| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| stateofgrace wrote: | | Quote: | | Your case is falling apart bit by bit, chek |
And it simply gets demolished here (excuse the pun)
I am not in the habit of copying and pasting entire articles but these guy deserves something you do not chek. That being respect for the ability to do some genuine research and apply it in a critical manner to a problem.
Read and comment here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65247
| Quote: | Hello everyone,
I've been working on this the last couple of weeks. I felt the need to write this because the CT crowd is way too selective on their knowledge and I've never seen a piece of information like it, and felt it was needed. It appears later, but I want to reiterate that I'm not a CD expert. However, like anyone else, I take what people that know more than I do and try to form conclusions based on facts and research. Everything I found I referenced at the bottom numerically if there's any dispute about the information.
Also, if anyone has any links contradicting or adding to anything here, I'd love to hear about it. There's really not that much information about a lot of explosives, especially Thermite. Using any search engine I found more of the life story of Alex Jones than I did about thermite! He did a great job of burying anything useful to anyone on that topic.
Anyway, I figure if anyone can pick it apart, it'd be you guys. Thanks for the time!
There is a lot of conjecture floating around the internet about what happened on 9/11/01 in regards to the WTC. A lot of armchair demolitions experts assert that the WTC buildings that fell on that day fell because of means other than airplanes crashing into them and causing fires. The armchair demo expert conspiracy theorists (CTers) assert that it is controlled demolitions (CD). Being a reasonable guy, I agree with the experts. Call me gullible, but show me a plane smashing into a building and that building falling down, and I’m convinced it was the plane.
Although my expertise on the topic consists of no more than the ability to read, a working computer, and an internet connection, my goal here is to show that CD simply isn’t possible given the conditions of the building. Let’s forget the sheer absurdity of the situation. Let’s assume that somehow in the months/years beforehand secret demolitions teams were able to infiltrate the towers unseen by both people and cameras and plant explosives. Let’s assume that in that time they were able to rip the walls open, plant the devices, and fix the walls and none of the thousands of people that walked the halls of those buildings every day noticed the wet paint and fresh drywall. Let’s assume that whatever shadow organization had the trillions of dollars to pay off the hundreds of thousands of people from a variety of backgrounds and allegiances to turn a blind eye. Just ignore your common sense. It’s difficult, I know, and that pain you feel in your brain is natural.
As stated earlier, in order to explain the ridiculousness of CD, I’m going to have to give that theory the best possible chance of being probable. In order to do that, I’m going to focus solely on WTC7, for reasons outlined below. For clarity’s and background’s sake, National Institute of Technology and Standards (NIST) has an ongoing, but incomplete, investigation into the building. Their basic theory is that the tower was damaged below floor 13 of the 47 story tower by thousands of tons of concrete, steel, and other debris from one or more of the other towers, and that structural damage spread first vertically, then horizontally coupled by weakened steel over seven hours, and eventually the structure was so weak the weight of the building forced it down[1]. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) agrees, but contends that the seven hours of fire contributed more significantly[2]. Both organizations claim to have spent thousands of man-hours going through thousands of documents, films, and photographs with individuals of expertise both in and out of their respective organizations, using knowledge of physics, mathematics, and chemistry I can’t possibly hope to match, understand, or verify. They’ve come up with the above theory, and found no evidence whatsoever to indicate explosives. In fact, most experts in any field agree with their conclusions. As you narrow their fields down to fields that would have any knowledge about structural failure and demolitions, the number progressively gets smaller eventually nearing zero (One man, Danny Jowenko touted as the most proficient demolitions expert in the Netherlands has said that CD is a possibility, but even the circumstances around that is questionable. There are videos of his opinion on YouTube[3].)
To conclude the introduction and background and move onto the interesting part, why I feel that WTC7 is the best candidate for CD is as follows: The building was only struck by tons of concrete, steel, and other debris and not an airplane. And yes, I know that only is a bad word choice. The reason this is important is the temperature is in debate because it wasn’t directly introduced to jet fuel (although it’s not impossible). The next reason is the structural damage is in debate, some feel it wasn’t sufficient to cause the collapse without an extra push, the push in this case being the force from many explosions. The final reason is that the building stood for seven hours.
Of course, with no evidence of a specific explosive used, to a CTer that’s an invitation to imply that any explosive was used. Given the undeniable facts from above, a demolitions team would need an explosive that can be remotely detonated that can survive a severe impact and varying degrees of extreme heat. Oh, and the detonation devices would also have to survive that. I think the best way to go about this is to outline a variety of explosives[4][5], so that’s where I will begin.
