|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/19/2006 : 19:53:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Um, so you are saying that it is an unlikely candidate because it would be too dangerous?  You do realize we are talking about a criminal event, right? I could see your point if it was an old building contracted to be demolished. But the goal here--if such materials were used to bring down the buildings--was to make it look like terrorists attacked us; it means whoever did it was willing to kill thousands of people.
You guys continue to think of this as a traditional job--with all the safety and OSHA concerns that would go along with it. You really crack me up!
quote:
No, here's what's funny-- for you to be right, your cool critically-thought conspiracy must now involve hundreds of people who knowingly took dangerous explosives into a building and secretly set them up at great risk to their own lives all so George Bush and his super-secret cabal could start their GWOT. Moreover, the brilliant minds behind this decided to use unconventional materials-- for reasons only their diabolical minds know-- to cary out their mysterious mission. Yeah, that makes sense. (I'd use the little "lol" smiley, but I find it rather obnoxious.) You're a better skeptic than I am. Because this is exactly the sort of thing that skeptics do.
No, for me to be right, there has to be valid evidence that explosives or aluminothermic reactants were used, at least in part, to bring down the towers. I don't need to prove HOW it could be done if it is proved THAT IT WAS DONE. If it is proven THAT IT WAS DONE, that, in and of itself, proves it could be done, and, therefore that there is SOME way it was done. You see, that's efficient logic--three proofs in one. And at this point, I'm not going to speculate who was behind it.
quote:
As for the eye-witness accounts, it is simply something I believe to be the case.
quote:
Ah--you stick with your unsupported opinion in the face of observed data. I didn't realize "skeptic" meant 'someone who only believes what they thought before seeing any evidence...'
quote:
Tragically, the utter irony of you lamenting my being stuck on "unsupported opinion" is lost on you. Not but a few pages ago, you suggested that it was OK to believe somethign even though you weren't claiming it to be true. But when I do it, it's somehow insulting.
Well, no one has shown me evidence to the contrary of my belief, whereas I have shown you evidence that directly contradicts yours.
quote:
I did read it--and the resolution in the photo is so low it's impossible to determine if there is molten metal dripping off those beams. And that you would use a word like "liquid" to describe a solid just points out your lack of command of the English language. Don't assume everyone is confused by the difference!
quote:
I'm trying to figure out how I can be a bigger asshole than you at this point, but it's hard. How about "get better glasses so you can see the photo better"? Oh-- and I guess I should use some smiley now so as to make my point more insulting? Perhaps  ? Or  ? Or  ? These are all fun, aren't they?
Hey, you are the one who said you might use the word liquid to describe a solid...  And if you don't like the faces, petition the owner of the board to remove them.
quote:
In any case, please continue to "believe" what you want re the events of 9-11. Also, keep making "no claim" as to how the buldings collapsed. But when people express skepticism (never as good as you express such things, of course) as to the a conspiacy theory involving demolition of the WTC buildings, mock them because they don't buy into the theory. Keep using lots of smilies, too.
Wow, cunie, I never expected you to lie down so quickly here. I mean I knew my evidence was strong, but wow--one day and you are down for the count! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 19:57:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
BTW, I still haven't found a rule about using red text...
I'm not quite sure where Mab got that idea, either. We use red text to make official warnings and messages "stand out," but we've never said that red text was reserved for that use only. bigbrain would have gotten booted after only three posts, had that been the case (which would have saved us all a lot of time, but no, we let him go on about "NASA Buffoons" for many threads, until he started sockpuppeting).
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 20:07:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What straw man are you talking about. I am making no claim that the WTC buildings that collapsed on 9-11-01 were brought down, by explosives or aluminothermic reactants. Rather, I am presenting evidence that explosives or aluminothermic reactants were used and am looking for any evidence that the evidence found in my sources is invalid. If you have such evidence, please present it. If you don't, please troll somewhere else.
