| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ive read through all the posts here, and can easily see just by going through them that chek has ruffled the critics feathers, they either play dumb,avoid the question or change the subject. i found what chek said very easy to understand and not one answer by a critic to explain what chek was saying. you just get selective answering, "i carnt answer that" "i know ill pick out that one line and go off track, and totally pretend he didnt ask a question". they want a link to the tempretures it would take to make that meteorite lump that they provided a link to, and yet there common sense dosnt tell them that even without an exact tempreture it would take very high tempretures to cause it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | 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. |
Yep, I was living in hope I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | ive read through all the posts here, and can easily see just by going through them that chek has ruffled the critics feathers, they either play dumb,avoid the question or change the subject. i found what chek said very easy to understand and not one answer by a critic to explain what chek was saying. you just get selective answering, "i carnt answer that" "i know ill pick out that one line and go off track, and totally pretend he didnt ask a question". they want a link to the tempretures it would take to make that meteorite lump that they provided a link to, and yet there common sense dosnt tell them that even without an exact tempreture it would take very high tempretures to cause it. |
Indeed Marky - but that is the normal, regular and unchanging MO of the zoo keepers.
You might find one in a hundred 'critics' are genuinely interested in something, the others are just working their shifts with a bit of trolling thrown in for their own amusement.
It's a lo-grade job, but somebody's gotta keep an eye on what passes through these forums.
I've been here before, and I really should know better.
But the 3 things that are going to end the cosy set up are WTC7, the excessive temperatures at Ground Zero and the NORAD non response. These are the key elements they have no answer to.
Planes, Fires, Collapse doesn't even come close, and some of them know it. Or they do now 
Last edited by chek on Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | 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. |
Yep, I was living in hope I suppose. |
What an insight Herr Anti-sophist (are you sure Trading Standards are ok with your name?).
Next time why not just be straight and register as Mr. Sock-Puppet?
Save us all some grief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | they want a link to the tempretures it would take to make that meteorite lump that they provided a link to, and yet there common sense dosnt tell them that even without an exact tempreture it would take very high tempretures to cause it. |
If you are going to quote a number, you need to back it up. If you are going to say that "You would need at least 5000F to do XYZ", you need to show some analysis. This is a very scientific topic, and "appealing to common sense" is not what scientists do.
If you want to discuss the facts with me, I'm all ears. If you want to tell me what your intuition tells you, and substitute (non-expert) supposition for evidence, you can find someone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | they want a link to the tempretures it would take to make that meteorite lump that they provided a link to, and yet there common sense dosnt tell them that even without an exact tempreture it would take very high tempretures to cause it. |
If you are going to quote a number, you need to back it up. If you are going to say that "You would need at least 5000F to do XYZ", you need to show some analysis. This is a very scientific topic, and "appealing to common sense" is not what scientists do.
If you want to discuss the facts with me, I'm all ears. If you want to tell me what your intuition tells you, and substitute (non-expert) supposition for evidence, you can find someone else. |
antisophist. n. one who gives the impression of being superior with no tangible input whatsoever |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | ....they want a link to the tempretures it would take to make that meteorite lump that they provided a link to, and yet there common sense dosnt tell them that even without an exact tempreture it would take very high tempretures to cause it. |
The shame is Marky, that the temperatures he quotes would melt the plentiful steel that we seen in the 'meteorite'. Not to mention the paper and plastic.
All of which makes his argument a little difficult to support, no?
Ever seen a car that's been put through a commercial scrapyard crusher? That's done by pressure, not temperature.
I await your other-wordly evasions of these points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ....they want a link to the tempretures it would take to make that meteorite lump that they provided a link to, and yet there common sense dosnt tell them that even without an exact tempreture it would take very high tempretures to cause it. |
The shame is Marky, that the temperatures he quotes would melt the plentiful steel that we seen in the 'meteorite'. Not to mention the paper and plastic.
All of which makes his argument a little difficult to support, no?
Correct, the answer is - No.
Nobody has suggested that all the material was subjected to that much heat obviously, or it would have all been vapourised. But exposed areas were evaporation eroded, which as previously shown requires temperatures in the region of +5400F.
Ever seen a car that's been put through a commercial scrapyard crusher? That's done by pressure, not temperature.
