| 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 4:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
(Not quite made it to bed)
No, I was top trumping you 
after all, theres no evidance of 10,000 degree fires on 9/11, so we're just batting hypothetical values around
(NOW I'm off to bed)
_________________
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 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
after all, theres no evidance of 10,000 degree fires on 9/11, so we're just batting hypothetical values around
|
You've missed the point, badly.
You said that it was impossible for the towers to collapse due to fire, because no steel frame structure has ever collapsed due to fire.
I ask you, IF, there was such a fire... a 10,000 degree fire, you would agree, then that even a steel-frame building would collapse, right? That makes your statement absurd, since, by your logic, it would be impossible, ever, for any fire to make a steel-frame structure collapse.
My entire conversation with you has been to prove that "has never happened before" does not mean it's "impossible". That should be obvious, to anyone with any brain, at all. Otherwise, no events would ever happen, because nothing like it had ever happened before.
A more correct statement would look like this:
A steel frame structure would not collapse, given the conditions given on 9/11.
You don't want to make that statement, however, because then you'd need to back it up with some actual analysis beyond your own intuition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Logic is your problem. My tools are pragmatism and common sense
|
The logic whereby you think every Govt. in the world that has access to airliners is using them to spray us with powerful drugs and biological agents from 30,000' ?
| John White wrote: |
I do not consider the evidance for ChemTrials to be weak: it is in fact very strong, its a real phenomona and it is happening globally
|
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Off topic for what I will discuss on the board Ignatz: if you wish to come to Illusions I will discuss that issue further
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Off topic for what I will discuss on the board Ignatz: if you wish to come to Illusions I will discuss that issue further |
You were quite happy to discuss it until the mods locked the thread.
But the point is, it has a lot to say about your idea of "logic".
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perceptions an interesting thing
To me it has a lot to say about your confidence in assumption: I'm sure you wouldnt want to be dishonest and claim to have studied the issue in depth
The invite to a discussion is there: if you dont wish to accept it, thats your business
Otherwise, its irrelevant: unless assumption is a character trait you wish to further display?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: |
As I understand it your implication is that according to your expressed notion a materials study couldn't tell the difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons. |
No. That is your strawman.
| Quote: | | Ok thermate. Is your attention deficited or similar? |
Why you feel the need to try and personalise the discussion is beyond me.
| Quote: | There now, you should be up to speed, if such a thing is possible.
If not, refer to pages 35-50 of Jones'paper and you will find out also about sol-gel mediums enabling thermate to be produced in shaped and moulded form.
Now no more silly questions.
If you have a point, make it. |
Delivery system that enables it to be used to cut through vertical steel columns? You have shown me no evidence of such a thing. You just waffle on about this and that and avoid the subject. It is quite a crucial point of the argument. If there is such a system then your argument is bolstered. If there isn't such a system then your "thermate used to demolish WTC" falls to pieces.
If you don't have the evidence of such a sytem then you are guessing about the cause of the WTC falling. Why you then feel the need to promote your guesses as facts leaves me somewhat confused. The two things are clearly not the same thing. You will not be able to convince anyone of anything if when pushed on a point, your evidence boils down to a guess. |
Of course it's a guess - what are you expecting to find on an internet discussion board?
However as its use as an anti-armour munition shows, it is perfectly capable of cutting through vertical armoured steel surfaces (at a speed you wouldn't believe kid).
Now I've had enough of your time wasting diversions so in the absence of
any further of your desperate contortions, hand waving and faulty logic, that aspect is now closed. |
Actually no, anti-armour ammunition does not cut through vertical surfaces, it injects molten matter or a high speed projectile though a small hole it cuts in the armour. This is way way different from cutting a steel box section column. And its not thermite either. I think you've lost on this one. Thermite is not used in anti-tank weapons, so if you claim the HEAT ammunition method, then your claim that Dr Jones is right falls to pieces. If you claim thermite and Dr Jones are right, then you have no delivery system, because HEAT ammo uses explosives to force a metal projectile, not a thermite one. |
Ah - so in the space of a few days from claiming it wasn't even possible you're now suddenly an expert? And somehow you have to contrive that yes it does cut through armoured steel, but not really. Oh my.
The point about thermate is that it is consistent with the physical evidence.
