| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Have they bought a piece of box section steel and cut it using thermite?
If not, why not?
Ask yourself why the truth movement claims this is possible, but cannot show it to be possible. Surely it should be simple, unless it is impossible? |
I think the part where an airliner crashes into the experiment without damaging the thermite is the sticky point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Have they bought a piece of box section steel and cut it using thermite?
If not, why not?
Ask yourself why the truth movement claims this is possible, but cannot show it to be possible. Surely it should be simple, unless it is impossible? |
I think the part where an airliner crashes into the experiment without damaging the thermite is the sticky point. |
I think those pre impact, impact point explosions clearly filmed in both impacts suggest the impact points were pre-ordained. No I haven't been down the ironmonger purchased a box steel section and attempted to chevron cut it with thermite, thermate or any of the exotic advanced military incendiaries, unknown to the world's biggest demolition firms, spoken about in the film '911 mysteries' Something must have cut them and left all that molten metal in pools 8 weeks after "Bin Ladin brought the towers down", your best explanation is 'one to two hour carbon fires with 60 to 80 floors of rubble below them and blanketed by 20 to 40 floors of rubble above them burned and burned getting hotter and hotter until they somehow reached the melting point of steel'. As I understand it steel only gets as hot as the temperature applied to it, maybe you know different? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveyJ
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No I wrote...'or any of the exotic advanced military incendiaries,unknown to the world's biggest demolitionn firms,spoken about in the film '911 mysteries' I wasn't talking about thermite or thermate, please keep up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
I think those pre impact, impact point explosions clearly filmed in both impacts suggest the impact points were pre-ordained.
|
Or, it could suggest that there was a high-energy collision at the impact point. Why is this not a possibility in your mind? And why is it necessary to set off explosives right as the planes hit, then again after the buildings had burned for a while?
| Quote: | | No I haven't been down the ironmonger purchased a box steel section and attempted to chevron cut it with thermite, thermate or any of the exotic advanced military incendiaries, unknown to the world's biggest demolition firms, spoken about in the film '911 mysteries' Something must have cut them and left all that molten metal in pools 8 weeks after "Bin Ladin brought the towers down", your best explanation is 'one to two hour carbon fires with 60 to 80 floors of rubble below them and blanketed by 20 to 40 floors of rubble above them burned and burned getting hotter and hotter until they somehow reached the melting point of steel'. As I understand it steel only gets as hot as the temperature applied to it, maybe you know different? |
Do you have evidence that there was MOLTEN STEEL in the basement, other than the testimony of someone who said, "hey, look, molten steel"? A picture would be nice, although it wouldn't really prove anything, since you can't perform spectography on a picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | I think those pre impact, impact point explosions clearly filmed in both impacts ... |
And yet, in a previous discussion with me you say "if the Naudet film of the north tower is too far and unfocussed you cannot say for definite whether it was post impact, the shadow clearly shows it was not in my opinion after many viewings" i.e. drone-believing gibberish
All of a sudden it's "clearly filmed" ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
I think those pre impact, impact point explosions clearly filmed in both impacts suggest the impact points were pre-ordained.
|
Or, it could suggest that there was a high-energy collision at the impact point. Why is this not a possibility in your mind? And why is it necessary to set off explosives right as the planes hit, then again after the buildings had burned for a while?
WELL THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THE FORMER.DON'T KNOW, YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK THE EVIL-DOERS THAT.
| Quote: | | No I haven't been down the ironmonger purchased a box steel section and attempted to chevron cut it with thermite, thermate or any of the exotic advanced military incendiaries, unknown to the world's biggest demolition firms, spoken about in the film '911 mysteries' Something must have cut them and left all that molten metal in pools 8 weeks after "Bin Ladin brought the towers down", your best explanation is 'one to two hour carbon fires with 60 to 80 floors of rubble below them and blanketed by 20 to 40 floors of rubble above them burned and burned getting hotter and hotter until they somehow reached the melting point of steel'. As I understand it steel only gets as hot as the temperature applied to it, maybe you know different? |
Do you have evidence that there was MOLTEN STEEL in the basement, other than the testimony of someone who said, "hey, look, molten steel"? A picture would be nice, although it wouldn't really prove anything, since you can't perform spectography on a picture. |
I BELIEVE THERE WERE SATELLITE THERMAL IMAGES OF THESE HOT SPOTS TAKEN LONG AFTER 9/11 (I'm not shouting btw) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | I think those pre impact, impact point explosions clearly filmed in both impacts ... |
And yet, in a previous discussion with me you say "if the Naudet film of the north tower is too far and unfocussed you cannot say for definite whether it was post impact, the shadow clearly shows it was not in my opinion after many viewings" i.e. drone-believing gibberish
All of a sudden it's "clearly filmed" ??? |
So you know and I don't? am i addressing ...G-O-D? great honour sir/madam! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Have they bought a piece of box section steel and cut it using thermite?
