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

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

'False Flag 9/11 truthers'
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

aggle-rithm wrote:

chek wrote:

It's indicative of how much energy was required to accomplish that process, and that far exceeds by an order of magnitude the available potential and kinetic gravitational energy. A true smoking gun.

Google Jim Hoffman and Jeff King if the calculations will mean anything to you.

I googled them, but couldn't find any calculations. I wonder why?

I would be more inclined to trust their expertise if they weren't electrical/software engineers (supposedly) speaking on a topic outside of their fields.

Yeah right, physicists, just one-trick ponies aren't they?
I understand Kevin Ryan was in charge of water standards, and Einstein was only a patent clerk. What would they know?

And regrettably I recognise the level and tenor of this type of pseudo-discussion and that's me.
I'm out of here.
Have fun!

Well in your own private moments, then, for your own edification, I urge you:
--Check up on the premise that all the concrete was pulverized to sub-100 micron particles. I think you'll find it incorrect. If not:
--Check up on how much explosives would be required to cover the supposed energy deficit in the total pulverization/pyroclastic flow analyses. I think you'll find that the amount is absurdly high.

These are not trick questions. They are foundational premises.

Oh ok just this once.
Funny thing is I googled Jim Hoffman +dustcloud and it was the very first hit! How weird is that? maybe you're just not *ready* to find it yet Smile

And I have to agree you were right about the particle size - it's closer to 60 micron but I was being generous before.
I mean like wow - that's EVEN MORE energy required to work a milling machine EVEN FINER than I said originally.
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2002/110p703-714lioy/abstract.html

Indeed you're right, an absurdly high amount of explosives would be needed (and where does that leave the poor old energy-impoverished gravity collapse?).

I tend towards considering something far more exotic and even more psychically shocking than the Twin Tower demolition itself, if those 'dangerous' radiation areas keep multiplying in New York coincidentally at the WTC steel collecting points. (Google Staten Island Park and radiation).
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4586185

I mean, strictly theoretically and without prejudice - could you imagine what the effect would be be if the citizens of NYC were to find out rogue elements within their own government had nuked them? 3 times?

Man, those New Yorkers would hang them all on Liberty's crown.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:07 am Post subject:

Assuming that all of the particles were 60 microns based on that evidence would be fallacious. Using a 60 micron average for your calculations, therefore, would be silly. For instance, here is a chunk of several floors of concrete merged. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that's larger than 60 microns. http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.p hotogallery?index=37 Reading a paper by those worried about the health effects of the dust, which states that 60 microns is representative of the dust from the towers, and then concluding that all of the tower must have turned to dust is both fallacious and provably false (unless you consider my image, above, to be a lie). Therefore any energy calculation must take into account the amount of pulverization (which we see is not complete), and accurately account for this.

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:48 am Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

Assuming that all of the particles were 60 microns based on that evidence would be fallacious. Using a 60 micron average for your calculations, therefore, would be silly.

For instance, here is a chunk of several floors of concrete merged. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that's larger than 60 microns.
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.p hotogallery?index=37

Reading a paper by those worried about the health effects of the dust, which states that 60 microns is representative of the dust from the towers, and then concluding that all of the tower must have turned to dust is both fallacious and provably false (unless you consider my image, above, to be a lie). Therefore any energy calculation must take into account the amount of pulverization (which we see is not complete), and accurately account for this.

Ah yes - the 'meteorite'. Good call.

Firstly nobody claims 'all' that is, the totality of the building turned to dust. It was about 99% of all non-metallic objects
(and of course the minute fragments human bones exploded and strewn to the rooftops of nearby buildings. - never forget what it is YOU are helping COVER UP and the mass murderers YOU are helping stay free by YOUR activities).

Now back to the meteorite.
I'd love to hear your plausible explanation for that.
Yessir, indeed I would.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Now back to the meteorite.
I'd love to hear your plausible explanation for that.
Yessir, indeed I would.

Oh, that's easy. The force of the entire upper building, falling onto the lower section, "fused" a few of the floors together.

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

chek wrote:

Now back to the meteorite.
I'd love to hear your plausible explanation for that.
Yessir, indeed I would.