All explosives are designed to, through a chemical reaction at the molecular level, expel energy. This chemical reaction is initiated in a variety of ways depending on the explosive type, generally modern high explosives are stable, meaning they’re difficult to set off by accident, and require some type of detonator and sometimes a booster charge, a primary explosive used to trigger the secondary explosive.[6] Since I’ve mentioned it, you’re probably wondering what primary and secondary explosives are. There are two types of explosives, low and high. An example of low would be black powder, and high would be TNT. High explosives are also categorized by their sensitivity; that is their tendency to detonate when exposed to shock, friction, or heat, into two categories: Primary and secondary. Primary explosives are extremely sensitive and very dangerous to handle, and as such small amounts are often used to initiate secondary explosives as those tend to be more stable.[7]. It’s also worth noting that many explosives leave toxic residues that can remain for years in the area and effect health and the environment[8]. However, since the investigation into WTC7 is still ongoing, and again to give the best possibility of CD, I’ll assume that it’s possible the contaminants are still there, but haven’t been found yet. Lastly, many explosives suffer from hygroscopicity, which is the ability to retain water. Water is detrimental to an explosives power, and may even change the chemical composition of an explosive over time. This basic information is important because not only must the explosive survive the extreme conditions, but so must the booster charge if needed, and the detonator that often contains low or primary explosives, or both, and the means to trigger the detonator remotely.
Two more facts are necessary before we look at the types of explosives that could be used. Since explosives are typically set off by the shockwave created by the blasting cap, shock must be considered. No one really knows an exact measurement of the amount of energy transferred from WTC1 to WTC7 from the impact of the debris, I can’t present an exact number. However, 10^12 joules was the potential energy of the collapse of WTC1[9]. Some of this energy was transferred, and in the case of explosives that are sensitive to impact, much less of the possible amount would be required. The other fact is the heat of the building. Both FEMA and the NIST estimate around 1000-1200 degrees Celsius[10][11]. I’ve also found proposed temperatures as low as 257 degrees Celsius[12]. Now that I’ve defined the conditions of the building it’s time to take a look at some explosives and see how they’d fare.
First up are low explosives. These are primarily used as propellants, for bullets or rockets, but can and have been used as explosives in the past. This group includes black powder and smokeless powder.
Black powder, also known as gunpowder, is one of the oldest utilized explosives with the first recorded discovery at 1000 AD. It is still used to today mainly in fireworks. Black powder is extremely unstable. It is somewhat insensitive to shock and friction, but very sensitive to heat and open flame[13], all of which there were an abundance of. Additionally, gunpowder is expected to ignite around 232 degrees C (450 F)[15], which is well below even the most conservative estimates of WTC7. All in all, it’s a poor candidate.
Smokeless powder is the propellant replacement to black powder. As with black powder it is sensitive to impact, heat, and flame. It’s ignition temperature is even lower than that of black powder, coming in at around 160 degrees C (320 F)[16], which is again much lower than WTC7 making it an even more unlikely explosive.
The next group of explosives under the proverbial microscope is high explosives. The first sub-group of high explosives is primary. Explosives in this group are generally put here based on their relative sensitivity as compared to PETN. These explosives tend to be highly volatile under all but the most controlled conditions and tend to be very dangerous to handle. Their primary use is in small amounts put into a position to detonate more stable explosives, like being in a blasting cap. Explosives that fall into this category are Lead Azide, Lead Styphnate, Mercury Fulminate and Tetracene.
Lead Azide is a common detonating agent. It has a higher temperature of ignition than most primary explosives, and is a more effective detonating agent than mercury fulminate. However, it is highly sensitive to heat, friction, and impact. It is even more sensitive than nitro glycerine[17], dropping a 2kg weight from 5 inches away will cause it to detonate[20], and the higher temperature isn’t that high, coming in at 350 degrees C (662 F)[18] which is well within the estimates of WTC7. Lead Azide as a stand alone or in a detonator would not work because of it’s extreme impact sensitivity and it’s comparably low sensitivity to heat.
Lead Styphnate is also a common detonating agent. It is more sensitive to shock and heat than lead azide or mercury fulminate, and it is extemely sensitive to electricty, so sensitive in fact that a static charge from the human body can cause it to explode[19]. It’s detonation temperature is 282 degrees C (539 F) and it’s impact sensitivity is 3 inches with a 2kg weight[20]. This stuff is extremely sensitive, and given the conditions of WTC7, not a very good explosive possibility.
Mercury Fulminate is more sensitive in all areas, heat, shock, spark, and friction, than lead azide and lead styphnate, and it is additionally sensitive to open flame[21], and because of those sensitivities it has been almost universally replaced with either. Mercury fulminate ignites at 170 degrees C (338 F)[22] and is therefore impossible to be used in any capacity in WTC7 at even the most conservative estimates.
The final primary explosive is Tetracene. Tetracene is highly sensitive to an open flame, and is slightly more sensitive to shock than mercury fulminate[23]. Tetracene will actually melt and decompose at 160 degrees C (320 F)[24]. Again, the pattern seems that primary explosives don’t fare well in volitile conditions.
The next group of explosives falls under the high explosives category, secondary explosives. These are the ones people are most familiar with, such as TNT or C-4. These explosives can come in a variety of forms, from liquid to solid, and can be grains, crystals, or plastic.