If not, why not?
Ask yourself why the truth movement claims this is possible, but cannot show it to be possible. Surely it should be simple, unless it is impossible? |
I think the part where an airliner crashes into the experiment without damaging the thermite is the sticky point. |
I think those pre impact, impact point explosions clearly filmed in both impacts suggest the impact points were pre-ordained. No I haven't been down the ironmonger purchased a box steel section and attempted to chevron cut it with thermite, thermate or any of the exotic advanced military incendiaries, unknown to the world's biggest demolition firms, spoken about in the film '911 mysteries' Something must have cut them and left all that molten metal in pools 8 weeks after "Bin Ladin brought the towers down", your best explanation is 'one to two hour carbon fires with 60 to 80 floors of rubble below them and blanketed by 20 to 40 floors of rubble above them burned and burned getting hotter and hotter until they somehow reached the melting point of steel'. As I understand it steel only gets as hot as the temperature applied to it, maybe you know different? |
Ok, I see we're having trouble with this.
It doesn't matter what the official report says, you and other CTists claim that the steel was cut with thermite. You need to show that this is something that is possible. Why? Because if you can't, then I can equally say that the planes brought down the towers, and then not provide evidence that this is something that is possible. Do you see? Without evidence that something is possible, we can all make claims until the cow come home. It doesn't make them true.
So, how do we get around this?
Shopping list:
Steel girder
Thermite
Show it's possible. But no-one in the CT world is doing this, they just say it's possible. Saying something doesn't make it true. In theory I could jump over a small building. I can jump over a 1:10 scale model, so all I have to do to get over a full size building is jump 10 times higher, right?
That's where the thermite hypothesis falls down. Sure, it cuts vertically through a car engine in Brainiac, so all you have to do is turn it through 90 degrees, use a bit more, and it'll cut horizontally through a steel beam, right?
See how you can't make things work like that?
Now ask yourself why no CTist is doing the experiment. It's because it won't work. It's not because they can't do the experiment, it's quite easy. Steel can be bought and thermite can be made, so the experiment can be done. It's just the results you want can't be obtained, that's why the experiment isn't being done.
Do you also see how the goalposts move. First it was thermite, then thermate, and now it's creeping towards a secret exotic military incendiary. Why is that? Becuase thermite and thermate can be shown to not work, so now it changes to an "exotic incendiary" because this thing doesn't really exist. It's a magic formula that will solve any problem, because it doesn't exist, it cannot be tested, and its properties will change to fit any problems that critics come up with. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be fireproof and impact resistant to withstand the plane crashes, super reactive, so only tiny amounts would be needed, meaning that it would be easy to smuggle into the towers, that kind of thing.
_________________
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 |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Have they bought a piece of box section steel and cut it using thermite?
If not, why not?
Ask yourself why the truth movement claims this is possible, but cannot show it to be possible. Surely it should be simple, unless it is impossible? |
I think the part where an airliner crashes into the experiment without damaging the thermite is the sticky point. |
I think those pre impact, impact point explosions clearly filmed in both impacts suggest the impact points were pre-ordained. No I haven't been down the ironmonger purchased a box steel section and attempted to chevron cut it with thermite, thermate or any of the exotic advanced military incendiaries, unknown to the world's biggest demolition firms, spoken about in the film '911 mysteries' Something must have cut them and left all that molten metal in pools 8 weeks after "Bin Ladin brought the towers down", your best explanation is 'one to two hour carbon fires with 60 to 80 floors of rubble below them and blanketed by 20 to 40 floors of rubble above them burned and burned getting hotter and hotter until they somehow reached the melting point of steel'. As I understand it steel only gets as hot as the temperature applied to it, maybe you know different? |
Ok, I see we're having trouble with this.
It doesn't matter what the official report says, you and other CTists claim that the steel was cut with thermite. You need to show that this is something that is possible. Why? Because if you can't, then I can equally say that the planes brought down the towers, and then not provide evidence that this is something that is possible. Do you see? Without evidence that something is possible, we can all make claims until the cow come home. It doesn't make them true.
So, how do we get around this?
Shopping list:
Steel girder
Thermite
Show it's possible. But no-one in the CT world is doing this, they just say it's possible. Saying something doesn't make it true. In theory I could jump over a small building. I can jump over a 1:10 scale model, so all I have to do to get over a full size building is jump 10 times higher, right?
