documentaries such as loose change sometimes site inconclusive evidence as conclusive in an over confident manner (ie. 'The cell phone calls were faked. No doubt about it'). And also recognise that in order for us to get any where with regard to mainstream recognition and potential success, we have to be more aware of how some of us promote and/or assert such speculation.
Critics- Cease any unprovoked insultive behaviour directed at regular members of this forum. Consider the evidence we may present as evidence, whether it be inconclusive or conclusive. Consider that to automatically assume that the official story is true, would be a decision of very poor judgement (not saying that you all do) and in light of this alternative theories put forward by members should not be ridiculed (although should be contended and debated).
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: Re: ARE OUR CRITICS LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH? |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: | | Critics- Cease any unprovoked insultive behaviour directed at regular members of this forum.... |
TimmyG - over on the General forum critics have been called "c#nt" , told to "f#ck off" and been subjected to "there's that stink again" type insults. On a regular basis. The moderators do nothing about this.
Get this house in order first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: ARE OUR CRITICS LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH? |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | TimmyG wrote: | | Critics- Cease any unprovoked insultive behaviour directed at regular members of this forum.... |
TimmyG - over on the General forum critics have been called "c#nt" , told to "f#ck off" and been subjected to "there's that stink again" type insults. On a regular basis. The moderators do nothing about this.
Get this house in order first. |
Agreed, the moderation here is a bizarre state of affairs.
After putting together such a site, we are told, go and tell people about it. Yet the threads are riddled with all kinds of obscenities with no comeback whatsoever, no warnings, nothing. You clearly highlight it for the 'moderators' and it is like you are communicating with children, the justification they come out with!
Perhaps the most obvious and positive thing that we can do as a movement, as a body, is present a clear message that this is a serious forum about an equally serious subject.
If I was looking for information about 9/11 and came across this site and saw a thread about 'The Dawning of The Age of Aquarius', I would treat it as some place for fringe loony theorists.
The reason the American equivalent of this site is so successful, it is highly focused and it is incredibly sad that the people who run this site don't have the same level of committment. This is after all, how we interface with the rest of the world.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: Re: ARE OUR CRITICS LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH? |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: |
Critics- Cease any unprovoked insultive behaviour directed at regular members of this forum. Consider the evidence we may present as evidence, whether it be inconclusive or conclusive. Consider that to automatically assume that the official story is true, would be a decision of very poor judgement (not saying that you all do) and in light of this alternative theories put forward by members should not be ridiculed (although should be contended and debated). |
Here ( http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4275&start=0 ) I have provided access to a presentation that claims that Great Britain is part of the US.
If this were presented as a serious hypothesis, than would you apply the same standards to yourself? Read the same statement you made, with a few changes:
Consider that to automatically assume that Great Britain is an independent country is true, would be a decision of very poor judgement and in light of this alternative theories should not be ridiculed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i think there was a lot of very harsh comments and sarcasm directed at many of us when the critics first started coming here (mainly from JREF).. so theres a bit of tension in the air which causes some of us regulars to fly of the handle a bit when ever a critic appears in the general section...
...but we're not in a school playground and we should be adult enough to put past disagreements behind us.. you're right
the only thing that gets my goat is when people start saying stuff like 'yeah! and elvis is a cia agent!' .. this kind of sarcasm is uncalled for.
i'm not bearing any grudges however.
| Quote: | If I was looking for information about 9/11 and came across this site and saw a thread about 'The Dawning of The Age of Aquarius', I would treat it as some place for fringe loony theorists.
|
i have to agree with you. This sort of thing is something i've been thinking a lot about recently.
I don't want to offend anyone within the movement. Everyone in manchester at the shayler/annie talk /stop the war protest was really really nice. It was especially nice to meet david and annie and have a chat with them. But I was kind of dissapointed by some of the flyers being given out amongst the 9/11 stuff. Flyers about cosmic energies and universal conscienceness and that kind of thing. I don't want to appear to be putting myself in a 'i'm not into all that nonsense' kind of group... because i'm not. I'm genuinely interested in some of that kind of stuff, and its always nice to meet people who 'think outside the box'. I just think it should be completely seperate from 9/11 activism/campaining. I'm fairly sure many people approaching the stall had seen that and decided that we're all wacky and consequently didn't read any of the 9/11 stuff.
