PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-12-09, 18:12:56
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ... 100
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 740103 times)
Group: Guest

Seriously so he was going to fell this multi ton iron beam from below by felling it like a tree. WHAT, you use a crane, attach the top of the beam to the crane, take the weight and cut horizontally.

Well, I suppose the thing to do, scientifically, would be to track down the fireman in the picture, and ask him about it all.

What about the bulging side? The fact that the firemen themselves noticed the building leaning by 2pm, hours before it fell? Premature demolition?
 
   
Group: Guest
Wow Wee.

This was quite a read:  http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

"Ballad of a Thin Man," say no more.

Beyond that, Peter made the comment about the fire not being able to melt the metal structure of the buildings.

Dr. Jones quotes a source in his paper ( http://www.iwilltryit.com/stevenjones2.htm) that states this:

Quote
The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.

And Peter posted that picture of the Brazilian skyscraper that burned for a week and didn't collapse.  There is something that you are missing there though.  Plus you are trying to formulate a generalized conclusion from a specific event.  That could be dangerous and cries out for critical thinking skills being put into gear.

But the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel and that resulted in the collapses of the buildings and the explanation is so easy and so simple, but just one level removed from the "general public's knowledge level."  But at least if you have a scientific background you should know better.

The burning fires in an enclosed space caused a temperature buildup to the point where steel melted.  The Brazilian skyscraper was only half-built and seems to have become a lattice of bare girders quite quickly and as a result the temperature could not get high enough to melt the steel superstructure.

Anyway I am about done myself.  I hadn't ever really read up on the 9/11 debate like I did over the past week.  My "programmed" brain hasn't budged one iota in the direction of the "scholarly Truthers" and instead I got a much broader sense of the "Truther sphere" than I ever had before.  Unbeeleebabble.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest

Seriously so he was going to fell this multi ton iron beam from below by felling it like a tree. WHAT, you use a crane, attach the top of the beam to the crane, take the weight and cut horizontally.

"...we counted 14 floors compressed into 8 feet" ( pancaking term defined )

Look how those columns are cut, near the end. Why the angles? Well, probably because they aren't using a crane, they are cutting them in sections, like a tree. Regardless, they were cutting them at angles. And it wasn't thermite, or CD.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdBv7uaQT_0[/youtube]
 
   
Group: Guest
I saw this guy's name on TV tonight about an unrelated matter and looked up his site.

I found this link and it's a good 10-minute read:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1556
Quote from: MileHigh
...

Anyway I am about done myself.  I hadn't ever really read up on the 9/11 debate like I did over the past week.  My "programmed" brain hasn't budged one iota in the direction of the "scholarly Truthers" and instead I got a much broader sense of the "Truther sphere" than I ever had before.  Unbeeleebabble.

MileHigh

You are under no obligation to "budge" one
way or the other.  You may do as you please.

In time you will "see" as your brain further
matures and continues to process all that
has been taken in and is yet to be taken in.

The brain never stops...


---------------------------
A man gets depressed, he gets sad, he thinks about quitting and folding, but he never does. He pushes through adversity. - Chad Howse
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
You are under no obligation to "budge" one
way or the other.  You may do as you please.

In time you will "see" as your brain further
matures and continues to process all that
has been taken in and is yet to be taken in.

The brain never stops...

Dumped,

Both sides of the debate should take your advice.

I will add another:

Make sure the analysis applies to the event.  Example: The reference to the 'proof' that the air liner was somewhere else was based upon the radio communication network working like a cell phone network. 'Routing messages'? Did that 'researcher' assume the system was a cellular network designed and built in the very early 70's?

There have been some improvements made but the vast majority of it remains a network of 'repeaters'. The first paragraph of the web site was enough for me to know the complete web site was nothing but the rant of a fool.



MH,

"Unbeeleebabble"....  If ever there was a word crying out to be included in the dictionary.... this is it!


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
   
Group: Guest
   
Group: Guest
Youtube videos do not confirm anything.  Peer review is what confirms science.

thank you so much.
You confirm that videos with planes  do not confirm anything that planes on 911 exist. :)

   
Group: Guest
thank you so much.
You confirm that videos with planes  do not confirm anything that planes on 911 exist. :)



What are you talking about?  There were no planes, no buildings and no new york city.  Do not be sheeple.
   
Group: Guest
What are you talking about?  There were no planes, no buildings and no new york city.  Do not be sheeple.

yes, that is simple for mass media Hollywood - it's no planes, no buildings and no new york city. only digital edited movies for sheeples and put explosives on steel columns to create holes for "planes" and pres red buttons to pull down scrapers by nuclear demolition devices.

but that is good, that you don't trust in videos. that's first step. next step is start to thinking.

this is fresh example how Hollywood news is working:

URGENT - FOX News Caught Using Fake Video Of Riots HA, HA! (in Russia)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHGUpxtfcoc
« Last Edit: 2011-12-09, 22:14:17 by tysb3 »
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
Why is that news?

I though all videos of riots in Russia were faked  ???