Period.
Molten steel (and lots of it sloshing round the basements),
Chemical signature detected - and let's not forget all those flying girders in mid air trailing white (aluminium?) smoke from their freshly cut ends..
Your contention about what some weapon designs may do is, to me, no argument at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Anti-sophist]
I ask you, IF, there was such a fire... a 10,000 degree fire, you would agree, then that even a steel-frame building would collapse, right? That makes your statement absurd, since, by your logic, it would be impossible, ever, for any fire to make a steel-frame structure collapse.
[/quote]
On a point of order a building could never collapse during a 10,000º fire.
Unless vapour can somehow 'collapse'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: |
As I understand it your implication is that according to your expressed notion a materials study couldn't tell the difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons. |
No. That is your strawman.
| Quote: | | Ok thermate. Is your attention deficited or similar? |
Why you feel the need to try and personalise the discussion is beyond me.
| Quote: | There now, you should be up to speed, if such a thing is possible.
If not, refer to pages 35-50 of Jones'paper and you will find out also about sol-gel mediums enabling thermate to be produced in shaped and moulded form.
Now no more silly questions.
If you have a point, make it. |
Delivery system that enables it to be used to cut through vertical steel columns? You have shown me no evidence of such a thing. You just waffle on about this and that and avoid the subject. It is quite a crucial point of the argument. If there is such a system then your argument is bolstered. If there isn't such a system then your "thermate used to demolish WTC" falls to pieces.
If you don't have the evidence of such a sytem then you are guessing about the cause of the WTC falling. Why you then feel the need to promote your guesses as facts leaves me somewhat confused. The two things are clearly not the same thing. You will not be able to convince anyone of anything if when pushed on a point, your evidence boils down to a guess. |
Of course it's a guess - what are you expecting to find on an internet discussion board?
However as its use as an anti-armour munition shows, it is perfectly capable of cutting through vertical armoured steel surfaces (at a speed you wouldn't believe kid).
Now I've had enough of your time wasting diversions so in the absence of
any further of your desperate contortions, hand waving and faulty logic, that aspect is now closed. |
Actually no, anti-armour ammunition does not cut through vertical surfaces, it injects molten matter or a high speed projectile though a small hole it cuts in the armour. This is way way different from cutting a steel box section column. And its not thermite either. I think you've lost on this one. Thermite is not used in anti-tank weapons, so if you claim the HEAT ammunition method, then your claim that Dr Jones is right falls to pieces. If you claim thermite and Dr Jones are right, then you have no delivery system, because HEAT ammo uses explosives to force a metal projectile, not a thermite one. |
Ah - so in the space of a few days from claiming it wasn't even possible you're now suddenly an expert? And somehow you have to contrive that yes it does cut through armoured steel, but not really. Oh my.
The point about thermate is that it is consistent with the physical evidence.
Period.
Molten steel (and lots of it sloshing round the basements),
Chemical signature detected - and let's not forget all those flying girders in mid air trailing white (aluminium?) smoke from their freshly cut ends..
Your contention about what some weapon designs may do is, to me, no argument at all. |
What? My claim is that thermate cannot be used to cut through a vertical box section steel column, and you or any other member of the CT movement have still failed to prove this. I have never claimed to be an expert. I know how high explosive anti-tank shells work because I have an interest in such things.
It seemed to be suggested that anti-tank rounds used thermate, they do not. They use a shaped explosive charge which forces a piece of metal into the armour. Using thermate wouldn't work because it is the speed of the metal projectile that penetrates the armour, not any thermal propeties it possesses.
I in no way contrived an explanation that said anti-armour rounds both could and could not cut steel. They do not cut steel, they force a jet of metal through the armour. It does not cut, it stabs. This would not cut a box section column, and not produce the cuts that CTists claim are from thermate.
You claim that thermate was used because of the chemical signature. Well there isn't for a start, and you still have no delivery mechanism. I realise in your world this isn't important, but in the real world it is, because your claim is like finding some lead, claiming it is from a bullet, and it was fired from a gun 10 miles away. You have no proof the lead is from a bullet, and you have no way of explaining how a gun could fire 10 miles, when no such gun exists. Similarly, you have some trace elements that don't prove thermate, and you don't have a way for thermate to be there.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: |
As I understand it your implication is that according to your expressed notion a materials study couldn't tell the difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons. |
No. That is your strawman.
| Quote: | | Ok thermate. Is your attention deficited or similar? |
Why you feel the need to try and personalise the discussion is beyond me.
| Quote: | There now, you should be up to speed, if such a thing is possible.