Oh, that's easy. The force of the entire upper building, falling onto the lower section, "fused" a few of the floors together.

Why of course it did.
And - like so many other 'accepted' phenomena that occurred on 911 -
I look forward to your evidence regarding that rather fanciful if not totally misleading statement, from the hundreds of other collapsed buildings there have been.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject:

If someone a little more rational wants to discuss the issue, let me know, but I'm not going to get into a conversation with chek.

mkpdavies
Minor Poster

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 44

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:

The very least EVERYONE should expect, is a thorough forensic investigation into the way the skyscrapers fell. Forget the cause even, but when you consider these are cities within a building, you would hope that they could withstand a plane crashing into it, or at least manage to stay up for more then an hour or two. If the lessons into why it was so easy for them to be brought down isn't learnt, then that really is incompetent and puts doubt on all future constructions of skyscrapers. Is there anyone here that actually doesn't even want that?

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject:

mkpdavies wrote:

The very least EVERYONE should expect, is a thorough forensic investigation into the way the skyscrapers fell.

It's been done by the National Institutes of Standards.

Quote:

If the lessons into why it was so easy for them to be brought down isn't learnt, then that really is incompetent and puts doubt on all future constructions of skyscrapers.

NIST is way ahead of you. That's exactly what they are doing...

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/final_towers_rpt102605.htm
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/861/861pubs/collapse/index.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/Oct_24-25mtgsummary.pdf

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:50 pm Post subject:

mkpdavies wrote:

The very least EVERYONE should expect, is a thorough forensic investigation into the way the skyscrapers fell.

Forget the cause even, but when you consider these are cities within a building, you would hope that they could withstand a plane crashing into it, or at least manage to stay up for more then an hour or two.

If the lessons into why it was so easy for them to be brought down isn't learnt, then that really is incompetent and puts doubt on all future constructions of skyscrapers.

Is there anyone here that actually doesn't even want that?

You touch on one of the unfortunate long term side effects that hasn't generally been realised, let alone addressed yet.

The suppression (I'm thinking of the suspension of BYU's Stephen Jones here) and subversion (and I'm specifically thinking of MIT's Thomas Eager here) of academic and scientific institutions will, in conjunction with the ongoing Creationist attack on science, have unknown effects on a formerly generally rational and technically advanced country.

Just today I read that the Senate has approved to legally bypass the Geneva Conventions. State, religion and torture. It's medieval times all over again.

It may sound only apocryphal, but a society built on a lie has no sound foundation or legitimacy.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Anti-sophist wrote:

chek wrote:

Now back to the meteorite.
I'd love to hear your plausible explanation for that.
Yessir, indeed I would.

Oh, that's easy. The force of the entire upper building, falling onto the lower section, "fused" a few of the floors together.

I'll give it one try chek.
Kinetic energy, and lots of it, as the mass of the collapsing building comes to a sudden halt. That energy firstly compresses the remains as far as physics allows. Any remaining energy becomes heat.
The kinetic energy of the falling WTC1+2 massively exceeds that of any other collapsed building in history.

John White
Site Admin

Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: 'False Flag 9/11 truthers'

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

...Does anyone here suspect such individuals exist pushing absurd CT's, and if it were proven they do exist, what would it say about their paymasters 9/11 guilt or innocence?

It is very very likely Sheriton Hotel: no better way to demolish opposition than distort it with ludicrousness, and in a very pertinant sense, what internal intelligence agencies are for. Information on the Internet in particular is a crucial strategic plank of "full spectrum dominance"

Of course, left brain thinkers will want to see concrete proof of that, which they wont get, and thats why the techniques of dis-information work

I see such matters as part of the background "noise" thrown up by the system to confuse and bemuse any attempts to move out of its mental frequancy

I also firmly believe that common sense, balance and clarity can get us past it (COINTELPRO) and keep the campaign effective regardless, by putting our attention where we most wish it to be and not letting it be sucked into fruit loops and logic traps

But then I've seen a lot of disinformation over the years (having come in part from the UK UFO scene). I'd be fibbing if I said I didnt consider a lot of people lambs to the slaughter with this kind of stuff but one can only do ones best to be helpful generally: people have to learn to stand on their own feet or, to be blunt, they're not a lot of use as truthseekers
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: Re: 'False Flag 9/11 truthers'

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

...Does anyone here suspect such individuals exist pushing absurd CT's, and if it were proven they do exist, what would it say about their paymasters 9/11 guilt or innocence?