Trinitrotoluene is the constituant for many explosives, meaning that some percent of the weight contains this chemical. It is commonly known as TNT. It is used in Amatol, Ammonal, Cyclotol, Torpex, Octol, Pentolite, Picratol, Tetrytol, Minol, and Tritonal among others in some degree. TNT is relatively insensitive to heat, shock, friction, and open flame. However, it is not immune to these effects. At 475 degrees C (887 F) it burns rapidly, and it can be detonated at 14 inches with a 2kg weight[20]. Additionally, it melts at a lower temperature than it explodes, 82 degrees C (178 F) and explodes at 240 degrees C (464 F)[25], and as such this and anything containing it is relatively ineffective for this purpose.
Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate, commonly referred to as PETN, is the borderline secondary explosive. It is the most sensitive of them, but much more powerful, and is the reference point for categorizing the others. It is also mixed with other chemicals, like TNT, to make other explosives, such as pentolite or semtex. It is more sensitive to shock or friction than TNT, with an impact sensitivity of six inches. It also burns at 225 degrees C (437 F)[20]. It’s melting point is 142 degress C (287 F) which casues it to decompose[26]. This is, again, way under the most conservative temperatures and force of impact to be considered seriously.
Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, easier to just say RDX, was invented by the British because they didn’t like the sensitivity of other high explosives. Like PETN and TNT, it is used as a part of other explosives, such as Cyclotol, HBX, C-4, Torpex, and Pentolite among others. It is amazingly resiliant to impact, and can even withstand small arms fire. However, a heavier weight seems to have a worse effect, causing detonation at 8 inches with a 2kg weight and burning at 260 degrees Celsius (536 F)[20]. It’s melting point is also 202 degrees Celsius (395 F)[27]. The temperature at which it will ignite is 234 degrees Celsius[28], which is again lower than all estimates.
Ammonium Picrate is the least sensitive to shock and friction of all military explosives. Information is pretty sparse with this explosive, however if heated to 300 degrees C (572 F) it will explode or can be set off by shock[29]. It will also melt if it is heated to more than 122.5 degrees C (252 F)[30].
Trinitrophyenylmethylnitramine (Tetryl) is an outdated and sensitive explosive. It is mainly used as a booster explosive since it is sensitive to flame, friction, shock, or sparks. Like many explosives before it, it is too sensitive to temperature to be used in WTC7. It’s melting point is 129.5 (265 F) degrees C and it’s ignition temperature is 187 (386 F) degrees Celsius[31].
Just to briefly touch on plastic explosives, I’m going to take a look at C-4 and Flex-X. C-4 is made out of RDX, a few other chemicals, and a plasticizer. This makes it a pliable material. However, because it is mostly RDX, it is subject to the same problems RDX has in this situation, listed above. It is also sensitive to shock, heat, melting, and ignition. Flex-X is similar to C-4 in that it’s made out of another explosives with an added plasticizer. In this case, it’s again RDX, and in some cases PETN, but PETN is more rare because it’s a lot more sensitive. Clearly, plasitic explosives are no different in any scenario. They’re often used because they are pliable and can be shaped, but they’re made out of the same materials as other explosives and not any more well-equipped to deal with the extreme conditions present in those seven hours.
Finally, we get to the more popular of devices of the CT world: Incendiaries. Because there has been no evidence uncovered of explosives and because welders were used to cut the debris up for removal, pictures circulated the internet that looked like the metal was cut before it fell, and incendiaries would look similar (however, like any other explosive, these leave chemical traces as well, none have been found). Basically, an incediary is a device used to cause a fire. Of course, many of these can burn very hot and melt through several feet of steel within minutes. The two most popular, and even in debate among the CTers, is thermite and thermate.
Thermite is nothing more than powdered aluminum and iron oxide (rust). In fact, it’s not so much as a substance as it is a reaction, it can happen accidentally wherever aluminium granules make contact with rust. However, that’s not to say it can’t be done on purpose, and in fact has been in use since the late 1800’s for welding, particularly railroad tracks, and recently military purposes. When ignited, it burns at temperatures in excess of 3000 degrees Celsius. It takes a tremendous heat source to start the reaction, around 1300 degrees C (2372 F)[32]. Thermate is very similar, made of mostly thermite, but with added chemicals that give it a higher burning temperature, flames, and a lower ignition temperature. Clearly, any ambient temperatures listed from any source were not even close enough to be considered, and since thermite/thermate are not sensitive to impact it could have survived in WTC7. More on that later.
Clearly, a vast majority of explosives simply are not up to the task. However, the explosives are just one part of a CD. There are still detonators/ignitors, and the means to employ them remotely. These too must survive the conditions.
