Derail from PD: rehash on 911 conspiracy.

[ZiprHead]

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/2012/arguments/independent-study-confirms-redgray-chips-in-wtc-dust-not-thermite/

firstly, i didnt know chris mohr was the rev. chris mohr --- the foundation ov frdbs and the 'debunkers' 'science' relies on this mans 'expertise'

i would have replied sooner, but like capt. haddock here, ive been pursuing the more intellectually invigorating activity ov getting my drink on

secondly, the millette paper has already been refuted, having many issues which prevent it from being acceptable evidence, such as:

• millette is not an independent source, as he crafted many ov the concepts for the official conspiracy theory
• it has not been submitted for peer review
• the source materials used by millette do not match those used by harrit et al.
• millette did not replicate the harrit et al. experiment

details can be found here

For anyone interested, here is the thread at JREF referring to the results of the Dr. Millette study.:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=231314

I will agree, Dr. Millette did not replicate the Harrit experiment. Millette's testing was much more extensive.

 

[ZiprHead]

there is indeed much evidence for molten steel, as i posted originally, even found and documented by fema themselves
here is a picture ov it

more evidence can been found in this video, from about 1:35:00 to the end. you can even see your supposedly not visible molten steel in broad daylight dripping from the tower in the minutes before the towers destruction

That is the funniest looking "molten" steel I've ever seen. Looks much more like deformed plate steel to me.

As for the video, no one has yet to prove what was flowing out of the building was even steel, let alone structural steel.

And BTW, the FEMA article doesn't say it was molten steel too.

 

[empty]

I will agree, Dr. Millette did not replicate the Harrit experiment. Millette's testing was much more extensive.

thats all you have to say? nothing about the abundance ov other points which also discredit the study?
i shouldnt even have to say that the whole point ov science is repeatability, and if an experiment does not replicate the previous experiment, that is in fact, not science
millette has even been accused ov fraud in some ov his epa studies,

That is a striking fact in itself, but there have also been accusations of fraud against Millette and his colleagues. EPA whistleblower Dr. Cate Jenkins used the phrase “deliberate misrepresentation” with regard to their studies in which samples were manipulated through pre-conditioning to lower the pH before testing.

When Mohr is Less: The Official Non-response to Energetic Materials at the WTC

and, no. millette refused to even attempt the temperatures reached by harrit et al., at which point the thermitic material ignited and produced the iron microspheres, i wonder why

 

[empty]

there is indeed much evidence for molten steel, as i posted originally, even found and documented by fema themselves
here is a picture ov it

more evidence can been found in this video, from about 1:35:00 to the end. you can even see your supposedly not visible molten steel in broad daylight dripping from the tower in the minutes before the towers destruction

That is the funniest looking "molten" steel I've ever seen. Looks much more like deformed plate steel to me.

youre not quite the expert you think you are, as fema did classify the metal as melted, as you will see at the bottom ov this post, refuting your assertion that fema did not do so

and again, you have nothing to say about the fused cross or other evidence. avoiding the evidence isnt science, but ov course looking at the evidence means the official conspiracy is bogus, which is why you wont

As for the video, no one has yet to prove what was flowing out of the building was even steel, let alone structural steel.

really, thats the extent ov your analytical skills? quacks like a duck; is a duck, as they say, and it also happens to fit in with all the other evidence for controlled demolition
fema tried to say it was molten aluminum mixed with office furnishings, but never did any experiment to prove their theory. why would they even assert as such if it wasnt plausible for it to be molten steel?
steven jones did test the theory, and proved it was not in fact molten aluminum

besides your comment again does not address the other documented cases ov molten metal in the links i have already posted

And BTW, the FEMA article doesn't say it was molten steel too.

yes it does, right on the first page

evidence of a severe high temperature attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure

 

[Loren Pechtel]

yes you are fond ov saying so. i thought we were all adults here, but apparently loren needs to realize that the world keeps on turning whether or not he is searching, and that some evidence was either not available until after such times, or was not known to those at the time, or as i have suggested, those you were debating were in fact disinfo agents themselves

But we don't see much new evidence, we see the same ideas again and again.

At one point I worked out the energy in the falling buildings and compared it to that of a backpack nuke (it's reasonably close.) I forget the exact details but it was matter of showing the energy in the collapse far exceeded anything that could reasonably be obtained by explosives. Some of the truthers seized on this as evidence the buildings were brought down by nukes.

sure you did. considering what this forum has already seen ov your reasoning skills, there is no reason to give them credence. anyway, that theory has already been refuted as well. but are you saying there were nukes in the towers, and that nist should in fact have looked for explosives as per national fire codes, before they came to conclusion that 'we didnt look, because we didnt think we would find any'? you avoided this question on the last board, mind you, but you dont have to answer, its rhetorical

I was *NOT* suggesting it was nukes. I was looking at how much damage would happen from the collapse.

there is indeed much evidence for molten steel, as i posted originally, even found and documented by fema themselves
here is a picture ov it

Did you not read the report you're linking? That's showing mangled and corroded steel, not molten steel.

more evidence can been found in this video, from about 1:35:00 to the end. you can even see your supposedly not visible molten steel in broad daylight dripping from the tower in the minutes before the towers destruction

And what leads you to the conclusion that that is steel? All you can conclude is that it's a liquid. Remember what I said about not being able to see a red heat in daylight? All you're seeing is the color of the liquid--which is quite reasonable for what it actually is--molten aluminum.

