|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2006 : 16:47:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Unless the molten aluminum (if that's what it was) was melted by thermite or some kind of explosives...
Someone put thermite on filing cabinets?
|
"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 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 17:16:34 [Permalink]
|
| Aluminium is a good heat conductor. This also mean it's easy to heat it to its melting point. It doesn't have to be hot for very long before it starts dripping. And once it starts to react with the concrete we have thermite reacions. That would burn through the floor making it sag more since it's compromising structural integrity. |
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. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 17:23:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Aluminium is a good heat conductor. This also mean it's easy to heat it to its melting point. It doesn't have to be hot for very long before it starts dripping. And once it starts to react with the concrete we have thermite reacions. That would burn through the floor making it sag more since it's compromising structural integrity.
Yes, the heat from the fires could have melted aluminum long before the steel framing of the building reached a high enough temperature to start weakening significantly. Not only, as you point out, is aluminum a good conductor of heat, but the pieces of aluminum that were heated in the towers were a lot smaller than the steel frame of the building.
But there is no evidence that thermite was spontaneously mixed during the collapses of the towers. What's with you, doc; I thought evidence was important to you. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 19:38:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
Statements such as, "I don't know how they did it, but they did it" illustrate only the level of gulibility required for CD to be believed.
I guess you missed part where I said I was trying to determine the veracity of the CD Theory.
but I did not miss the parts where you dismiss reasonable arguments supporting non-CD explanations.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So I'm not saying "they did it."
Yes you are. You are clearly one of the faithful.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Apparently this is a difficult concept for many of you to grasp--but I'm trying to see if there is evidence of use of explosive materials that were used to bring down the towers. That leaves the "how did they do it" question moot: If there is no evidence, then there isn't a how was it done; if there is evidence, then we know it could be done because we already would have proven it was done.
You have presented no evidence to support CD. Specualtion is not evidence. Even after acknowledging that planting the explosives is a huge problem effectively making finding any evidence quite small you still support CD.
What surprises me is the time invested by you almost 600 post and still no evidence presented, by CD believers after 62 months and still no evidence. All I see is denial of the official explanation which is still not evidence of CD.
So as several others have asked, "Where is that theory you promised?" |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 10/31/2006 19:40:14 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 20:17:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
Statements such as, "I don't know how they did it, but they did it" illustrate only the level of gulibility required for CD to be believed.
I guess you missed part where I said I was trying to determine the veracity of the CD Theory.
quote:
but I did not miss the parts where you dismiss reasonable arguments supporting non-CD explanations.
No, I only dismiss unreasonable non-cd explanations.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So I'm not saying "they did it."
quote:
Yes you are. You are clearly one of the faithful.
No. There is a difference in personally thinking the cd theory is true and claiming the cd theory is true. If you don't see the difference, then you shouldn't be in this conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Apparently this is a difficult concept for many of you to grasp--but I'm trying to see if there is evidence of use of explosive materials that were used to bring down the towers. That leaves the "how did they do it" question moot: If there is no evidence, then there isn't a how was it done; if there is evidence, then we know it could be done because we already would have proven it was done.
quote:
You have presented no evidence to support CD. Specualtion is not evidence. Even after acknowledging that planting the explosives is a huge problem effectively making finding any evidence quite small you still support CD.
And I keep telling people like you that I am aware that I have yet to present any evidence for the CD Theory. I am still doing research and will present material I consider evidence when I have researched it to my satisfaction. And you seem to mix up "not finding evidence" with "not being true." Are you really so simple as to not see the fallacy in that way of thinking? Now before you flip your lid (and you will because you don't understand the fallacy there; if you did, you never would have typed what you typed...) consider that truth is logically independent of evidence (look up that phrase if you have never heard of it before...). And I'm not using logical independence to support the CD Theory--I'm just pointing out to you the fallacy of your apparent belief.
quote:
All I see is denial of the official explanation which is still not evidence of CD.
Well of course the fact that the official story is impossible isn't proof that the CD Theory is true. But proving the official story is impossible opens the door to examine theories of the collapses of the 3 wtc buildings.
You sheeple need to find a new theory to glom onto.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 23:58:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Well of course the fact that the official story is impossible isn't proof that the CD Theory is true. But proving the official story is impossible opens the door to examine theories of the collapses of the 3 wtc buildings.
You sheeple need to find a new theory to glom onto.
Sheeple: Noun. A term used by paranoids to disparage the sane.
It seems you are the one who may have glommed-on "theory" springing from the ravings of the paranoid 9/11 controlled demolition flock. You claim "the official story" is impossible, but fail to provide an ounce of convincing evidence for that broad statement. You now say you your CD theory is a work in progress, yet have not provided even the smallest bit of evidence that here was a controlled demolition of the WTC. Some progress.