Any modern explosive is initiated by a blasting cap. Blasting caps have remained nearly the same since their invention, with minor tweaks to make them more safe and efficient[33]. Most modern blasting caps are electric. Two insulated wires make near contact on the inside of the casing and when the charge is sent down the lines connecting the blasting cap to the operator a charge of current appears in the gap. That charge, depending on the type of cap, ignites the primary explosive or a time delay fuse. Sometimes there is another auxiliary secondary explosive inside the cap to give the blasting cap an extra kick if needed, however the initial explosive is always one of the primary ones listed above. In either case, the shockwave created by the blasting cap is what detonates the secondary explosive. There are many variations on the type of electrical blasting caps for a variety of circumstances, however they all operate on the same basic principle.
The other type of blasting cap, non-electric or shock tube detonators, work differently. Instead of a copper wire to transmit electricity, it made of several insulated, plasitic tubes filled with PETN at the core. The PETN is detonated at the far end and the shockwave travels along the tube, destroying it in the process, and on to the blasting cap at the end where it transfers that shockwave into another explosive. The blasting cap, in this case, doesn’t have to be filled with a primary explosive and can be filled with a more stable secondary explosive. When precision timing is necessary, it can be much more accurate because of the relatively constant travel speed of the shockwave and extrenous electricity isn’t an issue[33].
What does this mean for the conditions of WTC7? In the case of non-electric detonation, it’s simply not possible. The melting point and ignition temperature of PETN remains the same whether it’s a charge or a tube[34], so the extreme temperatures of the building are well above what’s needed to render the detonator inert or to set it off outright. The other electric blasting caps are subject to the same liability of the primary explosive found inside. Additionally, the plugs made to keep the blasting cap in working condition and hold the wires in place are typically made out of plastic or rubber and many components are soldered in place, and even made out of cardboard[35], and if those melt or burn the whole detonator could easily be inoperable. The wires that trasfer the electiricity to detonate the charges are only insulted with plastic, much like a wire you’d find in your house although probably a heavier gauge. Melting the insulation around a copper wire that happens to be near and make contact with any metal would ground the circuit. Additionally, since some sources point to the temperatures being at or over 1000 degrees Celsius, the melting point of copper is very near that at 1083 degrees Celsius[36]. If the wires that transfer the electricity to the blasting caps were to melt it would break the circuit. Of course, if we’re getting to temperatures to melt copper the primary explosive should have detonated long before that. Thermite, which would still require a blasting cap of some kind to detonate remotely, is a bit of an exception. In most cases, thermite is ignited by heating magnesium, which acts as a booster explosive without an explosion, which has a much lower ignition temperature but burns hot enough to ignite the thermite mixture. However, magnesium ignites at 473 degrees Celsius (883 F)[37], which is well within the estimated temperatures as well. So, while the thermite would survive as stated above, the magnesium wouldn’t, and neither would the detonator used to ignite the magnesium.
So, given that extensive read, what kind of conclusions can be reached from this data? First, explosives are very, very dangerous. Many of them can be set off by small movements and low weights and temperatures that you can reach in your household oven. Second, CD is designed for good conditions. The tools simply don’t exist to detonate a building upwards of 1000 degrees on fire being hit by tons of concrete. Very few explosives would survive seconds of being in that building, let alone seven hours, and even if they did the detonators are not made to. What you’d see if the explosives could survive the initial shock and fires isn’t the neat CD the CTers claim, but an extremely unpredictable blast pattern or no detonation at all. It’s my armchair demo expert opinion that it’s simply not possible.
[1] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm see section 14
[2] http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema...ma%20report%22 see section 5.5.4
[3] http://youtube.com/results?search_qu...&search=Search
[4] http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html see sections 3-7
[5] http://nobombs.net/brucel/explosivefacts.html
[6] http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html see section 1
[7] http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...explosives.htm
[8] http://www.gr.admin.ch/internet/arma...xplosi ves%22
[9] http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...mber=3&catID=4 see last paragraph.
[10] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm see 7a and 7b
[11] http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf see 5-29 section 6
[12] http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirr...tc/how-hot.htm
[13] http://www.digistar.mb.ca/minsci/SYS...es/blackp2.htm
[14] http://www.americanpyro.com/fireserv...mperatures.pdf
[15] http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles98/nhallen.htm
[16] http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSD...ess_powder.htm
[17] http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/78127_13.html
[18] http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/lead.htm see Other uses of Lead
[19] http://www.ordnance.org/leadstyp.htm
[20] http://www.teledynerisi.com/products...8td_page02.asp
[21] http://www.ordnance.org/mercury.htm
[22] http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/mercury.htm
[23] http://www.ordnance.org/tetracen.htm
[24] http://www.tocatch.info/en/Tetrazene.htm
[25] http://www.microscopyu.com/moviegall...tnt/index.html
[26] http://www.qycc.com/english/eng1-7.htm
[27] http://www.pof.gov.pk/products/explosives.htm
[28] http://c10-ss-1-lb.cnet.com/reference/RDX
[29] http://www.unitednuclear.com/database.htm
[30] http://www.dfs.gov.in/Manuals/Explosives%20Manual.doc
[31] http://c10-ss-1-lb.cnet.com/reference/Tetryl
[31] http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m0088.htm
[32] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html see section 6.2.1
[33] http://www.ausimm.com.au/presentatio...20detonator%22
[34] http://www.iie-online.com/pdfs/Shock_Tube.pdf
[35] http://www.digistar.mb.ca/minsci/SYS...sives/caps.htm
[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._melting_point
[37] http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m0088.htm |
Ever get that slightly deflating feeling Chek, you know that wind coming out off your sail feeling? You know where to comment. Apply your knowledge, this guy appears to be looking forward to comments, so on you go. |
What a load of fluff
| Quote: | | It’s my armchair demo expert opinion |
Pawned.