Now this is just plain confusing to us dumb Americans... You are making no claim that the buildings were brought down by explosives, but you ARE saying that there is evidence of explosives. This requires a leap of logic that even you have to posit something on! What were those explosives doing in the buildings? Were they left over from a previous war? In the storeroom of Zim Lines? Just lying around in a secretary's desk drawer. What possible hair-splitting can you be getting at, here?
quote:
Exactly, filth. And in the original post of this thread (first post on page 1) I offer several pieces of evidence that at least aluminothermic reactants (of which thermite is one) were used. And, BTW, you and cunie have been doing a good job supporting this evidence. And for that I thank you!
So, I presume you are familiar with Greening on thermite? He has already shown that molten aluminum reacting with concrete can produce thermite. If Doc Whacky in Utah is correct and there is evidence of thermite, it is highly likely that it was produced by the a.m. reaction. http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
So far, this may be the only sensible assumption you're making. Please confirm if 1, 2, and 3 are the points you believe to be true. (I may actually agree with you.)
1. Temperatures hot enought to melt aluminum.
2. Au in reaction to concrete and other materials can create thermite.
3. Thermite found in trace amounts in WTC debris.
Ergo(if we may borrow your nom de plume)... No BOMBS.
Thank you for your attention. I'll be here 'til Saturday. Three shows nightly. Now let's move on to your next provable fallacy. You just make it so damned hard because you dance around the issues and don't post a solid theory.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 20:12:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
BTW, I still haven't found a rule about using red text...
I'm not quite sure where Mab got that idea, either. We use red text to make official warnings and messages "stand out," but we've never said that red text was reserved for that use only.
Yeah, sorry... My mistake. We have that reservation at www.skepticality.com and at www.hififorum.nu
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 20:37:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda
2. Au in reaction to concrete and other materials can create thermite.
That particular typo will make a world of difference. I'm sure you meant "Al" (aluminum) instead of "Au" (gold). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 20:42:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Wow, cunie, I never expected you to lie down so quickly here. I mean I knew my evidence was strong, but wow--one day and you are down for the count!
"Cunie"? In any case, the fact that you've not convinced anyone of your unclaime-but-nevertheless-believed-assertion is-- I'm sure-- an indictment on our part, and not a reflection on your part to present a compelling case. Indeed, it is entirely likely that your simply typing words on a screen makes them true, and our refusal to accept them is proof that we aren't skeptics.
Molten metal? Could there be any stronger proof that some mysterious people blew up the World Trade Center soon after planes struck them? I don't think so! Nothing need more be said!! In fact, it doesn't matter who could have done it, or when, or how. All that matters is that there may or may not have been a nuclear device involed. And only real skeptics know. And if not, then something else. As long as it was a conspiracy. Or rather, a "conspiracy." |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 20:48:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
Thanks for that link, Master Yoda. It provides many insights into the chemistry of WTC destruction. And also provides pausible explanations to the sound of explosions that people claimed they heard.
We have already discussed Thermite in another thread, unrelated to WTC a few months(?) back, when someone posted a link to when they played with Thermite on the Braniac TV show.
But we never discussed reactions between Aluminium and concrete.
(Edited to fix punctuation) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/19/2006 20:49:57 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 22:10:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm still interesting in "if the only possible way for that molten metal to get where it was was through the use of explosives or aluminothermic reactants," because if the answer is "no," then all the discussion so far in this thread is moot.
What?
quote:
In your original original post in this thread, which was extant until you deleted your entire preamble (from 09:05:35 server time, when you created this thread, until sometime between 11:07:07 server time and 11:17:16 server time), you wrote that if there existed molten steel in the WTC basements and "if the only possible way for that molten metal to get where it was was through the use of explosives or aluminothermic reactants," then the molten metal is evidence of the use of explosives. Your new preamble, posted at 11:29:35, does not contain as many paragraphs, and leaves out this key and quite correct step in the logical chain. But I know you wrote those words earlier today, because I quoted them while they still existed, at 10:50:49 server time.