what i find funny is some evidence is even on public display at the 9/11 memorial; the cross made ov steel fused together

And how is thermite supposed to have done that?

i organized all my links under simple headings giving an overview ov the evidence contained. besides, i already told you (which you probably didnt read) i am familiar with the links and can pinpoint times to save yours, in the interest ov science and debate, which are trying so hard to avoid. dont be angry at me that there is so much evidence that disproves the official conspiracy theory, instead direct your feelings on your own mind which prohibits you from objectively looking at the facts

Then pinpoint. When you pointed to the spot in the video I had no problem with it, I know what that's actually showing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

really, thats the extent ov your analytical skills? quacks like a duck; is a duck, as they say, and it also happens to fit in with all the other evidence for controlled demolition
fema tried to say it was molten aluminum mixed with office furnishings, but never did any experiment to prove their theory. why would they even assert as such if it wasnt plausible for it to be molten steel?
steven jones did test the theory, and proved it was not in fact molten aluminum

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’.

I started out looking for "steel", this came up very quickly. It doesn't matter what brought down the towers, you wouldn't red hot metal weeks later. This is the product of someone who is simply interested in proving a conspiracy, not in the truth.

yes it does, right on the first page

evidence of a severe high temperature attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure

That's not the same thing as saying the steel melted. You're talking about a localized effect of very high energy densities (say, from being hit hard), not an environment hot enough to melt the piece. Those are not the words they would have used if it actually had melted.

 

[empty]

1) What is nanothermite? The only thing that makes any sense to me is an especially fine-grained thermite. It would react faster than traditional thermite but that's all.

it also produces more energy than normal thermite, and can be applied like paint, allowing it to be more versatile in application

2) And how in the world do you detect residue of it? Within 10' of me I can find every component of thermite in quantities vastly above what a lab can detect. Saying they detected thermite residue is like saying they found traces of water in a garden.

what is this, elementary school? Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
thermite also produces specific byproducts such as iron microspheres ov particular properties

3) Thermite is going to have a very hard time cutting a vertical column. When it's fired the result is very hot but it's molten--it's going to behave like any other liquid and flow down. Consider Chernobyl--they had the start of a China-syndrome accident but did it cut the reactor walls? No. It only burned through the floor. (The roof was blown off, the walls were a bit damaged in the blast but they're basically still there.) That only happened because it had no place to go--given a place to go it flowed in preference to burning through things. (Which is why it was only the start of a China-syndrome accident. As soon as it got into the basement it could spread out and did and dropped subcritical. It did not burn through those basement walls.)

yes i can see you didnt even bother to look at the first link in my original post, which roundly refutes this claim

4) Thermite suffers the same problem as the explosive scenarios: What happens when a charge fails? There would be no way to predict *EXACTLY* where the plane would hit, yet the failure point is very close by. How do you deadman all your charges so they neither go early nor fail to go? Finding one unused charge in the rubble would give away the game.

a charge did fail, and it did give away the whole game, that is the molten metal you see dripping from the towers in the minutes before they were destroyed
and there are the numerous accounts ov rescue and clean-up workers documenting molten metal, as indicated from 1:35:00 onward

 

[empty]

Maybe, but I'm not the one making a positive claim (ie; 'x' *is* an ad hominem argument); you are. Which means we ought to expect you to back said claim up with a little more than "is too".

'is too' is all your claims have, not mine. all my assertions are backed up by the evidence (you wont look at) which you either were not aware ov (or were already ignoring) at the time ov your original arguments, or was not even available at the time

the postulate about 'if we find x' is a basic tenant ov science; surely you are not saying basics ov science are ad hominems

actually, you were referring to the notion that those who may think they are playing by the rules ov argumentation are in fact not, implying that you wouldnt commit to a debate on that basis, with no proof ov that being the case, thus an ad hom

Except, like I explained, that is not an ad hominem. First of all, a supposed lack of proof is irrelevant to whether a particular argument counts as an ad hominem argument. Second, please don't assume to know what I'm implying. Thirdly, questioning the notion that the people who proudly and loudly proclaim themselves to be following the rules are in fact following them, is not an ad hominem; nor would it be if that were my reason for not committing to a debate.

when you use it as an excuse to look at new data it is, in fact, an ad hominem

Incidentally, as someone who seems to like to shout ad hom to everyone who disagrees with you; I should probably point out that it is itself a fallacy to assert that the use of ad hominem arguments makes that person wrong. Ad hom arguments are NOT automatically fallacious; and in fact are perfectly applicable when used to question the credibility of statements of 'fact' and appeals to authority; as is the case here.

you cant be serious? ad hominem arguments are always fallacious, which is why they are their own catagory under logical fallacies
i claim ad hom only when it is applicable, such as negating evidence because they are youtube videos, or because 'its just a big list ov links', or 'weve already had this discussion before' when in fact we have not, as all have been suggested in this thread, and ov course, on the previous board as well

it is an ad hominem due to the fact that according to one ov your peers discussion occurs 'if we find x,' which we have, as i stated before

This may be a bit hard for you to understand, but what one of my "peers" has stated in the past has absolutely no relevance to me or the things *I* say. You can not point to something someone else has said, and use that to argue that something I said is an ad hom. I am under no obligation to agree with my supposed 'peers'.

your peer was talking about, as i stated above, a basic tenant ov science, so if you want to disagree on that point...

to put it another way, you are arguing against data nist themselves have provided, such as admission ov freefall for 2.25 seconds in the case ov wtc7, disproving the natural collapse theory, as even the nist lead said, "freefall cannot occur in a natural collapse."