You are the one making an extraordinary claim. The burden falls upon you to provide extraordinary evidence for such claims. You've not provided even an ounce of everyday evidence. And you certainly haven't yet provided that theory of your own, just a few weak, ignorant snipes at what real experts have determined about the collapse of the WTC towers.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 00:29:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Well of course the fact that the official story is impossible isn't proof that the CD Theory is true. But proving the official story is impossible opens the door to examine theories of the collapses of the 3 wtc buildings.
You sheeple need to find a new theory to glom onto.
quote:
Sheeple: Noun. A term used by paranoids to disparage the sane.
It seems you are the one who may have glommed-on "theory" springing from the ravings of the paranoid 9/11 controlled demolition flock. You claim "the official story" is impossible, but fail to provide an ounce of convincing evidence for that broad statement.
So the fact that steel does not loose its strength at the maximum temperatures NIST says the steel it examined got (250*C) isn't convincing?
The fact that NIST tested floor assemblies with twice the load and for twice the duration of the actual wtc events and could not get the floors to fail isn't convincing?
The fact that a 3 inch sag observed in the above tests was entered into the NIST simulator as a 42 inch floor sag and that the only way they could get the walls to bow was to use a free-standing nine-story wall disconnected from the rest of the building, yet somehow "pulling" on this free-floating wall with some magic force isn't convincing?
The fact that the steel, with no insulation, in the WTC was rated at several hours at a level of heat that is impossible for hydrocarbons to reach in an uncontrolled environment (2,000*F) isn't convincing?
The fact that for floor-sag to dislodge a floor an let it fall onto the floor below, the sag would have to extend around the entire floor--around the core columns. But fires were not reported by fire fighters to have spread around the whole crash zone of the south tower. That isn't convincing?
The fact that if somehow, floors did fall due to sag and bowing of interior and exterior walls, there would be no forces able to act on the columns to destroy them, and, the collapse would take longer than near free-fall speed due to the resistance each floor would have. That's not convincing?
Wow moonie--what do you need to be convinced that your faith in the official story has no evidentiary basis?
quote:
You are the one making an extraordinary claim.
Given the facts above, it is your continued faith in the official story that is extraordinary. What's next, a belief in god?!
quote:
The burden falls upon you to provide extraordinary evidence for such claims.
Why must the evidence of the cd theory be extraordinary!? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 01:16:19 [Permalink]
|
Your cherry-picked objections to the "official" evaluation of the WTC collapses is no evidence at all, ergo. Everything you reiterated above has already been demolished by others.
ergo123 wrote:quote:
Why must the evidence of the cd theory be extraordinary!?
Personally, having sadly lower standards than the late Carl Sagan, I'd settle for "ordinary" evidence of CD. Nobody, including you, has provided any. Not any.
quote:
What's next, a belief in god?
Now, that's low! Take that back, you blackguard, or prepare yourself for a thorough thrashing!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 01:30:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Your cherry-picked objections to the "official" evaluation of the WTC collapses is no evidence at all, ergo. Everything you reiterated above has already been demolished by others.
ergo123 wrote:quote:
Why must the evidence of the cd theory be extraordinary!?
Personally, having sadly lower standards than the late Carl Sagan, I'd settle for "ordinary" evidence of CD. Nobody, including you, has provided any. Not any.
quote:
What's next, a belief in god?
Now, that's low! Take that back, you blackguard, or prepare yourself for a thorough thrashing!
Cherry pick? I hit the heart of the official story from several angles. That's not cherry picking. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 01:30:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123quote:
The burden falls upon you to provide extraordinary evidence for such claims.
Why must the evidence of the cd theory be extraordinary!?
Because without any supporting evidence it is not only an extraordinary claim but also a pretty serious accusation.
You waste wast amounts of time trying to prove that the official "story" is unable to explain how and why the buildings fell. (Which for WTC 7 is the official story.)
Lets say that you were successful, what have you then proved?
That the collapse(s) were caused by explosives planted by someone?
No, not at all. There could be factors that are missed by the "official story". There could have been something wrong with the building before the attack. The structural damage from the impacts might have been higher than estimated. There might have been unknown factors that increased temperatures in the fire.
With out any evidence of explosives I would find all those more probable.
That there is a US conspiracy behind the attack?
No, you don't have any evidence incriminating anyone of that serious accusation.
The only thing you would accomplish is to "prove" that the "official story" needs to be revised or improved.
That would not be a extraordinary claim, but until you find any positive evidence controlled demolition and conspiracies is.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2006 : 01:55:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Unless the molten aluminum (if that's what it was) was melted by thermite or some kind of explosives...
Yeah, sure, right...
Now that I think about it, I also remember that there was said to be molten steel involved. I really hope that no one is foolish enough to believe the fire was as hot as 2,700+ F. Even with the added heat generated by friction in the collapse, it wouldn't reach that, but wasn't there a photo posted of a red hot girder being pulled from the rubble? I seem to recall that there was. That would put the temperature at something around or over 1,600 F.