If not, refer to pages 35-50 of Jones'paper and you will find out also about sol-gel mediums enabling thermate to be produced in shaped and moulded form.
Now no more silly questions.
If you have a point, make it. |
Delivery system that enables it to be used to cut through vertical steel columns? You have shown me no evidence of such a thing. You just waffle on about this and that and avoid the subject. It is quite a crucial point of the argument. If there is such a system then your argument is bolstered. If there isn't such a system then your "thermate used to demolish WTC" falls to pieces.
If you don't have the evidence of such a sytem then you are guessing about the cause of the WTC falling. Why you then feel the need to promote your guesses as facts leaves me somewhat confused. The two things are clearly not the same thing. You will not be able to convince anyone of anything if when pushed on a point, your evidence boils down to a guess. |
Of course it's a guess - what are you expecting to find on an internet discussion board?
However as its use as an anti-armour munition shows, it is perfectly capable of cutting through vertical armoured steel surfaces (at a speed you wouldn't believe kid).
Now I've had enough of your time wasting diversions so in the absence of
any further of your desperate contortions, hand waving and faulty logic, that aspect is now closed. |
Actually no, anti-armour ammunition does not cut through vertical surfaces, it injects molten matter or a high speed projectile though a small hole it cuts in the armour. This is way way different from cutting a steel box section column. And its not thermite either. I think you've lost on this one. Thermite is not used in anti-tank weapons, so if you claim the HEAT ammunition method, then your claim that Dr Jones is right falls to pieces. If you claim thermite and Dr Jones are right, then you have no delivery system, because HEAT ammo uses explosives to force a metal projectile, not a thermite one. |
Ah - so in the space of a few days from claiming it wasn't even possible you're now suddenly an expert? And somehow you have to contrive that yes it does cut through armoured steel, but not really. Oh my.
The point about thermate is that it is consistent with the physical evidence.
Period.
Molten steel (and lots of it sloshing round the basements),
Chemical signature detected - and let's not forget all those flying girders in mid air trailing white (aluminium?) smoke from their freshly cut ends..
Your contention about what some weapon designs may do is, to me, no argument at all. |
What? My claim is that thermate cannot be used to cut through a vertical box section steel column, and you or any other member of the CT movement have still failed to prove this. I have never claimed to be an expert. I know how high explosive anti-tank shells work because I have an interest in such things.
It seemed to be suggested that anti-tank rounds used thermate, they do not. They use a shaped explosive charge which forces a piece of metal into the armour. Using thermate wouldn't work because it is the speed of the metal projectile that penetrates the armour, not any thermal propeties it possesses.
I in no way contrived an explanation that said anti-armour rounds both could and could not cut steel. They do not cut steel, they force a jet of metal through the armour. It does not cut, it stabs. This would not cut a box section column, and not produce the cuts that CTists claim are from thermate.
You claim that thermate was used because of the chemical signature. Well there isn't for a start, and you still have no delivery mechanism. I realise in your world this isn't important, but in the real world it is, because your claim is like finding some lead, claiming it is from a bullet, and it was fired from a gun 10 miles away. You have no proof the lead is from a bullet, and you have no way of explaining how a gun could fire 10 miles, when no such gun exists. Similarly, you have some trace elements that don't prove thermate, and you don't have a way for thermate to be there. |
Claiming that i sthe way one particular design works does not mean that is necessarily how all designs work, despite your expressed 'interest'.
You seemed unaware - indeed you disputed - that thermate was even used as an anti-tank weapon.
And as you may even yet grasp, the way to tell if a piece of lead is a bullet or a piece of roof flashing relies on more than just the elemental composition of the bullet itself. There are physical behaviours to be taken into account also.