Support a real investigation
Much better than playing "pot call the kettle black" and trying to feel egotisitically superior about it
We dont have to know the answers: we only have to know the story is nonesensical
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Of course I see, unlike you John who is out there, interviewing witnesses, conducting scientific experiments and putting it all together in a complete and understandable thesis.
Far better to go to conspiracy web sites, read what is there and believe it than try to do any form of critical analysis yourself I guess.
By the way why don’t you ask him, yourself? After all you're not an armchair researcher, are you? You’re out there aren’t you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm after Justice for the dead and a hope for humanity better than fascism and world war three: not a perfect theory to delude myself with
What are you out for?
BTW, would you be kind enough to show me steel framed buildings that have "collapsed due to fire" (sic) not called WTC1, 2 or 7?
Would be a lot simpler than these castle of supposition to the sky
Still, as I have said, critics have there uses, despite their limitations
Maybe you might like to refute the Jersey Girls primary evidance that the Keane Commission was a whitewash?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Last edited by John White on Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Working on my CT AI bot...
| Code: |
if (investigation.result == my.result)
investigation.validity = true;
else
investigation.validity = false;
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Working on my CT AI bot...
| Code: |
if (investigation.result == my.result)
investigation.validity = true;
else
investigation.validity = false;
|
|
BTW, would you be kind enough to show me steel framed buildings that have "collapsed due to fire" (sic) not called WTC1, 2 or 7?
Would be a lot simpler than these castle of supposition to the sky
Still, as I have said, critics have there uses, despite their limitations
Maybe you might like to refute the Jersey Girls primary evidance that the Keane Commission was a whitewash?
------------------------------------------------------
Same for you
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
You really believe that John? Honestly believe what you have just written?
Out to stop WW 3 and save humanity from fascism?
I guess you therefore accuse those, like me who don’t subscribe to your nonsense as supporters of WW3 and fascism? Correct?
Last edited by stateofgrace on Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
BTW, would you be kind enough to show me steel framed buildings that have "collapsed due to fire" (sic) not called WTC1, 2 or 7?
|
As soon as you show me a 500ft building that's been C.Demo'd, not called WTC1, 2, or 7.
(uh oh, your own fallacious logic being used against you... what to do.. what to do...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stateofgrace wrote: | You really believe that John? Honestly believe what you have just written?
Out to stop WW 3 and save humanity from fascism?
I guess you therefore you accuse those, like me who don’t subscribe to your nonsense as supporters of WW3 and fascism? Correct? |
Western society has become more democratic?
The world has become less militatrised?
Defense budgets are being re-applied to education and feeding the peoples of the world?
The two largest Oil reserves on the planet are not currently ringed with US military bases?
World demand for Oil is falling and country after country is not reaching Peak?
Your assertation that we are NOT facing the prospect of world war and fascism falls over right there
| Quote: | | I guess you therefore you accuse those, like me who don’t subscribe to your nonsense as supporters of WW3 and fascism |
You think like a computer: if its not dot it must be dat. Thats an illusion
Your resistance to the perception that western governments are manipulating their populations to accept aggresive militarisation and domestic controls using the events of 9/11 (wether OC, Incompetance, LIHOP or MIHOP) is your subconcious reaction to the possibility that it could be true. Denial is the default position of the human mind faced with information outside of its reality model. Doesnt make the information untrue
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
And was this all planned prior to 911?
John we are talking about what you believe to be an orchestrated plan.
Your question merit nothing unless you prove 911 was designed to bring about all this. To date you have proved nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
BTW, would you be kind enough to show me steel framed buildings that have "collapsed due to fire" (sic) not called WTC1, 2 or 7?
|
As soon as you show me a 500ft building that's been C.Demo'd, not called WTC1, 2, or 7.
(uh oh, your own fallacious logic being used against you... what to do.. what to do...) |
You cant. Becuase theres no such data. Makes you one heck of a co-incidence theorist
Logic is your problem. My tools are pragmatism and common sense
Whats more likely? Bizzare and unprecidented structual collapses, three in one place on one day? Or a little help from a BOOM!!!
Or would you rather tell me its impossible to CD a steel framed building and such a thing never happened prior to 9/11?
