|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/20/2006 : 11:30:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
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.
I am making no such assumption. If you would take the time to read the op of this thread, and stay on topic, this would go a lot smoother. I am amazed at the lack of intellectual discipline exhibited here! Why do you keep jumping from "was there molten metal in the rubble at Ground Zero," to speculations of what would have to happen if... what assumptions need to be made... etc.
And then, in all this speculation, you can't even manage to conceive of a combination of effects--it's always "if explosives were used blah, blah, blah..., or If thermite was used blah, blah, blah... But never "if explosives and aluminothermic reactants were used to leverage the impact of the planes and fires blah, blah, blah...
quote:
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.
But of course, you show no evidence of this wild speculation.
quote:
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.
It's odd that when calculating the amount of materials needed to bring down the towers, you forget about the mass of the upper floors--which at other times you claim could cause the observed damage by themselves...
I have made my statements and consider them to be pertinent to the discussion. I have backed those statements up with reliable information based upon the science of demolitions, the properties of ferrous metals, and the likelihood that some form of sabatoge was possible. I have, in every case, supplied reference.
Now refute me if you can.
|
"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! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/20/2006 11:35:36 |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/20/2006 : 12:26:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
One thing I find interesting--and frankly, a little surprising--is how after all you sheeple's posturing over my lack of evidence (which I told you would come soon), you completely folded in the face of 10 sources related to molten metal at Ground Zero.
Oh! I did not realize that was your evidence!
Some kind of melted metal = controled demolition. What can any one say to this stupid logic?
Some guy said he said he saw steel beams that had one end melted, this still says nothing about CD but I would still like to see some evidence of this beyond "some guy said it".
What?
I never claimed that the presence of molten metal was proof of the CD theory. I wish you could keep from leaping to these unfounded conclusions. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 12:34:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthyYeah, yeah, yeah. Lots of people claim to see UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Virgin Mary in grease stains, too. If what people think they see happens to be outside the psyhical properties of the event, they are mistaken. Or full of shit. Or outright lying, you choose.
Oh, I see. You decide what the event is and define the physical properties around it first; then you get to throw out any observations that fall outside of that.
Hey Dave (or anyone with at least 1/2 a brain): Is that how theories are developed? I always thought that the observations came first and then the theory was developed to explain the observations. Maybe that's why this has been so frustrating for everyone...
quote:
I stated that there was no molten steel present and have shown why.
All you've done, filth, is give reasons why you believe what you believe--but your reasons are just more opinions about what, in your opinion, falls outside of what your opinion of the event is.
quote:
Refute it if you can.
I just did...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 12:44:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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?
Greening says, in that same paragraph, that the melted aluminum burns.quote:
If this is possible, I think we have a way to rid ourselves for our reliance on fossil fuels.
Don't mistake temperature for heat.quote:
Oh, and where did the aluminum required for this reaction come from in Building 7?
I don't recall any of your evidence of molten metal in basements being about Building 7. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 12:50:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
Well, that is what you suggested the first time around.quote:
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.
Have you done any research on any other reasons there might be molten metal in the basements?quote:
With that in mind, it seems worthwhile to consider the current issue of whether there was molten metal in the basements.
And my point is that I don't see anyone actually discussing that. Cune did for a moment, but it seems near impossible to get any farther than "is there any reason to not trust several eyewitnesses who claimed to see 'dripping', 'running' or 'liquid' metal?" If not, then it's time to move on to one of the other two legs of this argument's "tripod." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 12:53:20 [Permalink]
|
Oh, filth. With all you expertise, please explain something Greening discusses in his "Spontaneous Thermite" paper (the one the star wars poster (yoda?) provided.
Greening says the aluminum from the plane, that first melted at 600*C, ends up reaching a temperature of 1,800*C.
Now, NIST reports the highest temperature attained in the towers was about 800*C, but was for only about a half hour--anyway...
This molten aluminum that somehow raises its own temperature then vaporizes the water held in the concrete floor--turning the floor onto concrete powder. It is this powder that then supposedly reacts with the molten aluminum to create thermite.
It seems odd to me that a substance that is 600*C can suddenly increase in temperature by a factor of 3 (or by any factor for that matter). I haven't found any explanation for such a situation on the entire internet that doesn't involve pumping energy into the system.
But after the first 20 to 30 minutes, according to NIST (Final Report, p. 140), temperatures got lower in the towers after the first 30 minutes or so.
What am I missing here?
And then, help me figure out where the aluminum required for this reaction came from in Building 7? Aluminum foil in an office kitchen? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 12:56:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
One thing I find interesting--and frankly, a little surprising--is how after all you sheeple's posturing over my lack of evidence (which I told you would come soon), you completely folded in the face of 10 sources related to molten metal at Ground Zero.
Who has "completely folded?"quote:
The Red herring of "spontaneous thermite" was flung into the mix, but when I questioned the thermodynamics of the process (as outlined by Greening) I get nothing. Your silence speaks volumes...
I was busy.quote:
...and not to the veracity of the evidence I presented or the cd theory in general, but to what a waste of cyberspace you people are. You claim to be open-minded skeptics. But I see no evidence of that here.
That's because your bias blinds you to it so much that you have to fabricate positions for us to take when we won't lockstep into the "close-minded" pigeonhole you had prepared for us in advance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 12:59:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
Well, that is what you suggested the first time around.