Your arguments are as thin as the flanges on that evaporation eroded steel. (Gee how did that happen? Jetfuel foundries (with added friction)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: |
As I understand it your implication is that according to your expressed notion a materials study couldn't tell the difference between carbohydrates and hydrocarbons. |
No. That is your strawman.
| Quote: | | Ok thermate. Is your attention deficited or similar? |
Why you feel the need to try and personalise the discussion is beyond me.
| Quote: | There now, you should be up to speed, if such a thing is possible.
If not, refer to pages 35-50 of Jones'paper and you will find out also about sol-gel mediums enabling thermate to be produced in shaped and moulded form.
Now no more silly questions.
If you have a point, make it. |
Delivery system that enables it to be used to cut through vertical steel columns? You have shown me no evidence of such a thing. You just waffle on about this and that and avoid the subject. It is quite a crucial point of the argument. If there is such a system then your argument is bolstered. If there isn't such a system then your "thermate used to demolish WTC" falls to pieces.
If you don't have the evidence of such a sytem then you are guessing about the cause of the WTC falling. Why you then feel the need to promote your guesses as facts leaves me somewhat confused. The two things are clearly not the same thing. You will not be able to convince anyone of anything if when pushed on a point, your evidence boils down to a guess. |
Of course it's a guess - what are you expecting to find on an internet discussion board?
However as its use as an anti-armour munition shows, it is perfectly capable of cutting through vertical armoured steel surfaces (at a speed you wouldn't believe kid).
Now I've had enough of your time wasting diversions so in the absence of
any further of your desperate contortions, hand waving and faulty logic, that aspect is now closed. |
Actually no, anti-armour ammunition does not cut through vertical surfaces, it injects molten matter or a high speed projectile though a small hole it cuts in the armour. This is way way different from cutting a steel box section column. And its not thermite either. I think you've lost on this one. Thermite is not used in anti-tank weapons, so if you claim the HEAT ammunition method, then your claim that Dr Jones is right falls to pieces. If you claim thermite and Dr Jones are right, then you have no delivery system, because HEAT ammo uses explosives to force a metal projectile, not a thermite one. |
Ah - so in the space of a few days from claiming it wasn't even possible you're now suddenly an expert? And somehow you have to contrive that yes it does cut through armoured steel, but not really. Oh my.
The point about thermate is that it is consistent with the physical evidence.
Period.
Molten steel (and lots of it sloshing round the basements),
Chemical signature detected - and let's not forget all those flying girders in mid air trailing white (aluminium?) smoke from their freshly cut ends..
Your contention about what some weapon designs may do is, to me, no argument at all. |
What? My claim is that thermate cannot be used to cut through a vertical box section steel column, and you or any other member of the CT movement have still failed to prove this. I have never claimed to be an expert. I know how high explosive anti-tank shells work because I have an interest in such things.
It seemed to be suggested that anti-tank rounds used thermate, they do not. They use a shaped explosive charge which forces a piece of metal into the armour. Using thermate wouldn't work because it is the speed of the metal projectile that penetrates the armour, not any thermal propeties it possesses.
I in no way contrived an explanation that said anti-armour rounds both could and could not cut steel. They do not cut steel, they force a jet of metal through the armour. It does not cut, it stabs. This would not cut a box section column, and not produce the cuts that CTists claim are from thermate.
You claim that thermate was used because of the chemical signature. Well there isn't for a start, and you still have no delivery mechanism. I realise in your world this isn't important, but in the real world it is, because your claim is like finding some lead, claiming it is from a bullet, and it was fired from a gun 10 miles away. You have no proof the lead is from a bullet, and you have no way of explaining how a gun could fire 10 miles, when no such gun exists. Similarly, you have some trace elements that don't prove thermate, and you don't have a way for thermate to be there. |
Claiming that i sthe way one particular design works does not mean that is necessarily how all designs work, despite your expressed 'interest'.
You seemed unaware - indeed you disputed - that thermate was even used as an anti-tank weapon.
And as you may even yet grasp, the way to tell if a piece of lead is a bullet or a piece of roof flashing relies on more than just the elemental composition of the bullet itself. There are physical behaviours to be taken into account also.
Your arguments are as thin as the flanges on that evaporation eroded steel. (Gee how did that happen? Jetfuel foundries (with added friction)? |
Do the experiment then. Get a box section column, stand it up, cut it down.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Claiming that i sthe way one particular design works does not mean that is necessarily how all designs work, despite your expressed 'interest'.