That's where the thermite hypothesis falls down. Sure, it cuts vertically through a car engine in Brainiac, so all you have to do is turn it through 90 degrees, use a bit more, and it'll cut horizontally through a steel beam, right?
See how you can't make things work like that?
Now ask yourself why no CTist is doing the experiment. It's because it won't work. It's not because they can't do the experiment, it's quite easy. Steel can be bought and thermite can be made, so the experiment can be done. It's just the results you want can't be obtained, that's why the experiment isn't being done.
Do you also see how the goalposts move. First it was thermite, then thermate, and now it's creeping towards a secret exotic military incendiary. Why is that? Becuase thermite and thermate can be shown to not work, so now it changes to an "exotic incendiary" because this thing doesn't really exist. It's a magic formula that will solve any problem, because it doesn't exist, it cannot be tested, and its properties will change to fit any problems that critics come up with. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be fireproof and impact resistant to withstand the plane crashes, super reactive, so only tiny amounts would be needed, meaning that it would be easy to smuggle into the towers, that kind of thing. |
Yes yes , but you have to come up with an explanation as to how all that molten metal was found below the rubble weeks after your 19 terrorists freefall collapsed three skyscrapers with two hijacked commercial airliners.I'm presuming your a proponent of the NIST line ...'the fires at the 60th and 80th floors freefell onto the rubble below and carried on burning despite the oxygen starvation factor of the rubble blanket above, getting hotter and hotter and transferring this heat by conduction to metal in the rubble which then collected in pools in the basement remaining molten for several weeks' have I got that right?
Are you saying it is impossible to demolish steel framed buildings? what are your views on the film '911 Mysteries'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Are you saying it is impossible to demolish steel framed buildings? |
For sizeable buildings they typically pre-cut the girders with torches - to weaken them and reduce the amount of steel that then needs removing with directional shaped-charge devices.
Thermite is nowhere to be found for cutting vertical steel sections. Do you get it yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
Yes yes , but you have to come up with an explanation as to how all that molten metal was found below the rubble weeks after your 19 terrorists freefall collapsed three skyscrapers with two hijacked commercial airliners.I'm presuming your a proponent of the NIST line ...'the fires at the 60th and 80th floors freefell onto the rubble below and carried on burning despite the oxygen starvation factor of the rubble blanket above, getting hotter and hotter and transferring this heat by conduction to metal in the rubble which then collected in pools in the basement remaining molten for several weeks' have I got that right?
Are you saying it is impossible to demolish steel framed buildings? what are your views on the film '911 Mysteries'? |
No, I don't have to come up with any explanation. You have to prove that thermite can cut through a vertical steel column. I don't care what NIST says, it hays nothing to do with what you and other CTists should be doing.
Buy a piece of box section steel, get some thermite, cut the column with thermite.
Why is that so hard?
Just do it.
_________________
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 |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Have they bought a piece of box section steel and cut it using thermite?
If not, why not?
Ask yourself why the truth movement claims this is possible, but cannot show it to be possible. Surely it should be simple, unless it is impossible? |
I think the part where an airliner crashes into the experiment without damaging the thermite is the sticky point. |
I think those pre impact, impact point explosions clearly filmed in both impacts suggest the impact points were pre-ordained. No I haven't been down the ironmonger purchased a box steel section and attempted to chevron cut it with thermite, thermate or any of the exotic advanced military incendiaries, unknown to the world's biggest demolition firms, spoken about in the film '911 mysteries' Something must have cut them and left all that molten metal in pools 8 weeks after "Bin Ladin brought the towers down", your best explanation is 'one to two hour carbon fires with 60 to 80 floors of rubble below them and blanketed by 20 to 40 floors of rubble above them burned and burned getting hotter and hotter until they somehow reached the melting point of steel'. As I understand it steel only gets as hot as the temperature applied to it, maybe you know different? |
Ok, I see we're having trouble with this.
It doesn't matter what the official report says, you and other CTists claim that the steel was cut with thermite. You need to show that this is something that is possible. Why? Because if you can't, then I can equally say that the planes brought down the towers, and then not provide evidence that this is something that is possible. Do you see? Without evidence that something is possible, we can all make claims until the cow come home. It doesn't make them true.
So, how do we get around this?
Shopping list:
Steel girder
Thermite
Show it's possible. But no-one in the CT world is doing this, they just say it's possible. Saying something doesn't make it true. In theory I could jump over a small building. I can jump over a 1:10 scale model, so all I have to do to get over a full size building is jump 10 times higher, right?
That's where the thermite hypothesis falls down. Sure, it cuts vertically through a car engine in Brainiac, so all you have to do is turn it through 90 degrees, use a bit more, and it'll cut horizontally through a steel beam, right?