It is dishonest to appeal to an authority to strengthen your position when that same authority rules out your pet theory. It's called quote-mining. The NIST has ruled out controlled demolition.

im simply using their own quotes and data against them. your assertion that 'nist has ruled out demolition' makes you the one who is quote-mining
nist has no grounds to rule out controlled demolition, as documented in the three part series WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall I II III

nist also found and documented molten metal under appendix c ov their wtc7 report, something also which cannot happen during normal office fires
nasa, the usgs, and many other rescue and clean up workers also documented molten metal and extreme temperatures in your reputable sources

NIST did not find and document molten steel. What it reported was distorted metal. Directly from their website:

my bad, i meant fema

furthermore, nist was found to have falsified their model for collapse ov wtc7, omitting supports which were present, and altering other data points to try and make natural collapse seem plausible. this is all in my original post

This is getting awkward guy; first you try to use the NIST as an authority to prove that natural collapse is impossible, then you claim they found something they themselves deny they found, and then you turn to just accuse them of fraud and mass deception. Why on earth would you expect anyone to listen to you when you burn your own sources that much?

nist is making assertions 'debunking' controlled demolition, so ov course using their own words and data is acceptable to prove them wrong, as i already explained above
its not an accusation, its a fact

yes, it is. there are laws ov physics such as newtons third law and the law ov conservation ov motion which were violated during the collapses ov the three towers, again disproving the official story
you denying it, doesnt make it so, as you are fond ov saying

And I'll take the silence of the entire physics community as far better evidence than the word of a handful of high-school level physics teachers with a chip on their shoulder.

so the yes men it is
and you keep referring to the slanderous ad hominem that those who disagree with the official conspiracy theory are to be dismissed based on your perception ov their credentials. like i said before, those who disagree are all at the the highest levels ov education and academic respect

the 'expert' community at large which has been vetted by the rich 'elites' such as in the case ov the media and other historical examples.

You obviously don't know the first thing about the scientific community if you genuinely believe it's vetted by rich 'elites'.

you obviously dont know the first thing about power or history
humans, for example, are herd animals, the weaker driven by peer pressure and arguments from authority, be they coercion or blind ignorance
in the scientific community, the power ov grants holds sway over what is studied, and as history has shown, power can often dictate what is believed

and too bad for your pet theory, the experts supporting controlled demolition are all at the top ov their fields, giving them more credibility than your 'third rate' sources, in your terms

...lol wut?

as said above, if you are to follow your own 'logic', it is your sources who are third rate, and to be discarded against those who support controlled demolition

you are wrong ov course, the flat earth concept was widely held among many cultures.

And our culture apparently widely holds that the antics of celebrities are newsworthy; what the fuck does this have to do with what scientists think?

because as your argument goes, the majority should be taken over the minority

if the majority ov the scientific community never held that belief, why then were they ignored?

Really? Okay let's see:

• The overwhelming majority of people were illiterate, thus depriving them of the only means of even *knowing* what the scientific community was discussing amongst itself.
• Even if one was literate, that was no guarantee that one would come into contact with scientific literature on this (or any subject). This was true especially prior to the invention of the printing press, but also often true afterwards for reasons listed below.
• Education was prohibitively expensive for most people; thus preventing them from coming into contact with academic ideas.
• In most places, organized religion acted with hostility to scientific notions; and scientific literature was routinely censored or outright burned throughout much of the world, right into the modern era.
• That said, even within theologian circles, around the time of Columbus the idea that the earth was in fact round appeared to hold a majority view; as evidenced by many letters and treatises of the time. The disagreement was not so much that people believed a ship sailing far enough west would fall of the world, but that there was considerable debate about the actual circumference of the earth; with many believing it to be at least twice as big as it was in reality. While there were a few voices in that community who genuinely thought the world was flat, the majority of them knew otherwise on account of the ancient Greeks, who conclusively proved the world to be round. Eratotsthenes was the first (that we know of) to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did in 240BC with remarkable accuracy.
• They were not, in fact, "ignored"; and in fact it was known even by many of the scientifically illiterate peasants that the world was not flat. One can not believe in a flat Earth when one sees the sails of a ship pass below the horizon, only for that same ship to return unharmed a season later.

you dont give ancients enough credit, they were often more educated in ways we have lost today
people arent much more literate today, if even any at all, due to the mainstream media and the power that rich 'elites' have over the paradigm. that goes for scientists, politicians, whoever. so even today the majority consensus on most matters is suspect

The idea that there used to be consensus that the world was flat is actually a 19th century fiction. It can actually be traced to the evolution debates taking place during that time; with the argument appearing that we shouldn't listen to what the scientists are saying about how god isn't necessary to create the animals, because scientists were supposedly wrong about the earth not being flat before. This is also when we first see that famous woodprint of a medieval man opening a door in the sky to look out and see the edge of the world; an image that became how we popularly imagine how medieval people saw the world; this wood print is a 19th century invention.