Collapse by fire never has
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nice dodge, get back to me when you can find a building over 500 feet ever CD'd. You can't, because it's never happened.
If "having never happened before" is all the evidence you need to dismiss 9/11, then your own theory, also, must be dismissed. Unless, of course, you place higher standards for 'proof' on some theories, rather than others.
Yes, buildings have been demolished. They've also collapsed due to fire. There is a reason you use the words "steel framed" in your fallacious comment. It's because you need to qualify "buildings" with a specific kind, that prove your point. That's exactly what I qualify "buildings" with "over 500 feet".
In both cases, both statements are logical fallacies, and both are wrong:
No building over 500 feet has ever been CD'd, therefore there was no CD. (my fallacy)
No building with a steel frame has ever collapsed due to fire, therefore it didn't collapse due to fire. (your fallacy)
No matter how hard you try, you cannot use this line of reasoning and get away with it. Once you allow fallacy into your argument, I can prove anything. I promise.
Using facts, and poor logic, to draw conclusions isn't any better then getting the facts wrong. Use sound logic when you draw conclusions based on the evidence -- it'll work out better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Common sense?
Two planes are flown at high speed into two towers, they both collapse ,after massive fires and you say “Well it’s never happened before"
Of course it's never happened before and God willing it will never happen again.
Last edited by stateofgrace on Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
His tool is "common sense". Where I come from it's called appeal to intuition (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Appeal_to_Intuition). It is, also, a fallacy.
Facts + bad logic = proof of anything, and everything |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stateofgrace wrote: | And was this all planned prior to 911?
John we are talking about what you believe to be an orchestrated plan.
Your question merit nothing unless you prove 911 was designed to bring about all this. To date you have proved nothing. |
Planes didnt hit buildings all on their own. A chain of events preceded that and a chain of events stretches out afterwards. So there is really no question about planned before 9/11. A plan requires orchestration: so belief doesnt come into that
What your asking me is who I believe was involved in that orchestrated plan
In life I deal with what is before me. Awareness expands from the centre. We take various things to be proof of things we have not seen, or heard, or events we were not privy to... but there is nothing we call proof that is other than that which carries a high probability of being true
We know there is a high probability ("proof" in ordinary terms) of prior knowledge of an attack. Of a plan to fly planes into buildings. Of specific targets, World Trade Center, Pentagon. Multiple intelligence agencies informing the US government. Hijackers inside the US ready for the attack. Payments to those hijackers coming through the Pakistani ISI, an acknowledged CIA front. Intimate business dealings between the Bin Laden family and the Bush dynasty. AL Queda created through US funding. An invasion plan prepared before 9/11 for afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush adminsitration authoring a report before taking office calling for massive military expansion, identifying the need for a catalysing event to coerce the public into accepting that expansion. Warnings in the media about the danger of Bin Laden for six months before 9/11. Wargames diverting the military response. The Vice President taking control of the power to lauch interceptors from the generals prior to 9/11 for the first time in history. Al Queda identified within an hour of the first plane striking as responsible for the attack (which has stuck to this day). A whitewashed commision. Legislation forced through congress without debate or discussion to strip away consitutional protections. Bin Laden allowed to escape from Tora Bora. Lies about Iraqi WMD's. Lies about Saddam connection to al Queda. Massive profits for the military industrial complex. Fake news stories about terror plots, dropped without charges months later. More power grabs, culminating in HR 6166. American citizens no longer have constitutional rights if declared "enemy combatents"
All this is as true as anything can be. The administration knew about the upcoming attack. It did nothing meaningful to prevent the attack. It interfered with standard procedures that would have stopped the attack
Incompetance? LIHOP? and if it did a single thing to protect the plan for the attack: the smallest single thing? MIHOP: False Flag. the self inflicted wound
And of course, the prescedance of history: Reichstag fire: defend the homeland from the terrorists. Give up your rights and we will protect you
Faced with the above, it scarcely matters if the buildings were CD or fell by a fluke of design. Those issues are nothing more than signs to show people there is something very wrong with what has transpired and what is unfolding (though obviously we've discussed probability there). It doesnt matter what hit the Pentagon. It doesnt matter what happened to flight 93. We are looking at trees microscopically and miopically and wondering if an individual tree is evidance of a forest, when they are rooted in the ground all around us
If you are looking for proof of Who, and How, and Why, from me, an ordinary citizen with a philospohical frame of mind, but no security clearance, no access to classified files, secret locations and covert meetings, you are looking in the wrong place:
But I can say: we see all these events. they suggest a pattern. They suggest a chain of linkages. They suggest design
Now of course, you could dismiss all of the above as meerly co-incidences
But I will exercise my free will, and choose to be skeptical about that
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
A note on Logic:
Garbage in = Garbage out
Intuition is the balance that smells when things stink
Both are required for a properly functioning mind
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Intuition is a very powerful force, in the mind, indeed. However it means exactly nothing when talking about truth.