Indeed. My first preamble was more detailed than the second. You see, I typed out a version in MS Word (being dyslexic, it helps to have a quick spell-checker). I copied and pasted it into the OP, but also did some additions on the fly. So they were not on my MS Word version--that I used to repost. If you still have the original, please paste where appropriate--or if the link you provided shows the missing bits, I'll do it.
quote:
So, I won't bother disputing the witness statements right now (other than to say that if someone saw a "molten steel beam" - reference #2 - then it sure wasn't liquid),
Yes, that would be evidence of something else entirely.
quote:
but will focus on the other extremely important premise: that the only way for there to be molten metal in the WTC basements was for "explosives or aluminothermic reactants" to have been used.
Is that premise known to be true? Your main reference doesn't address that question at all.
I don't know it to be true; nor do I know it to be untrue. But you are right--it would sure help to know.
quote:
Once we get it out of the way, then it will make sense to move on to the questions of whether or not the witness reports seem to be reliable, and (assuming they are) whether or not the molten metal seen in the basement was steel. Until we can agree that the only way for there to have been molten metal in the basements was for there to have been some sort of controlled demolition, the other two points are of little significance.
I'm not sure I agree with that last comment. It's important to remember that these bits of evidence are not unrelated facts--they are facts in a system. As such, we can, potentially, use combinations of evidence to prove a particular set of conditions. I don't know if molten metal in the basements fits this potential scenario--but I'm not realy to rule out the possibility that molten metal in the basement and some other proven condition or set of conditions could only occur is explosives or aluminothermic reactants were used. The main reason for my reluctance here is that I haven't done research on any of the other areas I've seen others claim are evidence of the use of explosives or aluminothermic reactants.
With that in mind, it seems worthwhile to consider the current issue of whether there was molten metal in the basements. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 23:24:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda
Now this is just plain confusing to us dumb Americans... You are making no claim that the buildings were brought down by explosives, but you ARE saying that there is evidence of explosives.
Yes. Apparently this is a difficult scenario for many people to grasp. But what do you when you believe something to be true--but you aren't sure the evidence you are basing your belief on is valid? Maybe when in a situation like this you claim what you believe to be true is actually true. Maybe that's why it's so hard for you to understand.
So maybe I'm the only person on this forum who doesn't claim things to be true unless he knows them to be true...
quote:
Exactly, filth. And in the original post of this thread (first post on page 1) I offer several pieces of evidence that at least aluminothermic reactants (of which thermite is one) were used. And, BTW, you and cunie have been doing a good job supporting this evidence. And for that I thank you!
quote:
So, I presume you are familiar with Greening on thermite? He has already shown that molten aluminum reacting with concrete can produce thermite.
Yes, spontaneously created thermite. Theoretically possible. But does Greening offer any examples of this actually happening anywhere else, ever?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 23:26:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yes, spontaneously created thermite. Theoretically possible. But does Greening offer any examples of this actually happening anywhere else, ever?
Can you name any other skyscrapers that were brought by thermite charges anywhere else, ever? Because so far you've been offering nothing but "theoretical possibilities." It would be more than a little hypocritical to start objecting to them now.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/19/2006 23:49:32 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 00:03:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yes, spontaneously created thermite. Theoretically possible. But does Greening offer any examples of this actually happening anywhere else, ever?
Can you name any other skyscrapers that were brought by thermite charges anywhere else, ever? Because so far you've been offering nothing but "theoretical possibilities." It would be more than a little hypocritical to start objecting to them now.
Oh, so are we to believe that 9-11-01 was also the only day in history where thermite was spontaneously created?
And does Greening offer a means for mixing the aluminum and rust? Or does simply touching the two together cause the reaction? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 01:09:21 [Permalink]
|
A couple of questions about the spontaneous thermite reaction posited by Greening:
Greening mentions that after the aluminum melts (which occurs at about 600*C) the temperature of the molten aluminum goes up to 1800*C. It is this intense heat that vaporizes the water held in the concrete that then turns into dust and reacts with the molten aluminum to create thermite.