i am not referring to the 19th century or medieval belief, but the scholars ov the ancient world who did hold the idea

are you thus proving my point in saying the minority view was correct among the majority? but either way, my point still stands, as there are many other examples which could prove my point, such as galileo (and those yes men again)

...are you seriously calling Galileo a yes man? Or are you claiming that he was persecuted by *scientists*, when he clearly wasn't?

no, you misunderstand, galileo was the persecuted minority who was correct against the yes men ov the powers at the time

 

[empty]

the official story is bullshit, no matter how many times you deny it

I guess this was inevitable. A few things to note:

A ton of debate has already taken place at IIDB / FRDB. So the idea of people here just handwaving stuff aside is bunk.

yes you all like to remind me, but as i said to loren, the world doesnt stop turning because you stopped searching, my child. evidence is available now that wasnt before, or those you debated before werent sufficiently informed, or you were denying the evidence

Molten metal is such a bogus argument. You can't have it both ways. If themite was used, the location and amounts used would have been limited. It would have cut through the beams and caused the collapse. It would not have stuck around to continue melting the beams and keep the beams melted.

when did i say thermite wasnt limited in use? and youre right the molten metal didnt stick around, a team ov firefighters came across some down below
just the fact there was molten metal, and and abundance ov extremely high temperatures spells doom for the official conspiracy theory. and most ov the beams were shipped off before it could be inspected as evidence, causing much uproar among fire engineers

The collapses of all three towers were different modes of failure, yet you claim that they were all staged.

different modes ov failure, whether true or not, does not mean they werent all staged

The "yes" men are called structural engineers.

being an engineer does not preclude one from being a yes man

The same people that designed major structures across the globe. You can not just hand wave their testimony aside because it is inconvenient.

the same also applies to you. some ov those who disagree with the official conspiracy theory have also designed and built major structures. as you say, you can not just hand wave their testimony aside because it is inconvenient

There are no civil engineers that support the Truther movement. In fact, there are few people with science degrees that support it.

both ov these statements are entirely false

The Official version has hardly been debunked.

yes it has
you should try harder, but dont hurt yourself

 

[dystopian]

Oh joy, another one of these.

'is too' is all your claims have, not mine.

/stomps feet on the ground.

the postulate about 'if we find x' is a basic tenant ov science; surely you are not saying basics ov science are ad hominems

I don't know what planet you live on where that is a basic tenet of science.

when you use it as an excuse to look at new data it is, in fact, an ad hominem

It's not, but I don't see much point in arguing it with you any further.

you cant be serious? ad hominem arguments are always fallacious, which is why they are their own catagory under logical fallacies

Yes, I am entirely serious, and no ad hom arguments are not always fallacious. Here is the distinction; the fallacious kind of ad hom argument is more properly referred to as 'Argumentum Ad Hominem'. As many philosophers have noted, however, there are instances where Ad Hominem argument do apply in a non fallacious manner.

"Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.

Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

Ad hominem arguments are the converse of appeals to authority, and may be used in response to such appeals."

Stating with your certainty that these arguments are always fallacious demonstrated both an ignorance of the actual term, and a vested emotional interest in maintaining 'ad hom' as a universally fallacious form of argument so you can keep throwing the word around whenever someone doesn't accept your arguments the way you want them to. Which incidentally, could be construed to be a form of Argumentum Ad Hominem.

your peer was talking about, as i stated above, a basic tenant ov science, so if you want to disagree on that point...

As I already stated, it is not a 'basic tenant of science'; at least not the way you're using it. And that's assuming you meant tenet instead of someone who rents something from science.

im simply using their own quotes and data against them.

Yes, that's what's generally defined as quotemining.

your assertion that 'nist has ruled out demolition' makes you the one who is quote-mining
nist has no grounds to rule out controlled demolition, as documented in the three part series....

How am I quote-mining nist when they *do* in fact rule it out, and the only people who are saying they can't rule it out are people who are NOT nist? Do you understand the meaning of the term?

my bad, i meant fema

Oh yes, you mean that thing they found that is clearly NOT molten steel, and which AT NO POINT IN THE PAPER they refer to as molten steel; but instead explicitly refer to as eroded steel; and explain how it happened.

Thanks for completely undermining your own argument.

nist is making assertions 'debunking' controlled demolition, so ov course using their own words and data is acceptable to prove them wrong, as i already explained above
its not an accusation, its a fact

I think you have a rather odd definition of the word 'fact'.

so the yes men it is

Riight. Because apart from a handful of bold and dashing rebels against authority, the entire scientific community is comprised of yes men.

and you keep referring to the slanderous ad hominem that those who disagree with the official conspiracy theory are to be dismissed based on your perception ov their credentials. like i said before, those who disagree are all at the the highest levels ov education and academic respect

And like I explained to you; ad hominem arguments are not in fact always fallacious... and more to the point here, are in fact perfectly acceptable forms of argument when used against, among other things: Appeal to Authority fallacies. And guess what you just did?

as said above, if you are to follow your own 'logic', it is your sources who are third rate, and to be discarded against those who support controlled demolition

No, you don't seem to understand my objection.