The same goes for something david said during the presentation about stone tablets which prove we were created by aliens. I'm not the sort to jump up and shout 'you nutter! what are you talking about?!', but many people are.. infact one kid in the presentation did say something along these lines and left shortly after, before the presentation was over. Kevin Boyle from Blackpool (who was on question time) also stood up at the end of the talk and asserted very confidently that there was a pod on one of the planes which meant it was definately a certain model of aircraft (can't remember which) and that it couldn't have been a 757. I met Kevin before the talk and he was a really nice person and we had an interesting chat.. but voicing such unproveable theories (based soley on blur of pixels) with such conclusive confidence is really going to turn some people away.
I believe in freedom of speech, and i don't like telling people what i think they should and shouldn't be talking about.. but if we are all primarily focused on getting the truth about 9/11 out to the masses, then we should be setting some guidelines within the movement.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Last edited by TimmyG on Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Here ( http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4275&start=0 ) I have provided access to a presentation that claims that Great Britain is part of the US.
If this were presented as a serious hypothesis, than would you apply the same standards to yourself? Read the same statement you made, with a few changes:
Consider that to automatically assume that Great Britain is an independent country is true, would be a decision of very poor judgement and in light of this alternative theories should not be ridiculed |
what are you saying? that automatically assuming that the official commission report is true is not a decision of poor judgement?. i'm asking you to consider that it is, partly because you have all been here for a while and must have looked into some of the info we have presented. It is a fair request to ask of anyone posting on this forum
you are comparing a criminal investigation set up by an administration which is known to tell lies, with the status of a country.
how does this acheive anything?
unfortunately i don't have powerpoint on my pc so i can't watch it.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: |
what are you saying? that automatically assuming that the official commission report is true is not a decision of poor judgement?
|
No, but saying that critics AUTOMATICALLY assume that the official commission report is true, rather than believing a version of events that is roughly the same as that described by the commission, is an assumption in itself.
| Quote: |
you are comparing a criminal investigation set up by an administration which is known to tell lies, with the status of a country.
how does this acheive anything?
|
I am comparing two examples of taking a foregone conclusion and using feeble evidence to support it.
Sorry you can't view the presentation -- try downloading the viewer at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=428d5727-43ab -4f24-90b7-a94784af71a4&displaylang=en |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I actually addressed the subject of this thread in an article I wrote for Skeptic Report a few years ago. Here is the relevant portion:
Conspiracy theorists have long been the butt of jokes in American popular culture. A combination of paranoia and vivid imagination has made them a favorite topic of comedians for decades. The work of these conspiracy nuts is normally viewed more as entertainment than information, somewhat like the "news" stories in supermarket tabloids.
If this is true, then why pick on these poor fools? Why not leave them to their fate as part of a lunatic fringe that will never be taken seriously? The reason is that a conscientious conspiracy buff can present his case in such a way that it may be taken at face value. He can research his topic thoroughly, provide numerous references to legitimate sources, and carefully craft his words so he comes across as being articulate and well educated. It is this type of conspiracy theorist who is especially dangerous. Impressionable readers who read such pieces uncritically are likely to be taken in by their carefully crafted professionalism. Behind this slick facade, however, can often be found a cauldron of inaccuracies and outright lies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No, but saying that critics AUTOMATICALLY assume that the official commission report is true, rather than believing a version of events that is roughly the same as that described by the commission, is an assumption in itself. |
i didn't say that. i said
| Quote: | Consider that to automatically assume that the official story is true, would be a decision of very poor judgement (not saying that you all do)
|
maybe you have all made this consideration already. i don't know
| Quote: | | The reason is that a conscientious conspiracy buff can present his case in such a way that it may be taken at face value. He can research his topic thoroughly, provide numerous references to legitimate sources, and carefully craft his words so he comes across as being articulate and well educated. It is this type of conspiracy theorist who is especially dangerous. Impressionable readers who read such pieces uncritically are likely to be taken in by their carefully crafted professionalism. Behind this slick facade, however, can often be found a cauldron of inaccuracies and outright lies. |
the same could be said about the official story.