I notice you've artfully dodged the issue of fallacacious logic again. Ignoring the basic logical mistakes you are making is a recipe for disaster... but then again, I imagine that's how you got to where you are now, in the first place.
Good luck in your search for the thing that you already have convinced yourself is true. It won't be hard to find. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
John yes it does matter if the Towers came down by CD. It is the whole point.
There is not a single debunker I know that will defend the US position on the inability to deal with the intelligence they had beforehand. Nor the dreadful way 911 was handled. Nor the subsistent actions taken.
You are supporting openly that 911 is part of an on going plan. It was orchestrated by persons, as yet unknown to push US foreign policies.
I know full well Iraq was sanctioned before 911.
I know all about the intelligence warnings
I know all about the lies about WMD
I know all about the Pakistani connection.
I know all about Bin laden connections to the Bush density.
Stop throwing this in my face as though I am blindingly stupid and blissfully unaware of world events.
Prove to me that 911 were orchestrated by those on the inside, rather than putting together a heap of facts that I already know.
Last edited by stateofgrace on Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Has a steel framed building collapsed through fire apart from the theory that three did so on 911?
NO
Why call them "Steel framed buildings"?
Becuase if defines the method and engineering properties of the structure. In contrast, wooden barns full of hay have been destoyed by fire throughout history
Therefore there is no evidance that fire can destory steel framed buildings, other than on 9/11. To conclude as such would therefore be unique from any reference to precedent
Why has no building over x value in feet been destroyed by controlled demolition?
Becuase proffesional demolition of redundant buildings is conducted to minimise harm to people and surrounding property. Blowing up buildings over a certain size is unsafe for those reasons, and therefore proffesional companies do not do it. Buildings are dismantled until they are below that height instead
Would saftey factors be an issue if an organisation had decided to destroy buildings to cause damage and destruction to people and property in order to create shock and trauma in the public psyche to be channeled into supporting War?
Obviously NOT
And you talk to me about logical fallacy!
JREF's should get out amongst people more
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Becuase if defines the method and engineering properties of the structure.
|
Ah, so what you are saying is that, given a steel frame structure, it is impossible for it to collapse, due to fire, under any conditions, ever? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stateofgrace wrote: | John yes it does matter if the Towers came down by CD. It is the whole point.
There is not a single debunker I know that will defend the US potion on the inability to deal with the intelligence they had beforehand. Nor the dreadful way 911 was handled. Nor the subsistent actions taken.
You are supporting openly that 911 is part of an on going plan. It was orchestrated by persons, as yet unknown to push US foreign policies.
I know full well Iraq was sanctioned before 911.
I know all about the intelligence warnings
I know all about the lies about WMD
I know all about the Pakistani connection.
I know all about Bin laden connections to the Bush density.
Stop throwing this in my face as though I am blindingly stupid and blissfully unaware of world events.
Prove to me that 911 were orchestrated by those on the inside, rather than putting together a heap of facts that I already know. |
| Quote: | If you are looking for proof of Who, and How, and Why, from me, an ordinary citizen with a philospohical frame of mind, but no security clearance, no access to classified files, secret locations and covert meetings, you are looking in the wrong place:
But I can say: we see all these events. they suggest a pattern. They suggest a chain of linkages. They suggest design
Now of course, you could dismiss all of the above as meerly co-incidences
But I will exercise my free will, and choose to be skeptical about that
|
Therfore, we should all support the campaign for a truly rigerous investigation that can get at the facts
Logical, ain't it? 
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
Becuase if defines the method and engineering properties of the structure.
|
Ah, so what you are saying is that, given a steel frame structure, it is impossible for it to collapse, due to fire, under any conditions, ever? |
Not at all. It remains a statistical possibility, however remote. Plus Quantum theory, butterflies wings and all that
Provide evidance of any occurance outside of the collapse of WTC 1 2 or 7 in order that such a possibility can be given a mathematical likelyhood of occuring outside of the self-fullfilling "story" of 9/11
The earth is "4,000,000,000 years" old becuase and only becuase of the length of time needed to mathametically explain the likelyhood of life evolving by random accidental mutations: fact
Perhaps the probability is equally remote.
No evidance = guesswork = intuition, not logic.
Oh dear
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have never not supported the jersey girl’s questions nor have I ever not supported the need for further investigation into the intelligence failings.
I do not however support investigating conspiracies about bombs, misiles or the inside job.
Neither do the jersey girl.
Ask the right questions and stop burying them all in the massive conspiracy and you may get answers.
Until then you are simply blowing in the wind, asking all the wrong questions and making sure the answers that we all deserve will never be given. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Why has no building over x value in feet been destroyed by controlled demolition?
Becuase proffesional demolition of redundant buildings is conducted to minimise harm to people and surrounding property. Blowing up buildings over a certain size is unsafe for those reasons, and therefore proffesional companies do not do it. Buildings are dismantled until they are below that height instead
Would saftey factors be an issue if an organisation had decided to destroy buildings to cause damage and destruction to people and property in order to create shock and trauma in the public psyche to be channeled into supporting War?