See how you can't make things work like that?
Now ask yourself why no CTist is doing the experiment. It's because it won't work. It's not because they can't do the experiment, it's quite easy. Steel can be bought and thermite can be made, so the experiment can be done. It's just the results you want can't be obtained, that's why the experiment isn't being done.
Do you also see how the goalposts move. First it was thermite, then thermate, and now it's creeping towards a secret exotic military incendiary. Why is that? Becuase thermite and thermate can be shown to not work, so now it changes to an "exotic incendiary" because this thing doesn't really exist. It's a magic formula that will solve any problem, because it doesn't exist, it cannot be tested, and its properties will change to fit any problems that critics come up with. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be fireproof and impact resistant to withstand the plane crashes, super reactive, so only tiny amounts would be needed, meaning that it would be easy to smuggle into the towers, that kind of thing. |
Yes yes , but you have to come up with an explanation as to how all that molten metal was found below the rubble weeks after your 19 terrorists freefall collapsed three skyscrapers with two hijacked commercial airliners.I'm presuming your a proponent of the NIST line ...'the fires at the 60th and 80th floors freefell onto the rubble below and carried on burning despite the oxygen starvation factor of the rubble blanket above, getting hotter and hotter and transferring this heat by conduction to metal in the rubble which then collected in pools in the basement remaining molten for several weeks' have I got that right?
Are you saying it is impossible to demolish steel framed buildings? what are your views on the film '911 Mysteries'? |
Sheriton, if you don't mind me butting in here, you can get so far with idiots - they can learn, but tend to be limited by their intelligence.
You get nowhere with obstructive idiots because they don't want to know.
Traces of super-thermate have been found by Jones, so the how is not necessary at this stage - it's the why and who that is important.
These shills are only filling in their own time and trying to wear you down asking you to account for things that nobody on the outside can possibly know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Traces of super-thermate have been found by Jones,
|
Traces which COULD HAVE been produced by a super-thermate reaction, or by any number of other reactions, such as sheetrock ignited by kerosene.
| Quote: | so the how is not necessary at this stage - it's the why and who that is important.
|
Oh, good, you've now moved on to the Bigfoot strategy -- sidestep the issue of whether there IS a phenomena, and talk instead about the supposed properties of this phenomena as if its existence were not an issue.
| Quote: |
These shills are only filling in their own time and trying to wear you down asking you to account for things that nobody on the outside can possibly know. |
But we CAN know whether thermite or thermate can cut through a horizontal steel bar. You get a steel bar, you get some thermite.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Traces of super-thermate have been found by Jones,
|
Traces which COULD HAVE been produced by a super-thermate reaction, or by any number of other reactions, such as sheetrock ignited by kerosene.
Could have how, oh wise one? And when did this eminently possible scenario ever happen before even in a lab. I'll save you looking. It doesn't.
| Quote: | so the how is not necessary at this stage - it's the why and who that is important.
|
Oh, good, you've now moved on to the Bigfoot strategy -- sidestep the issue of whether there IS a phenomena, and talk instead about the supposed properties of this phenomena as if its existence were not an issue.
The presence isn't in doubt oh wise one, it's why it was there and who put it there are the naturally following questions once thats established which it has been. Get it?
| Quote: |
These shills are only filling in their own time and trying to wear you down asking you to account for things that nobody on the outside can possibly know. |
But we CAN know whether thermite or thermate can cut through a horizontal steel bar. You get a steel bar, you get some thermite.... |
So, in the words of your followers oh wise one - go do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
So, in the words of your followers oh wise one - go do it. |
Surely I don't have to explain to you the concept of the burden of proof, do I? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
So, in the words of your followers oh wise one - go do it. |
Surely I don't have to explain to you the concept of the burden of proof, do I? |
As though you're the least bit interested in 'proof' eh?
And that doesn't need explaining to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
So, in the words of your followers oh wise one - go do it. |
Surely I don't have to explain to you the concept of the burden of proof, do I? |
As though you're the least bit interested in 'proof' eh?
And that doesn't need explaining to me. |
Just do the experiment. It's not that hard. Your argument is like this:
Let's all go to the moon for a holiday. When we do we'll play golf, go for a swim and sit around on the beach all day. How we get there isn't important, just what we'll do when we are there.
or:
When I win the lottery I'm going to buy a speedboat, a fast car and a new house. I don't play the lottery, but the how I get the money isn't important, just what I'd spend it on.
So, why isn't anyone doing this experiment in the CT community? They claim it's possible, so it should be easy to show that it can be done. But they're not doing it. That suggests either:
a) It can't be done, so they are liars
or
b) They can't be bothered to do it, so they are hypocrites.