"...lol wut?" could be translated to something like; "What the hell are you smoking?"

because as your argument goes, the majority should be taken over the minority

No, the *consensus* position of *experts* should be taken over the minority position. That, actually *is* a basic tenet of science. It's how science progresses its knowledge. And at no point in the past, has there ever been a scientific consensus that the earth was flat.

you dont give ancients enough credit, they were often more educated in ways we have lost today

No they weren't. Though seeing as you buy into one conspiracy theory, I don't suppose you also believe the pyramids were carved by lasers.

people arent much more literate today, if even any at all, due to the mainstream media and the power that rich 'elites' have over the paradigm.

I don't think you understand what literate means; which would be funny, seeing as it means the understanding of written *words*.

that goes for scientists, politicians, whoever. so even today the majority consensus on most matters is suspect.

Oh yes, of course. Just tell a scientist that we've always been at war with Eastasia, and they'll not think to question it.

i am not referring to the 19th century or medieval belief, but the scholars ov the ancient world who did hold the idea

But as I explained to you, they *didn't*. At least it was never truly a consensus position; and it certainly wasn't a scientific notion since science didn't even exist at the time. The concept of a spherical earth can be reliably traced to at least the 6th century BC (which is what we call the ancient world); though it likely predates even that. The spherical earth quickly became the dominant view in the Hellenic world, espoused by such great minds as Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Plato (the latter making an early attempt to calculate the circumference of the Earth, though the later Archimedes was more accurate)

no, you misunderstand, galileo was the persecuted minority who was correct against the yes men ov the powers at the time

Except you're distorting the actual situation. First of all, to compare an era where people were regularly burned at the stake for espousing 'heretical views' to our modern era, is absurd. There are no such consequences to disagreeing with the scientific consensus today; at most you'll be subjected to ridicule if you peddle obvious nonsense. Secondly, he did not actually get censured by scientists (but rather the church); and while yes there were astronomers who disagreed with him, it was not at all the case that he was fighting against a hostile consensus. And while yes, in his native country he met with much opposition, he was in fact heralded elsewhere. His works, which were censored in Italy, were freely printed here in Holland and became bestsellers which, to anyone familiar with European history, should show that he was not thwarted so much by astronomers and scholars, but rather the church.

You are not Galileo; and neither are the people who'se word you take as gospel.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess this was inevitable. A few things to note:

A ton of debate has already taken place at IIDB / FRDB. So the idea of people here just handwaving stuff aside is bunk.

yes you all like to remind me, but as i said to loren, the world doesnt stop turning because you stopped searching, my child. evidence is available now that wasnt before, or those you debated before werent sufficiently informed, or you were denying the evidence

My child? Wow!

New evidence is available now? Oh goody. Like what? That the building fell down twice the speed of free fall?

Molten metal is such a bogus argument. You can't have it both ways. If themite was used, the location and amounts used would have been limited. It would have cut through the beams and caused the collapse. It would not have stuck around to continue melting the beams and keep the beams melted.

when did i say thermite wasnt limited in use? and youre right the molten metal didnt stick around, a team ov firefighters came across some down below

The thermite would stop working at some point. Once it cuts, it cuts. It doesn't have the ability to stay hot for weeks.

just the fact there was molten metal, and and abundance ov extremely high temperatures spells doom for the official conspiracy theory.

Molten metal means nothing. Aluminum is a metal. Has a relatively low melting point. Molten steel would be interesting. No evidence of that. And this ignores the conspiracy problem of explaining why there was molten steel in the first place. What was keeping it molten, heck, what made it molten in the first place?

and most ov the beams were shipped off before it could be inspected as evidence, causing much uproar among fire engineers

Actually the fire engineers are upset because they feel the building wasn't fireproofed enough. If you actually read their objections in context, you'd know that.

The collapses of all three towers were different modes of failure, yet you claim that they were all staged.

different modes ov failure, whether true or not, does not mean they werent all staged

Are you claiming that all three building failed in the same manner? You'd have to be rather unschooled in physics and engineering to even think for a second that it'd be possible for WTC 7 to collapse in any method similar to a completely different design such as WTC 1 and 2. The fact that WTC 1 and 2 failed differently implies that staging of the collapses would have been different. That would seem nonsensical for a conspiracy.

The "yes" men are called structural engineers.

being an engineer does not preclude one from being a yes man

All of them? The guys that design all of these skyscrapers? All of them in on the conspiracy? Hundreds of thousands of them?

The same people that designed major structures across the globe. You can not just hand wave their testimony aside because it is inconvenient.

the same also applies to you. some ov those who disagree with the official conspiracy theory have also designed and built major structures.

That'd be none of them. There is not a single structural engineer among any of these Truther movements. Not one. That is pretty damning.

There are no civil engineers that support the Truther movement. In fact, there are few people with science degrees that support it.

both ov these statements are entirely false

If they were, you'd have offered evidence to the contrary.

The Official version has hardly been debunked.

yes it has
you should try harder, but dont hurt yourself

Wow. Hand waving denial. How typical of those that have come to IIDB/FRDB/TalkFreethought for the last ten years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

it also produces more energy than normal thermite, and can be applied like paint, allowing it to be more versatile in application

At best this means the carrier you added is more energetic than the thermite itself. The problem with this is that the combustion products are gaseous and carry the heat away. The thing with thermite is that the combustion products don't just carry the heat off. Thus even if it has more energy it won't be as hot.

2) And how in the world do you detect residue of it? Within 10' of me I can find every component of thermite in quantities vastly above what a lab can detect. Saying they detected thermite residue is like saying they found traces of water in a garden.

what is this, elementary school? Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
thermite also produces specific byproducts such as iron microspheres ov particular properties

And what's so unique about the byproducts?