Sheriton, you would be one of them.

You believe in the drone theory. You don't see the absurdity of your own CT, or you're deliberately subverting the CT cause.

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

Anti-sophist wrote:

chek wrote:

Now back to the meteorite.
I'd love to hear your plausible explanation for that.
Yessir, indeed I would.

Oh, that's easy. The force of the entire upper building, falling onto the lower section, "fused" a few of the floors together.

Ah - it was a trick question I fear Ignatz, in that what was illustrated is the famous 'meteorite', which is a chunk of fused steel and concrete (and God knows what else) produced by temperatures calculated to be greater than 5000F. NIST doesn't address the excessive heat issue whatsoever - they have a hard enough time manufacturing and transferring all the (supposedly) available heat to the structure to make it fall down.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

According to Hoffman's figures for the dust cloud alone, even were you to lift the whole mass of a Tower to 13,000 feet and drop it, a half million tons landing at 130mph - in one piece - is highly unlikely (oh let's go the whole hog and say impossible) to either turn to dust OR generate temperatures of that magnitude, let alone do both from gravitational energy. And that's his conservative estimate; based on data pieced together after the fact, he considers it more likely to be as high as a hundred times greater (he only has anecdotal evidence for how hot the cloud was, for example).
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev4.html

The jetfuel we can forget about - even when burning in perfect conditions such as inside a jet engine, it can only reach 1400C max. Burning unaspirated and unpressurised in atmosphere, the temperatures would be a maximum of half that, and NIST's own figures show that the samples they examined had only registered sub 400C temperatures - almost a quarter.

I noticed your comments with Brian regarding Press For Truth, and I accept your bona fides interest in the subject(s).
But (and I know this may sound rich coming from this forum) there is a morass of plausible sounding 'commonsense' explanations for some very unexplainable things that happened on 911.
My advice is check if anybody had ever heard of any them beforehand. Such as 'fused concrete' for example.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Where do you get the 5000F figure from? Pleae quote a source.
Temperatures that high would not leave steel elements in the "meteorite" recognisable, unless the 5000F was transient.

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

Where do you get the 5000F figure from? Pleae quote a source.
Temperatures that high would not leave steel elements in the "meteorite" recognisable, unless the 5000F was transient.

It's one of those figures that has stuck in my mind, but I believe it came up when I was looking into any previous similar atifacts, and Chernobyl was the only previous known source.

This link attests to 'greater than 2000C' (3600F) there, but if I can track the original article that I got the 5K figure from I'll get back to you.
However, I think we can still nevertheless agree that temperatures of that range had no business being there given the available reasons?

http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=864065&navID=10&lID=2

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Indeed you're right, an absurdly high amount of explosives would be needed (and where does that leave the poor old energy-impoverished gravity collapse?).

Doesn't this suggest that the theoretical model may be invalid, as opposed to making explosives slightly less implausible than a spontaneous collapse?

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

chek wrote:

Indeed you're right, an absurdly high amount of explosives would be needed (and where does that leave the poor old energy-impoverished gravity collapse?).

Doesn't this suggest that the theoretical model may be invalid, as opposed to making explosives slightly less implausible than a spontaneous collapse?

It certainly shows NIST's model to be invalid. Lots of real world energy evidence and nowhere for it to originate from in their model.

Or did you mean something else?

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

It certainly shows NIST's model to be invalid. Lots of real world energy evidence and nowhere for it to originate from in their model.

Or did you mean something else?

This all reminds me of the myth that calculations have shown that a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly. The truth is, it shouldn't be able to fly if you apply the theoritical model of a fixed-wing aircraft. Clearly, the bumblebee DOES fly, so if you want to argue that it shouldn't be able to, you would have to come up with a more appropriate theoretical model.

My point is that just calculations can be perfectly accurate, but still not applicable to the situation they are supposed to model. I haven't looked closely at the report you have provided, but I would be willing to bet that's what's going on here.