i didn't intend this thread to turn in to a row. i was trying to find some middle ground between us so that some of us might be able to debate things more reasonably. Most of you appear to be well educated and interested in logic, if you are interested in the truth then you should be able to help us. If you are 100% sure that you have found the truth in the official report and are not willing to consider that it is flawed, then there is no reason for you being here, other than to attack us for the fun of it.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: |
i didn't intend this thread to turn in to a row. i was trying to find some middle ground between us so that some of us might be able to debate things more reasonably. Most of you appear to be well educated and interested in logic, if you are interested in the truth then you should be able to help us. If you are 100% sure that you have found the truth in the official report and are not willing to consider that it is flawed, then there is no reason for you being here, other than to attack us for the fun of it. |
Certainly, it's possible that it's flawed in minor details, but highly unlikely that any of the major conclusions are off-base. The reason I believe this is not because I WANT to believe it, or that I am a shill, or I am too lazy to look at the evidence. The reason is that the "official" story is internally consistent and parsiminous, whereas the CT viewpoint -- whatever that may be -- is not.
I compare this sort of thing to a crossword puzzle. If you are certain that 10-down is "claustrophobia", but in order for that to be right, five other words that you're sure of have to be wrong, then your certainty of 10-down is clearly mistaken. At this point you either have to admit you are wrong, or leave the puzzle unfinished.
The solution to a crossword puzzle MUST be 100% consistent -- and this is true in the real world as well. I often have to solve prickly technical problems in my job as a software developer, and believe me, you can't solve any problem by going off on a tangent that isn't consistent with what is already known. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveyJ
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
just to say aggle rithm that analogy of the crossword and the ct theory is brilliant.
________
buy silversurfer vaporizer
Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Certainly, it's possible that it's flawed in minor details, but highly unlikely that any of the major conclusions are off-base. |
| Quote: | | our purpose was not to assign blame to individuals for 9/11. |
from the lips of Kean and Hamilton themselves.
doesn't this worry you just slightly?
i suppose it depends on what you class as 'minor details'
would the source of atta's funding be a minor detail?
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How many people joined this forum with the knowledge 911 wasn't done by Osama but elements much closer to home then have read what the critics corner crew have said and changed their minds? answer=zero
how many of the critics corner creeps like jayref, chipmonkstu, aggle-, gravy, state of grace, conspskeptic have come here with an agenda to sow doubt into people who believe the above but have later realised their error? answer=zero
time to ask what their purpose is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chill ally
the most effective way of dealing with critics is by being calm and reasonable.
if there are any 'shills' or agents on the board, they are only 1 or 2 i think.
and we can't conclude that there are any atall
some of the critics you mentioned there are actually looking at the evidence i think. so lets not bark at them for not adopting our opinions 100%
depending on your perception of the world, people form different opinions.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
What is the purpose of dissenting opinion? Did you seriously ask that question?
From a "shill" (according to chek, i'm even getting paid)... let me give you a hint: It helps you (the CTers) strengthen your argument by removing the weak points and fallacies (when you admit to them, anyway), finding the irregularities, and helping you to anticipate likely objections and be prepared for them.
Not to mention, if you actually cared about finding the truth, no opinion would be "off-limits" from consideration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | What is the purpose of dissenting opinion? Did you seriously ask that question?
From a "shill" (according to chek, i'm even getting paid)... let me give you a hint: It helps you (the CTers) strengthen your argument by removing the weak points and fallacies (when you admit to them, anyway), finding the irregularities, and helping you to anticipate likely objections and be prepared for them.
Not to mention, if you actually cared about finding the truth, no opinion would be "off-limits" from consideration. |
There are many examples of disastrous decisions that stemmed from ignoring or banishing dissenting voices and only listening to voices that confirm a predetermined conclusion. Two big ones:
--Bay of Pigs
--Iraq War based on WMD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | What is the purpose of dissenting opinion? Did you seriously ask that question?
From a "shill" (according to chek, i'm even getting paid)... let me give you a hint: It helps you (the CTers) strengthen your argument by removing the weak points and fallacies (when you admit to them, anyway), finding the irregularities, and helping you to anticipate likely objections and be prepared for them.
Not to mention, if you actually cared about finding the truth, no opinion would be "off-limits" from consideration. |
There are many examples of disastrous decisions that stemmed from ignoring or banishing dissenting voices and only listening to voices that confirm a predetermined conclusion. Two big ones:
--Bay of Pigs
--Iraq War based on WMD |
It's very true no opinion should be off limits.
Except obviously the patently stupid ones (such as the gypsum your posse keeps insisting accounts for thermite-like traces).