Do you even know what the combustion products of thermite are?

yes i can see you didnt even bother to look at the first link in my original post, which roundly refutes this claim

That's a 15 minute video. Where should I be looking?

4) Thermite suffers the same problem as the explosive scenarios: What happens when a charge fails? There would be no way to predict *EXACTLY* where the plane would hit, yet the failure point is very close by. How do you deadman all your charges so they neither go early nor fail to go? Finding one unused charge in the rubble would give away the game.

a charge did fail, and it did give away the whole game, that is the molten metal you see dripping from the towers in the minutes before they were destroyed
and there are the numerous accounts ov rescue and clean-up workers documenting molten metal, as indicated from 1:35:00 onward

You're still assuming that's steel instead of aluminum.

 

[connick]

Finally, some activity in this forum.

you cant be serious? ad hominem arguments are always fallacious, which is why they are their own catagory under logical fallacies
i claim ad hom only when it is applicable, such as negating evidence because they are youtube videos, or because 'its just a big list ov links', or 'weve already had this discussion before' when in fact we have not, as all have been suggested in this thread, and ov course, on the previous board as well

Argumentum ad hominem translates literally as "argument at the person". If someone argues that a position is wrong strictly because of who is espousing it, then that is an ad hominem. The merits of an argument are generally independent from the merits of the people making them. That is the take-away from this. I think others are right and that you have been misapplying the term.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that YouTube videos cannot be evidence by virtue of being YouTube videos. Rather, I think people are rightly suggesting that they are under no obligation to watch dozens of videos in order to make your argument for you. Likewise for a "big list ov links". I can attest to the claim that most, if not all, of what you've alluded to in general has been discussed at length before on these fora.

You seem to be convinced that the attacks were a hoax and you have offered, at least in one case, to spare us valuable time by directing us to the important elements of your argument. I'd be delighted if you would please honor that offer. Which specific pieces of evidence have convinced you that your position is correct?

I'm willing to consider your argument impartially if you are willing to show me your evidence.

 

[empty]

But we don't see much new evidence, we see the same ideas again and again.

you havent been looking

Did you not read the report you're linking? That's showing mangled and corroded steel, not molten steel.

you are missing the point. what caused the 'mangled and corroded' (melted as per femas report) and what is the source ov the sulfur? what temperatures could be high enough to cause to such damage. only termate can cause both ov the phenomenon

And what leads you to the conclusion that that is steel? All you can conclude is that it's a liquid.

wrong. basic observation (the foundation ov science) is enough to conclude it is molten iron

Remember what I said about not being able to see a red heat in daylight?

yes you asserted such nonsense
this molten iron just happens to be visible in daylight, and looks exactly like the molten iron spilling out ov the tower

im beyond tired ov your baseless assertions, and ill again link to steven jones paper proving molten iron

All you're seeing is the color of the liquid--which is quite reasonable for what it actually is--molten aluminum.

so after saying there is no proof it is even a metal you now assert it is most likely molten aluminum; that is so like you
and molten aluminum is silver, not bright orange, but molten iron is

what i find funny is some evidence is even on public display at the 9/11 memorial; the cross made ov steel fused together

And how is thermite supposed to have done that?

'normal office fires' do not reach temperatures high enough to fuse steel together

Then pinpoint. When you pointed to the spot in the video I had no problem with it, I know what that's actually showing.

i gave general pinpoints, which you preemptively disregarded

 

[empty]

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’.

I started out looking for "steel", this came up very quickly. It doesn't matter what brought down the towers, you wouldn't red hot metal weeks later. This is the product of someone who is simply interested in proving a conspiracy, not in the truth.

more ov your baseless assertions
and cherry picking one quote out ov an entire paper and ignoring everything else does not an argument make

yes it does, right on the first page

evidence of a severe high temperature attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure

That's not the same thing as saying the steel melted. You're talking about a localized effect of very high energy densities (say, from being hit hard), not an environment hot enough to melt the piece. Those are not the words they would have used if it actually had melted.

when fema says melted, they dont actually mean melted; 'loren logic'

 

[empty]

the postulate about 'if we find x' is a basic tenant ov science; surely you are not saying basics ov science are ad hominems

I don't know what planet you live on where that is a basic tenet of science.

the full statement i am referring to is "in order to be doing science, a hypothesis must be accompanied by a statement in the spirt of "...of course, if we found X, that would refute this"", which is exactly how i am using it. the official conspiracy theory is only true 'until we find x, which would refute it' and we have found x

"Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.

Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

Ad hominem arguments are the converse of appeals to authority, and may be used in response to such appeals."

Stating with your certainty that these arguments are always fallacious demonstrated both an ignorance of the actual term, and a vested emotional interest in maintaining 'ad hom' as a universally fallacious form of argument so you can keep throwing the word around whenever someone doesn't accept your arguments the way you want them to. Which incidentally, could be construed to be a form of Argumentum Ad Hominem.

you still are using it incorrectly; you havent demonstrated any character flaws except your own appeal to authority, therefore you are using argumentum ad hominem

im simply using their own quotes and data against them.