Last edited by aggle-rithm on Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

Where do you get the 5000F figure from? Pleae quote a source.
Temperatures that high would not leave steel elements in the "meteorite" recognisable, unless the 5000F was transient.

Yes, please get back to me with a source. You're trying to suggest that 5000f was present but unexplained, kind of slipping that "fact" into the discussion .... We need to know whether such temperatures were present before we can discuss how they were present.

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

Where do you get the 5000F figure from? Pleae quote a source.
Temperatures that high would not leave steel elements in the "meteorite" recognisable, unless the 5000F was transient.

"The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports."
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=1107937&postcount=18

Now more importantly, can we agree that those temperatures had no business being there?

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports."
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=1107937&postcount=18

Now more importantly, can we agree that those temperatures had no business being there?

I'm still waiting for you to show that those temperatures were there.

Thermite is not an explosive, and is not used in building demolition, so please stop talking about it.

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:40 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to show that those temperatures were there.

Thermite is not an explosive, and is not used in building demolition, so please stop talking about it.

I haven't mentioned thermite.
What I have referred you to is 'the meteorite' composed of fused steel and concrete of a type last produced at Chernobyl with temperatures greater than 3500F and a further reference to evaporated steel produced at temperatires greater than 5000F, together with the known fire heat source of approx 1800F max though probably far lower, and yet further sources showing nowhere near enough kinetic energy - by orders of magnitude - to produce it.
Go back and look at the links if necessary, then let me know how else those temperatures might be accounted for. This discussion can't really move forward until this point is accepted.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

I haven't mentioned thermite.

By you, a little while ago :

chek wrote:

I can now only assume you're trolling. You deny your own statement in the space of an hour.

Have a good life chek.

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

I haven't mentioned thermite.

By you, a little while ago :

chek wrote:

I can now only assume you're trolling. You deny your own statement in the space of an hour.

Have a good life chek.

Duh - that is an author's speculation (as part of a quotation) on the cause of the temperature, not to the temperature that was present itself.

But I guess it is best to bail out before facing something that disturbing, eh? Sleep well through your life.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:48 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

I haven't mentioned thermite.

By you, a little while ago :

chek wrote:

I can now only assume you're trolling. You deny your own statement in the space of an hour.

Have a good life chek.

So you "quote" thermite, but don't "mention" thermite. What's your view then, if you have one?

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

I haven't mentioned thermite.

By you, a little while ago :

chek wrote:

I can now only assume you're trolling. You deny your own statement in the space of an hour.

Have a good life chek.

So you "quote" thermite, but don't "mention" thermite. What's your view then, if you have one?

My opinion is that degree of heat cannot be accounted for according to any mechanisms present in the official explanations, yet without an explanation for that, there is no explanation.

Privately, because of other phenomena I lean towards something more exotic than chemical agents, but that is outside the scope of a critics corner debate.

My view is that the excessive heat alone demands a new investigation.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:17 am Post subject:

[quote="chek"] My opinion is that degree of heat cannot be accounted for according to any mechanisms present in the official explanations,....[quote] What degree of heat? Quote a source man!!

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:57 am Post subject:

[quote="Ignatz"][quote="chek"]
My opinion is that degree of heat cannot be accounted for according to any mechanisms present in the official explanations,....

Quote:

What degree of heat? Quote a source man!!

I had thought that was implicit in previous posts, but never mind. The melting point of steel can be averaged at about 2750°F. It's not an exact figure because steel is an alloy with variable carbon content, but structural steel is hi-quality and towards the high end of the scale.

The boiling point (evaporation erosion requires turning the exposed areas to gas) is roughly double that, 5400F.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99021.htm

The presence of molten steel is astonishing. Evaporated steel is astounding.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:46 am Post subject:

He's just talking to himself, Ignatz. I was here about an hour and a half before realizing that Chek basically talks to himself. He's posted a bunch of messages with a handful of links, none of which answer the basic question you've been asking for this entire page. I don't think he gets it.

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:57 am Post subject:

DaveyJ wrote:

beacuse no one has provided a logical, scientific or beliveable alternative

including the offical version. hence we are here now.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

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 cannot download files in this forum