As basic physics tells us heat and pressure are directly related. Your car and the press will both be slightly hotter after compression than before, with some additional heat added by friction. However if you put concrete through a car crusher it sure as hell isn't going to come out fused.
I await your other-wordly evasions of these points. |
I trust that was 'evasive' enough for you to avoid any agreement yet again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ....they want a link to the tempretures it would take to make that meteorite lump that they provided a link to, and yet there common sense dosnt tell them that even without an exact tempreture it would take very high tempretures to cause it. |
The shame is Marky, that the temperatures he quotes would melt the plentiful steel that we seen in the 'meteorite'. Not to mention the paper and plastic.
All of which makes his argument a little difficult to support, no?
Correct, the answer is - No.
Nobody has suggested that all the material was subjected to that much heat obviously, or it would have all been vapourised. But exposed areas were evaporation eroded, which as previously shown requires temperatures in the region of +5400F.
Ever seen a car that's been put through a commercial scrapyard crusher? That's done by pressure, not temperature.
As basic physics tells us heat and pressure are directly related. Your car and the press will both be slightly hotter after compression than before, with some additional heat added by friction. However if you put concrete through a car crusher it sure as hell isn't going to come out fused.
I await your other-wordly evasions of these points. |
I trust that was 'evasive' enough for you to avoid any agreement yet again? |
I won't embed these comments as it might cause to page to widen.
"Exposed areas were evaporation eroded" - love to see a source for this, but in the meantime it's somewhat hard to explain the existence of paper in there, given the temperatures you quote.
"if you put concrete through a car crusher it sure as hell isn't going to come out fused."
If you put concrete of various grades - including "fines-to-dust" - through the crusher with moisture , plastic debris etc and add moderate heat it will fuse very nicely indeed under pressure. Such mineral materials are used in the production of tarmac. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ....they want a link to the tempretures it would take to make that meteorite lump that they provided a link to, and yet there common sense dosnt tell them that even without an exact tempreture it would take very high tempretures to cause it. |
The shame is Marky, that the temperatures he quotes would melt the plentiful steel that we seen in the 'meteorite'. Not to mention the paper and plastic.
All of which makes his argument a little difficult to support, no?
Correct, the answer is - No.
Nobody has suggested that all the material was subjected to that much heat obviously, or it would have all been vapourised. But exposed areas were evaporation eroded, which as previously shown requires temperatures in the region of +5400F.
Ever seen a car that's been put through a commercial scrapyard crusher? That's done by pressure, not temperature.
As basic physics tells us heat and pressure are directly related. Your car and the press will both be slightly hotter after compression than before, with some additional heat added by friction. However if you put concrete through a car crusher it sure as hell isn't going to come out fused.
I await your other-wordly evasions of these points. |
I trust that was 'evasive' enough for you to avoid any agreement yet again? |
I won't embed these comments as it might cause to page to widen.
"Exposed areas were evaporation eroded" - love to see a source for this, but in the meantime it's somewhat hard to explain the existence of paper in there, given the temperatures you quote.
Perhaps the most likely reason would be that this as yet unseen paper (and I'm not sure there was any paper there, but hey - you wouldn't lie to me would you?) - wasn't exposed to the heat. Kinda like that book on stool at the Pentagon.
"if you put concrete through a car crusher it sure as hell isn't going to come out fused."
If you put concrete of various grades - including "fines-to-dust" - through the crusher with moisture , plastic debris etc and add moderate heat it will fuse very nicely indeed under pressure. Such mineral materials are used in the production of tarmac. |
You're comparing the as yet undiagnosed hi-temperature fusing of 'the meteorite' to a ... sandcastle??
Now I am stunned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Undiagnosed no more: It was fused due to the great pressure of a building falling on top of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Undiagnosed no more: It was fused due to the great pressure of a building falling on top of it. |
Except that is another plausible sounding non-fact that you just made up.
Maybe good enough for you squire, but useless to objective reality.
When you make up this nonsense - and for whatever devious reason we'll let the boys and girls following this thread ponder on - do you ever think to check if it may actually have happened before?
Or is that above your pay grade? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having happened before is not a prerequiste for having happened this time. No building over 500 feet has ever been demolished, before, either... and that doesn't stop you from claiming it.