You seemed unaware - indeed you disputed - that thermate was even used as an anti-tank weapon.
And as you may even yet grasp, the way to tell if a piece of lead is a bullet or a piece of roof flashing relies on more than just the elemental composition of the bullet itself. There are physical behaviours to be taken into account also.
Your arguments are as thin as the flanges on that evaporation eroded steel. (Gee how did that happen? Jetfuel foundries (with added friction)? |
I'm having difficulty finding examples of thermate being used as an anti-tank weapon.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Congratulations. Not a single mention of thermite as an anti-armour weapon in there. The compunds are used in the explosives to make them burn faster, increasing their expansion rates, NOT to burn through armour.
I think it's apparent you're having details in telling the difference between what something says, and what you want it to say.
So, have you got any real examples of thermite used as an anti-armour weapon?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Congratulations. Not a single mention of thermite as an anti-armour weapon in there. The compunds are used in the explosives to make them burn faster, increasing their expansion rates, NOT to burn through armour.
I think it's apparent you're having details in telling the difference between what something says, and what you want it to say.
So, have you got any real examples of thermite used as an anti-armour weapon? |
My mistake - same post but I neglected to include both links. Here's th eother one. Enjoy.
"The main buyer of pyrocool is the military, which use it to extinguish incendiary fires caused by napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades/rockets. It then seems a little too coincidental that the underground fires resisted all previous fire-fighting efforts at GZ until Pyrocool was applied.
http://www.pyrocool.org/news.htm " |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Congratulations. Not a single mention of thermite as an anti-armour weapon in there. The compunds are used in the explosives to make them burn faster, increasing their expansion rates, NOT to burn through armour.
I think it's apparent you're having details in telling the difference between what something says, and what you want it to say.
So, have you got any real examples of thermite used as an anti-armour weapon? |
My mistake - same post but I neglected to include both links. Here's th eother one. Enjoy.
"The main buyer of pyrocool is the military, which use it to extinguish incendiary fires caused by napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades/rockets. It then seems a little too coincidental that the underground fires resisted all previous fire-fighting efforts at GZ until Pyrocool was applied.
http://www.pyrocool.org/news.htm " |
www.pyrocool.org dosn't work. The official Pyrocool website www.pyrocooltech.com makes no mention of the military.
Still no evidence of thermite based weapons.
And the logic:
Pyrocool puts out thermite fire
Pyrocool put out ground zero fires
Therefore ground zero fire was thermite based
is absolutely ludicrous.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Congratulations. Not a single mention of thermite as an anti-armour weapon in there. The compunds are used in the explosives to make them burn faster, increasing their expansion rates, NOT to burn through armour.
I think it's apparent you're having details in telling the difference between what something says, and what you want it to say.
So, have you got any real examples of thermite used as an anti-armour weapon? |
My mistake - same post but I neglected to include both links. Here's th eother one. Enjoy.
"The main buyer of pyrocool is the military, which use it to extinguish incendiary fires caused by napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades/rockets. It then seems a little too coincidental that the underground fires resisted all previous fire-fighting efforts at GZ until Pyrocool was applied.
http://www.pyrocool.org/news.htm " |
www.pyrocool.org dosn't work. The official Pyrocool website www.pyrocooltech.com makes no mention of the military.
Still no evidence of thermite based weapons.
And the logic:
Pyrocool puts out thermite fire
Pyrocool put out ground zero fires
Therefore ground zero fire was thermite based
is absolutely ludicrous. |
As indeed is your refusal to see words right in front of your eyes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Congratulations. Not a single mention of thermite as an anti-armour weapon in there. The compunds are used in the explosives to make them burn faster, increasing their expansion rates, NOT to burn through armour.
I think it's apparent you're having details in telling the difference between what something says, and what you want it to say.
So, have you got any real examples of thermite used as an anti-armour weapon? |
My mistake - same post but I neglected to include both links. Here's th eother one. Enjoy.
"The main buyer of pyrocool is the military, which use it to extinguish incendiary fires caused by napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades/rockets. It then seems a little too coincidental that the underground fires resisted all previous fire-fighting efforts at GZ until Pyrocool was applied.
http://www.pyrocool.org/news.htm " |
www.pyrocool.org dosn't work. The official Pyrocool website www.pyrocooltech.com makes no mention of the military.