Obviously NOT
|
Anyone challenging this?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Anyone challenging this?
|
I don't. It's not your facts that are wrong. It's your logic.
You are trying to "explain" away my objection about 500ft. controlled demolition. You are compltely right. The idea that it's impossible to demolish a 500 foot building because it's never happened before is patently absurd. I wish you showed that kind of logical talent in the rest of your statements.
However, when someone tries to "explain" away your tired old "no steel frame building" you toss it out as scientific mumbo jumbo and go back to believing your intuition.
I ask you, again, since you seem to worship the superior structurual capabilities of steel-frame buildings... is it possible, under ANY conditions, to collapse a steel-frame building using fire? And if your answer is yes, I ask.. how is that possible.. considering.. it's never happened before... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stateofgrace wrote: | I have never not supported the jersey girl’s questions nor have I ever not supported the need for further investigation into the intelligence failings.
I do not however support investigating conspiracies about bombs, misiles or the inside job.
Neither do the jersey girl.
Ask the right questions and stop burying them all in the massive conspiracy and you may get answers.
Until then you are simply blowing in the wind, asking all the wrong questions and making sure the answers that we all deserve will never be given. |
Much as I appreciate the services of critics on tap, could I suggest you re-apply your energies to helping us ask the right questions instead of concerning yourself with debating the wrong ones?
As you have noticed I do not overly concern myself with debating CD/Pentagon et al: I am far more interested in areas with a high degree of certainty that can be assertained from the official record and the mainstream media: becuase they communicate most effectively, and I am a pragmatic activist: In this instance I'm just chatting with you guys and sticking on topic for the thread
If there's any right questions the campaign is missing, it would appear to me an ethical responsibility to bring them forward at the earliest opportunity
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I ask you, again, since you seem to worship the superior structurual capabilities of steel-frame buildings... is it possible, under ANY conditions, to collapse a steel-frame building using fire? And if your answer is yes, I ask.. how is that possible.. considering.. it's never happened before... |
I belive this already qualifies as an answer. Care to address it?
| John White wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
Becuase if defines the method and engineering properties of the structure.
|
Ah, so what you are saying is that, given a steel frame structure, it is impossible for it to collapse, due to fire, under any conditions, ever? |
Not at all. It remains a statistical possibility, however remote. Plus Quantum theory, butterflies wings and all that
Provide evidance of any occurance outside of the collapse of WTC 1 2 or 7 in order that such a possibility can be given a mathematical likelyhood of occuring outside of the self-fullfilling "story" of 9/11
The earth is "4,000,000,000 years" old becuase and only becuase of the length of time needed to mathametically explain the likelyhood of life evolving by random accidental mutations: fact
Perhaps the probability is equally remote.
No evidance = guesswork = intuition, not logic.
Oh dear |
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
My energies are off to bed, I admire your candour, frankness and the fact you have not resorted to insults.
Until later.
Cheers stateofgrace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Not at all. It remains a statistical possibility, however remote. Plus Quantum theory, butterflies wings and all that
|
What would you estimate the chances of collapsing a steel frame building, with say.... a 10,000 degree fire, every room?
| Quote: |
Provide evidance of any occurance outside of the collapse of WTC 1 2 or 7 in order that such a possibility can be given a mathematical likelyhood of occuring outside of the self-fullfilling "story" of 9/11
The earth is "4,000,000,000 years" old becuase and only becuase of the length of time needed to mathametically explain the likelyhood of life evolving by random accidental mutations: fact
Perhaps the probability is equally remote.
No evidance = guesswork = intuition, not logic.
|
Hmm, are you talking about controlled demolition of a 500 foot building, or collapse due to fire? I don't remember with all that logical fallacy in the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
Not at all. It remains a statistical possibility, however remote. Plus Quantum theory, butterflies wings and all that
|
What would estimate the chances of collapsing a steel frame building, with say.... a 10,000 degree fire?
| Quote: |
Provide evidance of any occurance outside of the collapse of WTC 1 2 or 7 in order that such a possibility can be given a mathematical likelyhood of occuring outside of the self-fullfilling "story" of 9/11
The earth is "4,000,000,000 years" old becuase and only becuase of the length of time needed to mathametically explain the likelyhood of life evolving by random accidental mutations: fact
Perhaps the probability is equally remote.
No evidance = guesswork = intuition, not logic.
|
Hmm, are you talking about controlled demolition of a 500 foot building, or collapse due to fire? I don't remember with all that logical fallacy in the way. |
Or the building teleported into the heart of the Sun?
Same as SOG, its bed for me. Its been good. Another time
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is that how hot you think the center of the sun is? 10,000 degrees?
Oh lord. That intuition of yours is dead-on. Don't know why we all don't trust it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