Why isn't this simple test being done?
_________________
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 |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
So, in the words of your followers oh wise one - go do it. |
Surely I don't have to explain to you the concept of the burden of proof, do I? |
As though you're the least bit interested in 'proof' eh?
And that doesn't need explaining to me. |
Just do the experiment. It's not that hard. Your argument is like this:
Let's all go to the moon for a holiday. When we do we'll play golf, go for a swim and sit around on the beach all day. How we get there isn't important, just what we'll do when we are there.
or:
When I win the lottery I'm going to buy a speedboat, a fast car and a new house. I don't play the lottery, but the how I get the money isn't important, just what I'd spend it on.
So, why isn't anyone doing this experiment in the CT community? They claim it's possible, so it should be easy to show that it can be done. But they're not doing it. That suggests either:
a) It can't be done, so they are liars
or
b) They can't be bothered to do it, so they are hypocrites.
Why isn't this simple test being done? |
Does the word 'specious' mean anything to you?
You'll be hearing it a lot with your rather manic logic.
The chemical constituents have been detected (by Jones).
That is as much as is needed, not your ridiculous reasonings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Does the word 'specious' mean anything to you?
You'll be hearing it a lot with your rather manic logic.
The chemical constituents have been detected (by Jones).
That is as much as is needed, not your ridiculous reasonings. |
Are you serious?
Let's take an example. From wikipedia:
"A thermite reaction is a type of aluminothermic reaction in which aluminium metal is oxidized by the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide. The name thermite is also used to refer to a mixture of two such chemicals. The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron, and a large amount of heat."
By your logic, the World Trade Centre contained evidence of thermite before it collapsed, because it contained aluminium, iron, iron oxide, and aluminium oxide.
That's why you need to do the experiment. So do it.
_________________
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 |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You must admit your 'pools of molten metal found in the basements 8 weeks later from one and two hour smokey carbon' fires' arguement does little for your credibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What do you suggest enabled there to be "pools of molten metal" found at the site 8 weeks later? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | | What do you suggest enabled there to be "pools of molten metal" found at the site 8 weeks later? |
I think it's a safe bet it must have been a greater energy source than the one NIST are trying to sell us...' two fires that freefell onto 60 and 80 floors of rubble and 6 basement floors of rubble with an oxygen restricting blanket of 40 and 20 floors of rubble on top of them somehow burning hot enough to cause pools of molten metal in the lowest basements eight weeks later' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why is it a safe bet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | | Why is it a safe bet? |
UH? I suggest you do the maths |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | Why is it a safe bet? |
UH? I suggest you do the maths |
I suggest you do the experiment. Cut a vertical steel column with thermite.
You can also leave some thermite in a pile of rubble for several weeks and see if it creates and maintains pools of molten metal. But I suggest you start with the easier and cheaper first experiment to begin with.
_________________
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: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought the purpose of the truth movement was to inform the general public of what happened on 11/9. And so to build a ground swell of support for a new independant enquiry into the events. So I have asked you a question about what you think happened, specifically why you reject the official reports findings about just this one point. And your response is to dismiss me with "go do the math." Well that's not very convincing to me.
If you think it is a safe bet that NIST are wrong, or being deliberately misleading, then surely you must have already "done the math" yourself as part of your research. It would surely be trivial to explain your findings to me. Just show me your working out and I will tell you if I get stuck, or if I need something explaining to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | Why is it a safe bet? |
UH? I suggest you do the maths |
I suggest you do the experiment. Cut a vertical steel column with thermite.
You can also leave some thermite in a pile of rubble for several weeks and see if it creates and maintains pools of molten metal. But I suggest you start with the easier and cheaper first experiment to begin with. |
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | I thought the purpose of the truth movement was to inform the general public of what happened on 11/9. And so to build a ground swell of support for a new independant enquiry into the events. So I have asked you a question about what you think happened, specifically why you reject the official reports findings about just this one point. And your response is to dismiss me with "go do the math." Well that's not very convincing to me.
If you think it is a safe bet that NIST are wrong, or being deliberately misleading, then surely you must have already "done the math" yourself as part of your research. It would surely be trivial to explain your findings to me. Just show me your working out and I will tell you if I get stuck, or if I need something explaining to me. |
It's quite a simple equation...steel can get no hotter than the heat applied to it, end of' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:58 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? |
In physics, more precise terms than "smokey", "80 floors or rubble", and "metal" are normally used, so you haven't provided enough information to answer the question.
You would have to know such variables as the amount of fuel available, the amount of oxygen available, what kind of metal, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