Again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the claim that under intense pressure, the floors and metals were fused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Having happened before is not a prerequiste for having happened this time. No building over 500 feet has ever been demolished, before, either... and that doesn't stop you from claiming it.
Again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the claim that under intense pressure, the floors and metals were fused. |
Of course you don't. And actually having some figures to back up this made-up-on-the-spot theory is something else you also don't see any need for.
Haven't you guys got a tech dept. that can kit you out with some basic data? If not, maybe the janitor might have a more practical grip on reality he could impart to you, although something tells me you're not the type who speaks to janitors that often.
But cutting to the chase, where did the excessive (by thousands of degrees) heat come from?
If you've no answer to that, then your flailing in the wind kid, as everybody reading this can see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
But cutting to the chase, where did the excessive (by thousands of degrees) heat come from?
|
Friction = heat, right? Pressure increases friction (friction is proportional to the normal force). I've given you a mechanism for heat. Any more questions, or are you satisified I am correct, yet?
| chek wrote: |
If you've no answer to that, then your flailing in the wind kid, as everybody reading this can see.
|
Your constant appealing to the hypothetical crowd that is "watching" is very telling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | chek wrote: |
But cutting to the chase, where did the excessive (by thousands of degrees) heat come from?
|
Friction = heat, right? Pressure increases friction (friction is proportional to the normal force). I've given you a mechanism for heat. Any more questions, or are you satisified I am correct, yet?
I'm fairly satisfied you're an obfuscating shill, but your science leaves a whole lot to be desired.
You suggest that the building sort of 'rubbed itself' to steel melting temperatures in 11 seconds on th eway down?
Normally I would award at least wooden points for ingenuity, but unfortunately for you, I've seen the exact same laughable non-explanation before. How are the guys at section 5 btw? I understand some had to leave town in a hurry recently.
| chek wrote: |
If you've no answer to that, then your flailing in the wind kid, as everybody reading this can see.
|
Your constant appealing to the hypothetical crowd that is "watching" is very telling. |
Well let's be honest - you're here to sway public opinion, right?
Don't pretend you don't care about the view figures. 70 responses, 400 views.
Somebody's watching. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
You suggest that the building sort of 'rubbed itself' to steel melting temperatures in 11 seconds on th eway down?
|
I never said it got hot enough to melt steel. I never said all the friction happened during the collapse (more like, during the impact).
Aside from those two minor details, yes, that is kind of how friction works. Where do you think lava comes from? Pressure + friction. It's a well established mechanism for generating heat. The science behind this particular mechanism generating heat is well-established, and denying it would make you look foolish.
If you have some mathametics that proves that the collapse of the WTC was not enough to generate the heat necessary to create the "fused" meteorite, I'd like to see it. It seems all you have is your intuition, which, scientifically, is worth nothing.
| Quote: |
Well let's be honest - you're here to sway public opinion, right?
Don't pretend you don't care about the view figures. 70 responses, 400 views.
Somebody's watching. |
I'm here to make sure bad science doesn't get promulgated as truth. Esepcially when it's not even bad science, just bad intuition being promulgated as bad science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
But cutting to the chase, where did the excessive (by thousands of degrees) heat come from?
If you've no answer to that, then your flailing in the wind kid, as everybody reading this can see. |
It seems counter-intuitive that extreme pressures could raise the temperature of a material by thousands of degrees (although I'm not totally convinced that such a temperature change is required).
However, it also seems counter-intuitive that mere pressure could raise a diesel fuel/air mixture to the combustion point. But it clearly does, and on a regular basis.
Once again, common sense is your enemy. You are trying to analyze extreme conditions using the heuristics of everyday life. It won't work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
But cutting to the chase, where did the excessive (by thousands of degrees) heat come from?
If you've no answer to that, then your flailing in the wind kid, as everybody reading this can see. |
It seems counter-intuitive that extreme pressures could raise the temperature of a material by thousands of degrees (although I'm not totally convinced that such a temperature change is required).
However, it also seems counter-intuitive that mere pressure could raise a diesel fuel/air mixture to the combustion point. But it clearly does, and on a regular basis.
Once again, common sense is your enemy. You are trying to analyze extreme conditions using the heuristics of everyday life. It won't work. |
I love these drivel arguments, however time is not to be wasted now I know what you're about.