Could you elaborate on what you think I suggested the first time around? I'm not sure what part of my quote you are referring to. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 12:59:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Oh, I see. You decide what the event is and define the physical properties around it first; then you get to throw out any observations that fall outside of that.
Hey Dave (or anyone with at least 1/2 a brain): Is that how theories are developed?
All I see is you ignoring what filthy has to say in favor of things he's not saying. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 13:07:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Could you elaborate on what you think I suggested the first time around? I'm not sure what part of my quote you are referring to.
The first time around, you said - paraphrasing - that if molten metal were in the basements, and if the only way molten metal could exist is if explosives or thermite was used, then eyewitness reports of molten metal would make for decent evidence of controlled demolition.
And you were right. The argument is as follows:Premise P1: There was molten metal witnessed in the basements of the towers.
P2: The only way molten metal could get there was if explosives or thermite was used.
Conclusion: Explosives or thermite were used. Nobody seems to be arguing with P1, but it's not the only premise upon which the conclusion rests.
Can we move on or not? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 13:19:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
One thing I find interesting--and frankly, a little surprising--is how after all you sheeple's posturing over my lack of evidence (which I told you would come soon), you completely folded in the face of 10 sources related to molten metal at Ground Zero.
Oh! I did not realize that was your evidence!
Some kind of melted metal = controled demolition. What can any one say to this stupid logic?
Some guy said he said he saw steel beams that had one end melted, this still says nothing about CD but I would still like to see some evidence of this beyond "some guy said it".
What?
I never claimed that the presence of molten metal was proof of the CD theory. I wish you could keep from leaping to these unfounded conclusions.
Oh my goodness I have jumped to a conclusion...
I mistakenly thought from your statements that this was some sort of proof of CD.
So your OP says you believe that the CD was used. However you don't claim CD was used. You have evidence that there was some melted metal, but this is not your claim.
So you would like to see evidence that the molten metal was or was not at the site which may or may not have anything to do with controlled demolition of the WTC which you do not claim happened, but you believed happened.
Really going out on a limb there arntcha. I guess you may or may not have a point that you may or may not try to prove; that you fervently believe.
I believe (but I am not claiming) and have proof (from your posts) that you are insane.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 13:21:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I believe (but I am not claiming) and have proof (from your posts) that you are insane.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 14:04:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I don't know.
Damnit. I guess this means that the notion of a controlled demolition is more or less confirmed, then.
I'm not following your illogic there cunie. You must be punch-drunk after yesterday, eh? 
Actually, egrie, the punch did have quite a bit of vodka so by the end of the night I probably was pretty drunk. None of that goes further in figuring out the mystery of why so many people can see the rather obvious: that the WTC collapsed when everyone in the upper part of the towers all jumped up and down in unison as part of a plot to start the GWOT. These people-- all loyal Republicans-- conspired to bring down the towers at the cost of their own lives. Unfortunately, since they all died it will be hard to prove it, even if I believe it. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 15:10:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthyYeah, yeah, yeah. Lots of people claim to see UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Virgin Mary in grease stains, too. If what people think they see happens to be outside the psyhical properties of the event, they are mistaken. Or full of shit. Or outright lying, you choose.
Oh, I see. You decide what the event is and define the physical properties around it first; then you get to throw out any observations that fall outside of that.
Hey Dave (or anyone with at least 1/2 a brain): Is that how theories are developed? I always thought that the observations came first and then the theory was developed to explain the observations. Maybe that's why this has been so frustrating for everyone...
quote:
I stated that there was no molten steel present and have shown why.
All you've done, filth, is give reasons why you believe what you believe--but your reasons are just more opinions about what, in your opinion, falls outside of what your opinion of the event is.
quote:
Refute it if you can.
I just did...
You've yet to refute any-fuckin'-thing! You have yet to show anyone here anything at all. Truly, all you have is is what you have put forth so far: unsupported rhetoric. And on this, you claim some sort of victory?
Demonstrate how charges, high explosive or thermite could be set on on the Trade Center structure in the dark of the moon. Explain in detail and with reference why heat-weakened support structure won't buckle under extreme stress. Produce reliable reference that molten metal at the scene was ferrous. Give further reference... ah, to hell with it. That'll keep you busy enough for now.
C'mon ergo, where's the beef? Do you have any at all, other than Mickey D's grease on your chin?
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 15:19:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Oh, filth. With all you expertise, please explain something Greening discusses in his "Spontaneous Thermite" paper (the one the star wars poster (yoda?) provided.
Greening says the aluminum from the plane, that first melted at 600*C, ends up reaching a temperature of 1,800*C.
Now, NIST reports the highest temperature attained in the towers was about 800*C, but was for only about a half hour--anyway...
This molten aluminum that somehow raises its own temperature then vaporizes the water held in the concrete floor--turning the floor onto concrete powder. It is this powder that then supposedly reacts with the molten aluminum to create thermite.
It seems odd to me that a substance that is 600*C can suddenly increase in temperature by a factor of 3 (or by any factor for that matter). I haven't found any explanation for such a situation on the entire internet that doesn't involve pumping energy into the system.
But after the first 20 to 30 minutes, according to NIST (Final Report, p. 140), temperatures got lower in the towers after the first 30 minutes or so.
What am I missing here?
And then, help me figure out where the aluminum required for this reaction came from in Building 7? Aluminum foil in an office kitchen?
Sorry, but I don't know anything about spontaneous thermite apart from that it happens occasionally.
Really, why should I do your research for you? Get off your lazy ass and look it up for yourself.
|
"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