So why does your 'team' continue to obscure, misrepresent, obfuscate and engage in sophistry if your points are an oh-so reasonable search for truth and light. The all too obvious answer of course, is that is not your agenda at all.
You don't fool me with your holier-than-thou regard for 'the truth', and I'd guess few others either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | What is the purpose of dissenting opinion? Did you seriously ask that question?
From a "shill" (according to chek, i'm even getting paid)... let me give you a hint: It helps you (the CTers) strengthen your argument by removing the weak points and fallacies (when you admit to them, anyway), finding the irregularities, and helping you to anticipate likely objections and be prepared for them.
Not to mention, if you actually cared about finding the truth, no opinion would be "off-limits" from consideration. |
There are many examples of disastrous decisions that stemmed from ignoring or banishing dissenting voices and only listening to voices that confirm a predetermined conclusion. Two big ones:
--Bay of Pigs
--Iraq War based on WMD |
And yet, opinion that diverges from the 911 Commission is not so favourably looked upon by most Critics. The Truth Movement has brought up a number of valid questions. Even if you don't disagree with the official theory, you must admit there are valid concerns with the commission's findings (or lack thereof). Why should these be belittled?
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | What is the purpose of dissenting opinion? Did you seriously ask that question?
From a "shill" (according to chek, i'm even getting paid)... let me give you a hint: It helps you (the CTers) strengthen your argument by removing the weak points and fallacies (when you admit to them, anyway), finding the irregularities, and helping you to anticipate likely objections and be prepared for them.
Not to mention, if you actually cared about finding the truth, no opinion would be "off-limits" from consideration. |
There are many examples of disastrous decisions that stemmed from ignoring or banishing dissenting voices and only listening to voices that confirm a predetermined conclusion. Two big ones:
--Bay of Pigs
--Iraq War based on WMD |
And yet, opinion that diverges from the 911 Commission is not so favourably looked upon by most Critics. The Truth Movement has brought up a number of valid questions. Even if you don't disagree with the official theory, you must admit there are valid concerns with the commission's findings (or lack thereof). Why should these be belittled? |
I only belittle the stupid ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
It's very true no opinion should be off limits.
Except obviously the patently stupid ones (such as the gypsum your posse keeps insisting accounts for thermite-like traces).
|
Can you explain why this is patently stupid? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
It's very true no opinion should be off limits.
Except obviously the patently stupid ones (such as the gypsum your posse keeps insisting accounts for thermite-like traces).
|
Can you explain why this is patently stupid? |
Erm...because houses undergoing renovation would be spontaneously detonating everytime somebody used a rusty shovel to put coal on an aluminium facaded fire?
Also, Jones (yes him again) has done the experiments.
But, being the fair minded guy I am, if you can supply one single provable instance of it ever happening anywhere spontaneously, obviously I will eat my keyboard.
Sound fair? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Erm...because houses undergoing renovation would be spontaneously detonating everytime somebody used a rusty shovel to put coal on an aluminium facaded fire?
Also, Jones (yes him again) has done the experiments.
|
Can you explain how the presence of thermite-like traces from gypsum can cause a house to spontaneously detonate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Erm...because houses undergoing renovation would be spontaneously detonating everytime somebody used a rusty shovel to put coal on an aluminium facaded fire?
Also, Jones (yes him again) has done the experiments.
|
Can you explain how the presence of thermite-like traces from gypsum can cause a house to spontaneously detonate? |
Nope - I just made that bit up. It's completely ridiculous. That's why I always wondered why the no explosives crowd keep bringing it up.
It must be one of the most stable sulphurous compound known to man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh please tell me which Jones' experiment you are refering to... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Oh please tell me which Jones' experiment you are refering to... |
The Great Spontaneously And Naturally Occurring Thermite Experiment, if I recall correctly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just because he couldn't repeat it, doesn't mean it's impossible. Scientists don't draw conclusions based on one data point (especially when that data point is biased). As Eager says, it's a well known reaction:
Example of accident reports in industry from accidental thermite reacions:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=542&parent=506
http://www.harsnet.de/bookmat/Additional_topics.pdf
http://www.chem.mtu.edu/org/aiches&h/newsletters/fall2001.pdf
http://www.safetynet.de/Seiten/articles/HSL.pdf
Pay special attention to the last one. It's a -real- scientific paper, that actually did research into previous work, and cited sources (a shocking concept, I know). For instance, it contains this citation, as well. I suggest you head up to your closet university's science library and look it up, as well:
12. Gibson, N. et al. Fire hazards in chemical plant from friction sparks involving the thermite reaction. I. Chem. E. Symposium Series No. 25 (1968: Instn Chem Engrs, London).