Yes, that's what's generally defined as quotemining.

their own quotes and data contradict each other; that is merely observation ov their incorrectness

your assertion that 'nist has ruled out demolition' makes you the one who is quote-mining
nist has no grounds to rule out controlled demolition, as documented in the three part series....

How am I quote-mining nist when they *do* in fact rule it out, and the only people who are saying they can't rule it out are people who are NOT nist? Do you understand the meaning of the term?

reading comprehension buddy
they assert they rule it out, but their own data contradicts their assertion

my bad, i meant fema

Oh yes, you mean that thing they found that is clearly NOT molten steel, and which AT NO POINT IN THE PAPER they refer to as molten steel; but instead explicitly refer to as eroded steel; and explain how it happened.

Thanks for completely undermining your own argument.

sorry if i skipped a step and confused you
first, they dont have an explanation for the sulfur and high temperatures, and the one thing that causes both is thermate
second, the actual word they use in the paper is melted steel, which thermite is made to do

nist is making assertions 'debunking' controlled demolition, so ov course using their own words and data is acceptable to prove them wrong, as i already explained above
its not an accusation, its a fact

I think you have a rather odd definition of the word 'fact'.

this isnt an argument, unless you think youre correctly using ad hom again. try again

so the yes men it is

Riight. Because apart from a handful of bold and dashing rebels against authority, the entire scientific community is comprised of yes men.

thats the way it always goes

and you keep referring to the slanderous ad hominem that those who disagree with the official conspiracy theory are to be dismissed based on your perception ov their credentials. like i said before, those who disagree are all at the the highest levels ov education and academic respect

And like I explained to you; ad hominem arguments are not in fact always fallacious... and more to the point here, are in fact perfectly acceptable forms of argument when used against, among other things: Appeal to Authority fallacies. And guess what you just did?

the entire official conspiracy theory is an appeal to authority
like i said above, you havent demonstrated any basis for your form ov ad hom other than your own appeal to authority, so i may as well use that against you and say you are an ignorant sheep for following the official conspiracy theory when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not only about this one event, but historical events which also make this event more plausible. fair

as said above, if you are to follow your own 'logic', it is your sources who are third rate, and to be discarded against those who support controlled demolition

No, you don't seem to understand my objection.

"...lol wut?" could be translated to something like; "What the hell are you smoking?"

this isnt a response, but im not surprised

because as your argument goes, the majority should be taken over the minority

No, the *consensus* position of *experts* should be taken over the minority position. That, actually *is* a basic tenet of science. It's how science progresses its knowledge.

no, you have the consensus ov *some* 'experts', who are yes men, and a bunch ov disinterested and ignorant sheep following the mass media ov the rich 'elites'
like i wrote before, the real *experts* are on our side, and the *third raters* are on yours, so i may as well use your form ov ad hom (which i believe is merely a cop out, anyway) and say your experts are the ones with feet ov clay

And at no point in the past, has there ever been a scientific consensus that the earth was flat.

"Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.[1]

The paradigm of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model."

well the minority was right in the end; just as with the 9/11 conspiracy it just took time to spread

people arent much more literate today, if even any at all, due to the mainstream media and the power that rich 'elites' have over the paradigm.

I don't think you understand what literate means; which would be funny, seeing as it means the understanding of written *words*.

you are mush too literal
literate doesnt have to mean referring to words

that goes for scientists, politicians, whoever. so even today the majority consensus on most matters is suspect.

Oh yes, of course. Just tell a scientist that we've always been at war with Eastasia, and they'll not think to question it.

being a scientist doesnt make you literate in history or politics, and as demonstrated by worldwide illiteracy today, as i said before, when it comes to the illegitimate power ov the rich 'elites' and their mass meda capabilities, combined with the herd mentality and general disinterest, no theyll not think to question it

no, you misunderstand, galileo was the persecuted minority who was correct against the yes men ov the powers at the time

Except you're distorting the actual situation. First of all, to compare an era where people were regularly burned at the stake for espousing 'heretical views' to our modern era, is absurd. There are no such consequences to disagreeing with the scientific consensus today; at most you'll be subjected to ridicule if you peddle obvious nonsense. Secondly, he did not actually get censured by scientists (but rather the church); and while yes there were astronomers who disagreed with him, it was not at all the case that he was fighting against a hostile consensus. And while yes, in his native country he met with much opposition, he was in fact heralded elsewhere. His works, which were censored in Italy, were freely printed here in Holland and became bestsellers which, to anyone familiar with European history, should show that he was not thwarted so much by astronomers and scholars, but rather the church.

You are not Galileo; and neither are the people who'se word you take as gospel.

people are still regularly burned at the stake, figuratively speaking, just ask any conspiracy theorist
the church had their own scientists, the yes men i am referring to, and the correct opinion was in the minority when it came to the concept ov power, which is what i was referring to
im not taking words as gospel, they just are right

 

[Loren Pechtel]

you havent been looking

There are enough truthers around. If there were anything new they would say it.

Did you not read the report you're linking? That's showing mangled and corroded steel, not molten steel.

you are missing the point. what caused the 'mangled and corroded' (melted as per femas report) and what is the source ov the sulfur? what temperatures could be high enough to cause to such damage. only termate can cause both ov the phenomenon

You didn't understand what the report was actually saying--it's got a bit of shock melting, it's not melted. You're looking at a piece of steel that was in the collapse, why is it being mangled a surprise?