Still no evidence of thermite based weapons.
And the logic:
Pyrocool puts out thermite fire
Pyrocool put out ground zero fires
Therefore ground zero fire was thermite based
is absolutely ludicrous. |
As indeed is your refusal to see words right in front of your eyes. |
Well, www.pyrocool.org doesn't work, and isn't the official website of the manufacturer. The official pyrocool website makes no mention of anything that backs up your claim.
Which words am I missing?
The claim that thermite is used in anti-tank weapons? If this is true you should be able to find another source that backs that claim up.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Congratulations. Not a single mention of thermite as an anti-armour weapon in there. The compunds are used in the explosives to make them burn faster, increasing their expansion rates, NOT to burn through armour.
I think it's apparent you're having details in telling the difference between what something says, and what you want it to say.
So, have you got any real examples of thermite used as an anti-armour weapon? |
My mistake - same post but I neglected to include both links. Here's th eother one. Enjoy.
"The main buyer of pyrocool is the military, which use it to extinguish incendiary fires caused by napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades/rockets. It then seems a little too coincidental that the underground fires resisted all previous fire-fighting efforts at GZ until Pyrocool was applied.
http://www.pyrocool.org/news.htm " |
www.pyrocool.org dosn't work. The official Pyrocool website www.pyrocooltech.com makes no mention of the military.
Still no evidence of thermite based weapons.
And the logic:
Pyrocool puts out thermite fire
Pyrocool put out ground zero fires
Therefore ground zero fire was thermite based
is absolutely ludicrous. |
As indeed is your refusal to see words right in front of your eyes. |
Well, www.pyrocool.org doesn't work, and isn't the official website of the manufacturer. The official pyrocool website makes no mention of anything that backs up your claim.
Which words am I missing?
The claim that thermite is used in anti-tank weapons? If this is true you should be able to find another source that backs that claim up. |
Well well, it appears Pyrocool have had a makeover and dropped mention of thermate fire suppression systems.
http://pyrocooltech.com/home/index.php
Too bad, there goes the previous product blurb from their old site -
"The main buyer of pyrocool is the military, which use it to extinguish incendiary fires caused by napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades/rockets."
I'll let you roam the military sites - I have a feeling you're used to it.
I'll leave it to the reinvestigation to quantify the method. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"I'll leave it to the reinvestigation to quantify the method."
So if you already have the answers, why do you need an investigation? Clearly you know that the new investigation will say "yes thermate brought down the towers." How could you possibly be wrong? I really don't understand where this sense of certainty comes from. Your whole argument is based on guesses, yet you quote it as gospel. Do you not see why rational people might find it difficult to be convinced by you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Well well, it appears Pyrocool have had a makeover and dropped mention of thermate fire suppression systems.
http://pyrocooltech.com/home/index.php
Too bad, there goes the previous product blurb from their old site -
"The main buyer of pyrocool is the military, which use it to extinguish incendiary fires caused by napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades/rockets."
I'll let you roam the military sites - I have a feeling you're used to it.
I'll leave it to the reinvestigation to quantify the method. |
So basically you have no evidence that pyrocool is used to extinguish thermite fires, and no evidence that thermite is used in anti-tank weapons.
And you still ahve no working method for thermite. Do you see why this simple experiment has not been carried out by CTists? Because it can't be done. Now do you see why we critics get annoyed?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | I'll leave it to the reinvestigation to quantify the method. |
And that statement presupposes that there is a method to be quantified.
This sums up your analytical approach, chek. A bunch of wild guesses and faith-based beliefs that will ultimately be confirmed by the "reinvestigation".
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
This sums up your analytical approach, chek. A bunch of wild guesses and faith-based beliefs that will ultimately be confirmed by the "reinvestigation".
|
Only half right. He will keep calling for investigations until he gets his beliefs affirmed by one. Another reinvestigations which comes to the same findings, will not convince him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
This sums up your analytical approach, chek. A bunch of wild guesses and faith-based beliefs that will ultimately be confirmed by the "reinvestigation".
|
Only half right. He will keep calling for investigations until he gets his beliefs affirmed by one. Another reinvestigations which comes to the same findings, will not convince him. |
So here come the hand wavers - Nothing to see here! No molten metal addressed in the FEMA/NIST investigations. No explanation of thermate chemical signatures. Just crackerbarrel conspiracy nut ad hominems.