Here are some choice quotes from the last pdf on that list:
| Quote: |
A very incendive type of spark is produced if the impacting materials can produce the
thermite reaction. Gibson et al (12) used a stainless steel hammer striking a rusty mild steel
target with an aluminium smear to test for ignition of dusts. Of the 95 powders used 46
produced flame following a thermite flash, of which 27 produced flames that propagated
beyond the ignition zone.
|
| Quote: |
Only
if the soft metal became impregnated with rust and aluminium after repeated impacts did
the reaction occur. Hard metals such as steels and brass readily produced the thermite
reaction.
|
Feel free to ignore this, and all the other evidence that your holy paper is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Just because he couldn't repeat it, doesn't mean it's impossible. Scientists don't draw conclusions based on one data point (especially when that data point is biased). As Eager says, it's a well known reaction:
Example of accident reports in industry from accidental thermite reacions:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=542&parent=506
http://www.harsnet.de/bookmat/Additional_topics.pdf
http://www.chem.mtu.edu/org/aiches&h/newsletters/fall2001.pdf
http://www.safetynet.de/Seiten/articles/HSL.pdf
Pay special attention to the last one. It's a -real- scientific paper, that actually did research into previous work, and cited sources (a shocking concept, I know). For instance, it contains this citation, as well. I suggest you head up to your closet university's science library and look it up, as well:
12. Gibson, N. et al. Fire hazards in chemical plant from friction sparks involving the thermite reaction. I. Chem. E. Symposium Series No. 25 (1968: Instn Chem Engrs, London).
Here are some choice quotes from the last pdf on that list:
| Quote: |
A very incendive type of spark is produced if the impacting materials can produce the
thermite reaction. Gibson et al (12) used a stainless steel hammer striking a rusty mild steel
target with an aluminium smear to test for ignition of dusts. Of the 95 powders used 46
produced flame following a thermite flash, of which 27 produced flames that propagated
beyond the ignition zone.
|
| Quote: |
Only
if the soft metal became impregnated with rust and aluminium after repeated impacts did
the reaction occur. Hard metals such as steels and brass readily produced the thermite
reaction.
|
Feel free to ignore this, and all the other evidence that your holy paper is wrong. |
I will get round to reading those, but not right now it's late here.
But two things first.
From your extracts it seems there's a 50/50 chance of accidental impact thermite formation...that then becomes so energetic it can flood the basements with molten slag for weeks? That's some reaction. I'd like to see that experiment - I hope that's in the links.
Also, as you're more well versed in these details than your initial replies suggested, I'm interested in why you profess no abnormality in the very specific residue analysis, or the molten steel that was present for 'weeks'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
From your extracts it seems there's a 50/50 chance of accidental impact thermite formation...that then becomes so energetic it can flood the basements with molten slag for weeks? That's some reaction. |
Read it carefully (I only quoted parts), the experiments has to do with different types of metal (like zinc and other things). It states, clearly, that the runs involving hard metals (like iron and steel) work like a charm for starting a reaction. Thermite is exothermic. The hard part is getting it started. With large quantities of ingredients it will spread very rapidly, and violently. The energy released cause the reactive mix to spray everywhere. Aluminum also reduces water vapor, releasing hydrogen, will can further keep the fire going. All in all, once it is started, it is a very nasty reaction. So, your last statement is exactly right: It is some reaction.
| Quote: |
as you're more well versed in these details than your initial replies suggested
|
Well, you are finally catching on.
| Quote: |
I'm interested in why you profess no abnormality in the very specific residue analysis
|
Which residue are you refering to, specially
| Quote: |
or the molten steel that was present for 'weeks'.
|
Well, on theory says that all the water was being reduced by the elemental aluminum dust in the rubble, and then re-burning as hydrogen. In other words, for weeks afterwards, the water being sprayed was burning aluminum.
I don't even need to go that, far, however, because heat has to go somewhere, and giant rubble piles are pretty good insulators. I don't see any evidence that if molten metal was there at the start, it should have been "gone" in a week. That sounds like an appeal to intuition to me. If you have some analysis showing the rates it should have cooled, I'd like to see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