And what leads you to the conclusion that that is steel? All you can conclude is that it's a liquid.

wrong. basic observation (the foundation ov science) is enough to conclude it is molten iron

And you can look at molten metal and automatically figure out what metal it is??

Remember what I said about not being able to see a red heat in daylight?

yes you asserted such nonsense
this molten iron just happens to be visible in daylight, and looks exactly like the molten iron spilling out ov the tower

What part of the word "daylight" did you not understand? Your picture is indoors!

im beyond tired ov your baseless assertions, and ill again link to steven jones paper proving molten iron

This guy has no credibility.

All you're seeing is the color of the liquid--which is quite reasonable for what it actually is--molten aluminum.

so after saying there is no proof it is even a metal you now assert it is most likely molten aluminum; that is so like you
and molten aluminum is silver, not bright orange, but molten iron is

We don't know for sure what poured out but given the temperature molten aluminum is a quite reasonable prospect and there's nothing else that fits.

And when you put "color of molten aluminum" into Google what comes up but:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

And remember this is in atmosphere and aluminum oxidizes rapidly.

what i find funny is some evidence is even on public display at the 9/11 memorial; the cross made ov steel fused together

And how is thermite supposed to have done that?

'normal office fires' do not reach temperatures high enough to fuse steel together

But why should we figure this wasn't done by a welding torch in the hands of an ironworker building the building?

Then pinpoint. When you pointed to the spot in the video I had no problem with it, I know what that's actually showing.

i gave general pinpoints, which you preemptively disregarded

Pinpoints as in timestamps.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I started out looking for "steel", this came up very quickly. It doesn't matter what brought down the towers, you wouldn't red hot metal weeks later. This is the product of someone who is simply interested in proving a conspiracy, not in the truth.

more ov your baseless assertions
and cherry picking one quote out ov an entire paper and ignoring everything else does not an argument make

yes it does, right on the first page

evidence of a severe high temperature attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure

That's not the same thing as saying the steel melted. You're talking about a localized effect of very high energy densities (say, from being hit hard), not an environment hot enough to melt the piece. Those are not the words they would have used if it actually had melted.

when fema says melted, they dont actually mean melted; 'loren logic'

If they actually meant "melted" they would have used it without qualification. The fact that they said "intergranular melting" says the piece did not actually melt, but rather there was localized melting between granules of the metal--a shock effect, not something due to exposure to high temperatures.

 

[connick]

What am I, chopped liver? I hope empty will honor their offer to save us some time by pointing us to the relevant and compelling elements of their argument.

 

[empty]

There are enough truthers around. If there were anything new they would say it.

oh, ok. you havent been listening then

You didn't understand what the report was actually saying--it's got a bit of shock melting, it's not melted. You're looking at a piece of steel that was in the collapse, why is it being mangled a surprise?

youre really grasping at straws. intrgranular doesnt mean what youre trying to twist it into; it merely means between the individual grains ov metal
at no point does fema use the words shock or impact, but they do use the terms unusual high-temperatures

the thinning ov the steel occured by high temperature corrosion due to a combination ov oxidation and sulfidation
...
the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion ov samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. no clear explanation for the source ov the sulfur has been identified.

did you even read the report? it being so mangled and corroded is a surprise; if you were being intellectually honest you would know that. fema has no explanation for the high temperatures which caused the corrosion and melting, nor do they for the presence ov sulfur---both ov which can be explained by thermate---which is also corroborated by the numerous other pieces ov evidence for thermitic material found

And you can look at molten metal and automatically figure out what metal it is??

if you know what you are looking for, yes

What part of the word "daylight" did you not understand? Your picture is indoors!

in daylight ambiance, but heres another put the issue to rest

steven jones paper proving molten iron

This guy has no credibility.

ov course to you the person who has actually done experiments and published the results has less credibility than a website full ov "i assume" statements and has done no experiments
nist even asserted the reason the 'molten aluminum' is orange and not silver is because it was mixed with office materials, so your assertion that it is simply molten aluminum shows your ignorance. nist has no credibility on this issue, they merely asserted it was molten aluminum, while jones actually did the experiment and published his findings proving its not molten aluminum

All you're seeing is the color of the liquid--which is quite reasonable for what it actually is--molten aluminum.

again, you are showing your ignorance. nist asserted the only reason it is orange is because it is mixed with office materials
this is what molten aluminum actually looks like

We don't know for sure what poured out but given the temperature molten aluminum is a quite reasonable prospect and there's nothing else that fits.

And when you put "color of molten aluminum" into Google what comes up but:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

And remember this is in atmosphere and aluminum oxidizes rapidly.

ive torn that website a new asshole more than a few times and im perfectly happy to do so again for you loren
again, that website merely asserts and assumes and has done no experiments to prove their theories, but steven jones did. even giving nist the benefit ov the doubt in saying the molten aluminum is orange because ov organics, the metal still does not appear orange, nor does it oxidize in the atmosphere

what i find funny is some evidence is even on public display at the 9/11 memorial; the cross made ov steel fused together

And how is thermite supposed to have done that?

'normal office fires' do not reach temperatures high enough to fuse steel together

But why should we figure this wasn't done by a welding torch in the hands of an ironworker building the building?

they were from different locations
see what i mean about you not doing any research?

Pinpoints as in timestamps.

you have to give me something to pinpoint to based on the general headings