All the science you can possibly need (although whether it can be understood is another thing - I have my doubts from what I've seen recently) can be found here.
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
And remember kids - what you're doing is covering for mass murder. Sleep well! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
I love these drivel arguments, however time is not to be wasted now I know what you're about.
|
I wouldn't be criticizing the arguments of others, if the only thing you can come up with is an ad hominem.
| Quote: |
All the science you can possibly need (although whether it can be understood is another thing - I have my doubts from what I've seen recently) can be found here.
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
|
Would you care to point out any scientific arguments made here that you find particularly compelling? I wasn't able to find anything.
(By the way, I've seen this site before because I know one of the guys who created it. Or at least, I thought I knew him.)
| Quote: |
And remember kids - what you're doing is covering for mass murder. Sleep well! |
I will sleep like a baby. Anything you say is so statistically unlikely to be true that your words give me confidence that all is well with the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hahah, he just dismisses entire lines of reasoning by pointing to a single website and saying "look it up yourself". You don't even get a nudge in the right direction. Read the 6000 pages on that website, and you might find the thing he is talking about... but probably not, because by the time you are done, he'll tell you look something up on google, and read the first 5000 hits. This guy is unbelievable. He has never provided a single shred of evidence to support any of his ridiculous views.
I'm still waiting for any proof of 5000F temp, or any proof that friction and pressure, alone, are inadequate to create the "meteorite". And no, pointing me to google.com doesn't count as "proving" your side of the argument. I have a feeling I will be waiting forever for any proof of a single claim he has ever made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Hahah, he just dismisses entire lines of reasoning by pointing to a single website and saying "look it up yourself". You don't even get a nudge in the right direction. Read the 6000 pages on that website, and you might find the thing he is talking about... but probably not, because by the time you are done, he'll tell you look something up on google, and read the first 5000 hits. This guy is unbelievable. He has never provided a single shred of evidence to support any of his ridiculous views.
I'm still waiting for any proof of 5000F temp, or any proof that friction and pressure, alone, are inadequate to create the "meteorite". And no, pointing me to google.com doesn't count as "proving" your side of the argument. I have a feeling I will be waiting forever for any proof of a single claim he has ever made. |
Is there anything in the whole wide world sadder than sock-puppets congratualting themselves? It's almost as embarrassing to watch as somebody masturbating in public - you don't do that as well do you?
If you refer back to the end of page 3 and page 4 of this very thread, you will find what you unbelievably and incorrectly claim is not there.
Last edited by chek on Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | 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
|
We've already established that nowhere in that article does it say anyhting about 5000F. The highest it even mentions is 2000F.
Later you give us this. A forum post. With no source cited. Is that how it works, someone posts it one forum, and you link it in another forum? And that's fact, now? Unless the source can from the byu.edu paper, which has been taken offline. In that case, we can go back to my discussion about how this paper hasn't passed a single scientific test for credibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: | 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
|
We've already established that nowhere in that article does it say anyhting about 5000F. The highest it even mentions is 2000F.
Later you give us this. A forum post. With no source cited. Is that how it works, someone posts it one forum, and you link it in another forum? And that's fact, now? Unless the source can from the byu.edu paper, which has been taken offline. In that case, we can go back to my discussion about how this paper hasn't passed a single scientific test for credibility. |
How poorly absorbed, considering that 2000F doesn't even get you the molten steel that was recorded.
And yes I did link to a discussion among engineering students because the boiling point (and the subsequent evaporation of steel) is not even mentioned on steel producer's sites. It seems to have little real world precedent. The engineering students forum discussion illustrates some consensus among them on the 5000F+ figure.
Here's the deal.
WTC7; the excessive heat (producing molten iron and the witness of the evaporation eroded steel), together with the NORAD non-response are taking down the house of cards you work so hard to defend.
That's the bottom line, deny it as you may. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
molten steel that was recorded.
|
Source, please.
| Quote: |
The engineering students forum discussion illustrates some consensus among them on the 5000F+ figure. |
I have a master's degree in Engineering. I know Engineering students. I've TA'd dozens of them. If you want tos how me some analysis, I'd like to see it. If all you have is "consensus of engineering students", then I rest my case.
| Quote: | the excessive heat (producing molten iron and the witness of the evaporation eroded steel)
|
You've provided no evidence of evaporated steel, and no analysis of the claim that the heat was "excessive".