The final drafts of the reports were written by bureaucrats, so I don't entirely trust them either. But we can't have it both ways, can we? Either the fires were hot or they were not. As there has been no reason presented to think that explosives or thermite, heh, were used, indeed, quite the contrary, where does that leave us?
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 02:14:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123quote:
The burden falls upon you to provide extraordinary evidence for such claims.
Why must the evidence of the cd theory be extraordinary!?
Because without any supporting evidence it is not only an extraordinary claim but also a pretty serious accusation.
You waste wast amounts of time trying to prove that the official "story" is unable to explain how and why the buildings fell. (Which for WTC 7 is the official story.)
Lets say that you were successful, what have you then proved?
That the collapse(s) were caused by explosives planted by someone?
No, not at all. There could be factors that are missed by the "official story". There could have been something wrong with the building before the attack. The structural damage from the impacts might have been higher than estimated. There might have been unknown factors that increased temperatures in the fire.
With out any evidence of explosives I would find all those more probable.
That there is a US conspiracy behind the attack?
No, you don't have any evidence incriminating anyone of that serious accusation.
The only thing you would accomplish is to "prove" that the "official story" needs to be revised or improved.
That would not be a extraordinary claim, but until you find any positive evidence controlled demolition and conspiracies is.
Oh my god. This site is really for patients at an asylum that I somehow stumbled upon...
I can't remember how many time I acknowledged that proving the official story wrong does not prove the cd theory right.
If nothing else, proving the official story wrong opens the door to people like you to start waking up and considering other theories of collapse--of which the cd theory is but one. But the truly skeptical among us might start wondering why the US governmant would go to the lengths it did to fabricate the story it did.
Of course that doesn't prove a government conspiracy to bring down the towers--just one to hide the real reason the towers fell. Like you offer--it could be that there was a design flaw, or maybe it was leopard vomit as was once suggested... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 02:35:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Unless the molten aluminum (if that's what it was) was melted by thermite or some kind of explosives...
quote:
Now that I think about it, I also remember that there was said to be molten steel involved.
I don't believe it was molten steel--but no one tested it, so no one knows what kind of metal it was.
quote:
The final drafts of the reports were written by bureaucrats, so I don't entirely trust them either. But we can't have it both ways, can we? Either the fires were hot or they were not. As there has been no reason presented to think that explosives or thermite, heh, were used, indeed, quite the contrary, where does that leave us?
Indeed, filthy, the fires were either hot enough or they weren't.
The tests NIST performed on the wtc steel samples point to "Not Hot Enough."
The NIST/UL tests of the floor systems point to "Not Hot Enough."
The black smoke billowing from the towers points to "Not Hot Enough."
The people standing near the gashes in the crash zone point to "Not Hot Enough."
Reports from fire fighters in the buildings point to "Not Hot Enough."
The maximum temperature of a hydrocarbon fire in an uncontrolled environment points to "Not Hot Enough."
The fact that NIST needed to use a floor-sag input 14 times greater than what they found in their own test which used twice the load for twice the duration of the actual events points to "Not Hot Enough."
The fact that NIST had to construct a floating 9-story wall and have a magical force pulling on that wall, yet not connected to the wall, points to "Not Hot Enough."
What evidence do you have that points to "Hot Enough?" (And no, you can't use the fact that the buildings collapsed as evidence for Hot Enough.)
It leaves us with a lot of questions that need answers. Now, you could continue to act silly about your F instead of C typo. Or you can suck it up like a man, and help me examine other theories of collapse. Sure, I believe it was a CD. But that doesn't mean it was a CD. I want to test as many theories as possible to be sure to identify the right one, not just one that seems to fit. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2006 : 02:38:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Oh my god. This site is really for patients at an asylum that I somehow stumbled upon...
I can't remember how many time I acknowledged that proving the official story wrong does not prove the cd theory right.
As most of your posts, like this one, are crap and there have been a lot of them, you can't expect us to read all your rambling in the vain hope of finding something sensible.quote:
If nothing else, proving the official story wrong opens the door to people like you to start waking up and considering other theories of collapse--of which the cd theory is but one.
No it isn't, not any more than leopard vomit, and that was my point. Sorry if it was above your head. I tried to keep it simple.
I'll give you another hint: Not all hypotheses are equal in value.quote:
But the truly skeptical among us might start wondering why the US governmant would go to the lengths it did to fabricate the story it did.
Don't flatter your self. You have shown no understanding of what skepticism means. You are just another ding-bat true believer desperately seeking justification for your pet fantasy. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 03:15:53 [Permalink]
|
Let's see your promised "theory," ergo123, ready for prime-time or not. Along with whatever evidence you have so far collected to back it up. Everything else you've presented has been hogwash, lies, and personal insults.
Now, put up, or shut up.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What I don't get...
Topic Locked