My question: How does the aluminum, that first melted at 600*C, end up reaching a temperature of 1,800*C--three times hotter than when it melted? If this is possible, I think we have a way to rid ourselves for our reliance on fossil fuels.
Oh, and BTW, NIST shows temperatures of 600*C lasting only 10 minutes or so--then cooling off rapidly.
Oh, and where did the aluminum required for this reaction come from in Building 7? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/20/2006 : 02:39:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Exactly, filth. And in the original post of this thread (first post on page 1) I offer several pieces of evidence that at least aluminothermic reactants (of which thermite is one) were used. And, BTW, you and cunie have been doing a good job supporting this evidence. And for that I thank you!
For the opportunity to create more bullshit? D'nada.....
The towers were not brought down by thermite charges, either. There is no evidence that such happened, indeed, quite the contrary, and it is highly unlikely that anyone not suffering from Tremain's delirium saw any molten steel.
Elements Symbol Melting Point Celsius Melting Point Fahrenheit
Aluminum Al 659 1218
Brass (85 Cu 15 Zn) Cu+Zn 900-940 1652-1724
Bronze (90 Cu 10 Sn) Cu+Sn 850-1000 1562-832
Cast Iron C+Si+Mn+Fe 1260 2300
Carbon C 3600 6512
Chromium Cr 1615 3034
Copper Cu 1083 1981
Gold Au 1063 1946
Hydrogen H -259 -434.2
Inconel Ni+Cr+Fe 1393 2540
Iron Fe 1530 2786
Lead Pb 327 621
Magnesium Mg 670 1240
Manganese Mn 1260 2300
Monel Ni+Cu+Si 1301 2400
Nickel Ni 1452 2646
Phosphorous P 44 111
Silicon Si 1420 2588
Silver Ag 961 1762
Stainless Steel Cr+Ni+Mn+C 1363 2550
Steel-High Carbon Cr+Ni+Mn+C 1353 2500
Medium Carbon Cr+Ni+Mn+C 1427 2600
Low Carbon Cr+Ni+Mn+C 1464 2700
Tin Sn 232 450
Titanium Ti 1795 3263
Tungsten W 3000 5432
Zinc Zn 419 786
The foundries pour iron and steel at something just under 3,000 F. Due to having only to drop only a couple hundred degrees, it solidifies in minutes, depending upon the casting section, and loses it's glow a some time thereafter, again depending on section. Depending upon section, it can stay hot enough to ignite other materials for hours after the pour.
Thermite can be easily ruled out as the cause for the collapse simply because it is not precision enough and nowhere near fast enough. It would take way too much time. To coordinate with the airplanes, it would have to be set off well in advance of the crash, and the fire systems would have been going full blast before their arrival. Somebody might'a noticed, those fire systems being what they are -- or were -- don'tcha think?
Don't you ever bother to think things through?
And I already gave two examples of your duplicity. I'm beginning to wonder: are you a Republican politician?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 04:49:39 [Permalink]
|
| Egroie, I believe that there was no molten steel, though I do not claim it. If you were a real skeptic-- and if you knew better English, you'd understand. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 05:26:37 [Permalink]
|
Where I think we are having a problem here, is in the structure itself. We are assuming that the components would have to be either cut or melted away to have caused the collapse. Such is not necessarily the case. There only had to be a little more heat than needed to draw the temper from the steel, allowing it to soften and buckle, and gravity on the tonnage above the fire would do the rest.
A well-ventilated kerosene fire can burn as hot as some 1,800 degrees F and is far more than sufficient for the job. And there is no doubt that flammables found within the building, , wood, plastics and so forth, could go even hotter.
Occham's Razor says that, given the available evidence, the simplest solution is usually the best one. To plant a sufficient quantity of any of the thermites, or high explosives, is in defiance of the available evidence.
Now, I might briefly entertain the speculation that the Bush Administration knew that it all was going to go down and promised to keep their hands in their pockets until later -- I wouldn't put it past them and Usama is still unaccounted for, -- but at this writing, there is nothing to support that one, either.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Molten metal