And you wonder why half the population does not believe those same 'investigations' you parade as paragons of reason.
I wonder what agenda would lead you to believe that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
This sums up your analytical approach, chek. A bunch of wild guesses and faith-based beliefs that will ultimately be confirmed by the "reinvestigation".
|
Only half right. He will keep calling for investigations until he gets his beliefs affirmed by one. Another reinvestigations which comes to the same findings, will not convince him. |
i reckon it would depend if the reinvestigastion included all the current missing facts/explantions that the original investigastion missed out/didnt include. i dont think its a case of just not believing the offical story because people just dont want to believe it. i think that the omissions might actually be the reason why we are here. dosnt matter though i mean it was only the worse attack in history if they miss stuff out who cares? obviously not you and many others, good world for corruption then. hey sir this is great we can as we please they question nothing!....... ooops ignore that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | And you wonder why half the population does not believe those same 'investigations' you parade as paragons of reason. |
Do you want to go over those poll numbers again, chek? Or are you content with quoting false data? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | And you wonder why half the population does not believe those same 'investigations' you parade as paragons of reason. |
Do you want to go over those poll numbers again, chek? Or are you content with quoting false data? |
Puff and blow and demean all you like, but the numbers just keep showing you picked the losing side. And as we all know history hates losers.
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/911_polls.htm
Oh - it's 'new media' so I guess that doesn't count either. Not that I place any importance on poll numbers you understand...tee hee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No matter how many times you correct chek, he keeps repeating the same things over and over. It's not even worth trying, anymore, he's a lost cause. He keeps claiming there was "thermate residue".
No scientist has ever concluded, scientifically, that there was thermate. If Dr. Jones wants to submit his paper that proves it to a scientific journal, I'm sure someone wil be happy to take a half an hour and debunk it.
In the meantime, claiming that "thermate residue" is proof of thermate, because all the right atoms are there, is like claiming that wood comes from gasoline... since all the right atoms are there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | And you wonder why half the population does not believe those same 'investigations' you parade as paragons of reason. |
Do you want to go over those poll numbers again, chek? Or are you content with quoting false data? |
Puff and blow and demean all you like, but the numbers just keep showing you picked the losing side. And as we all know history hates losers.
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/911_polls.htm
Oh - it's 'new media' so I guess that doesn't count either. Not that I place any importance on poll numbers you understand...tee hee. |
Wow! Two more internet polls! Where the numbers are distorted by CT sites putting out the call to vote because they think it matters! (BTW, the links are dead.) Do you know what they call dissemination of false information in the service of an agenda? Propaganda. Ironic that the Truth Movement relies on Lies, Half-truths, and other Falsehoods in an attempt to advance their position.
Here's a recent poll that used this thing called "random sampling" that gives an accurate picture of the views of the broader population within what is known as a "margin of error" (4% in this case).
In the July 6, 2006 Scripps-Howard poll, 992 people were asked:
| Quote: | There are also accusations being made following the 9/11 terrorist attack. One of these is:
People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East. |
Here's how they responded:
| Quote: | Very likely 16%
Somewhat likely 20%
Not likely 59%
Don't know 5% |
These are other responses from the same poll:
Pentagon
| Quote: | The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner captured by terrorists but, instead was hit by a cruise missle fired by the U.S. military.
Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 6%
Not likely 80%
Don't kniow 7%
Other response 1% |
WTC
| Quote: | The collapse if the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.
Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 10%
Unlikely 77%
Don't know 6%
Other response 1% |
This is the difference between Deniers and their critics. Deniers will faithfully latch on to anything that appears to support their position, regardless of how credible the information is or how relevant it actually is to their position. Their critics demand rigorous, evidence-based data presented honestly and transparently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sign the petition! | Quote: | | Petition to Scholars for 9/11 Truth to release a scientific paper at journalof911studies.com to inform the public on the findings of "9/11TVfakery"/"no planes-forensic evidence". |
www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?911tvfak&1
Or at least check the list of notables who have signed. The truth movement is gathering unstoppable momentum! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