When you get some evidence, let me know. I don't believe things because conspiracy theorists repeat them over and over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Anti-sophist"] | Quote: |
molten steel that was recorded.
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Source, please. |
"Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site."
A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:
"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
"American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack."
And the last recorded equivalent of the meteorite (heat fused steel and concrete) was seen at Chernobyl after the meltdown.
| Quote: |
The engineering students forum discussion illustrates some consensus among them on the 5000F+ figure. |
I | Anti-sophist wrote: | | [ have a master's degree in Engineering. I know Engineering students. I've TA'd dozens of them. If you want to show me some analysis, I'd like to see it. If all you have is "consensus of engineering students", then I rest my case.. |
Oh very well ... www.maford.com/pdf/msdshss.pdf
| Quote: | the excessive heat (producing molten iron and the witness of the evaporation eroded steel)
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | You've provided no evidence of evaporated steel, and no analysis of the claim that the heat was "excessive". |
Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."
"Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site."
"American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack."
And the last recorded equivalent of the meteorite (heat fused steel and concrete) was seen at Chernobyl after the meltdown.
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | When you get some evidence, let me know. I don't believe things because conspiracy theorists repeat them over and over. |
I think much the same about our glorious leaders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
So your entire argument is based on the fact that eyewitnesses claimed to have seen "motlen steel"? Without any, you know, actual science to show that it was, in fact, steel? We've already established that fricition can make it quite hot, so molten metal (even steel) wouldn't surprise me. It's just amazing how far you are willing to stretch such poor evidence to convince yourself of what you want to believe.
And one offhand remark by one guy claiming to have seen "evaporated" steel counts as evidence? Are you serious? It's just speculation. He even SAYS it's speculation.. "it appears". Hahaha, this is becoming comedy gold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | So your entire argument is based on the fact that eyewitnesses claimed to have seen "motlen steel"? Without any, you know, actual science to show that it was, in fact, steel? We've already established that fricition can make it quite hot, so molten metal (even steel) wouldn't surprise me. It's just amazing how far you are willing to stretch such poor evidence to convince yourself of what you want to believe.
And one offhand remark by one guy claiming to have seen "evaporated" steel counts as evidence? Are you serious? It's just speculation. He even SAYS it's speculation.. "it appears". Hahaha, this is becoming comedy gold. |
Friction? Friction??
The energy deficit you propose is staggeringly short of what's required, reducing the available potential and kinetic energy even further than Hoffman can stretch it. How does the conversion possibly increase what was inadequate to start with?
Neither does friction explode fragments of people's bones half a block away, or account for pre-impact explosions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Friction? Friction?? The energy deficit you propose is staggeringly short of what's required, reducing the available potential and kinetic energy
|
Oh really? Sounds like you've run the numbers. Post them, please. I'd love to see how you came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | So your entire argument is based on the fact that eyewitnesses claimed to have seen "motlen steel"? Without any, you know, actual science to show that it was, in fact, steel? |
That's the perils of living in the age of the cover-up. I've seen the white to yellow hot beams being hauled out of the rubble, described by witnesses as 'dripping with molten steel'. In conjunction with the quoted witnesses I'm happy enough they know what they saw.
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | We've already established that fricition can make it quite hot, so molten metal (even steel) wouldn't surprise me. It's just amazing how far you are willing to stretch such poor evidence to convince yourself of what you want to believe. |
We agree that friction can produce heat as a by-product, yet Hoffman can't even energise the dust cloud with the available (non-explosive driven) energy. Nor do I recall NIST making any mention of this mechanism before. So it's in your court to show who's 'willing to stretch such poor evidence to convince yourself of what you want to believe'.
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | one offhand remark by one guy claiming to have seen "evaporated" steel counts as evidence? Are you serious? It's just speculation. He even SAYS it's speculation.. "it appears". Hahaha, this is becoming comedy gold. |
Sounds to me that he knew what he saw, but wouldn't commit to a definite opinion without further analysyis. And then Rudy did his bit and disposed of the steel, and who can blame him in the age of the cover up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