They must be. Russia doesn't really exist.

See....  All you must do is say it is so and it is so  ^-^  Very Scientific!


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
yes, that is simple for mass media Hollywood - it's no planes, no buildings and no new york city. only digital edited movies for sheeples and put explosives on steel columns to create holes for "planes" and pres red buttons to pull down scrapers by nuclear demolition devices.

but that is good, that you don't trust in videos. that's first step. next step is start to thinking.

this is fresh example how Hollywood news is working:

URGENT - FOX News Caught Using Fake Video Of Riots HA, HA! (in Russia)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHGUpxtfcoc

Wait, are you one of those sheeple who thinks mass media even exists?  You know there is no such thing.  The government merely feeds the TV with content in manufactures.
   
Group: Guest
Why is that news?

I though all videos of riots in Russia were faked  ???

They must be. Russia doesn't really exist.

See....  All you must do is say it is so and it is so  ^-^  Very Scientific!

that is not news for me. I wrote "fresh example".

and yes if for you is faked Hollywood news videos reality, then real Russia doesn't exist for you (not for me).

simple you are brainwashed.

science is a language of facts. Do You complain that fresh fact about Foxed News?
you see trough Foxed News riots in Russia. But it wasn't. it's same with faked videos with "planes" on 911
« Last Edit: 2011-12-10, 04:40:12 by tysb3 »
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
Ah!

From Fox News?

In this case I will agree with you. Fox News is always full of nonsense. For that reason, I removed the local Fox channel from my TV channel selections over a year ago. They don't exist for me anymore.


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
Final comment has to do with the way debates often end.  Instead of some of the participants acknowledging good points being made by people on the opposite side of the debate, they just fall silent.  They might even actually concede a point, as radical a concept as that might be in this day and age.  You see it in real life and even more so on the forums.

So as far as I am concerned "'falling silent' is the new 'conceding a point.'"  What has happened to the human condition to bring us to this point where many of us are worse than a typical clichéd politician?

If you read some of the links you would have seen how the tired old argument that "fires can't bring down a building with a metal superstructure" is not true at all.  I explained how the Brazilian skyscraper fire was different from the WTC fires and nary a peep from anybody.  In my opinion Professor Jones' arguments were blown out of the water, especially by some of the links at the end of the discussion and nary a peep.

That's just the way it is in this day and age.  Just fall silent and run away if you are uncomfortable in the virtual online world, whether it be in an online forum or in a business email exchange.
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
MH,

I don't see 'falling silent' as concession. I'm sure it has been for some points but 'falling silent' is the same as walking away from a discussion in real life. Sometimes it is just better form or not worth the trouble when the 'facts' are so ingrained for either side.

Both sides see the 'facts' as indisputable and obvious. When the debate is leading to an argument there will be no gain. Why continue?


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
WaveWatcher:

You are right, it can be for either reason, and I should have mentioned both reasons in my posting.  Interesting though how in the vetting for presidential candidates falling silent (in a manner of speaking) can be the Kiss of Death.  Besides the allegations of sexual misconduct, when Herman Cain "fell silent" on the question about Libya he was finished.

An example on my part of not falling silent.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
WaveWatcher:

You are right, it can be for either reason, and I should have mentioned both reasons in my posting.  Interesting though how in the vetting for presidential candidates falling silent (in a manner of speaking) can be the Kiss of Death.  Besides the allegations of sexual misconduct, when Herman Cain "fell silent" on the question about Libya he was finished.

An example on my part of not falling silent.

MileHigh

I think the 9/11 arguments are a great example of confirmation bias, somewhat on both sides, but I think mostly on the truther side.  There is such a wealth of evidence for the official story, and so little actual evidence to support the conspiracy theories (most truther evidence is of the "well see, this building fell funny" variety, which does not actually prove any kind of conspiracy).  But truthers are expert at seeking out only the evidence that conforms to their opinion.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3637
It's turtles all the way down
It seems all the technical guru's fell silent on this statement by EM that I challenged.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=237.175

Post 189 By EM, Challenge post: 192 by ION

All of those who should know better were strangely silent so I gave up and walked away.

Basically EM is saying he can get the same heating and light output of an incandescent filament with pulses of 3 to 4 Watts input versus 60 Watts input at 120 VAC, 60 Hz.

I have great respect for EM, but believe him to be wrong on this issue.

Seems people pick and choose who they will support based on other belief systems that they agree or disagree on. This is not scientific inquiry and is immature behavior.

I will be silent a lot because of this, having now lost faith in the objectivity of some high profile forum members..


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1556
Whenever a "debate" is initiated regarding
subject matter which has political and/or military
and/or intelligence "service" implications, some
of the participants will be at a disadvantage.

Participants who have experience in the fields
relevant to the "debate" will have a better
understanding of how the "system" actually
operates and the level of manipulation/control
and deception utilized in high places.

Participants who rely upon the media for
accounts of events will lack this intimate knowledge
and will thus be more inclined to present spurious
arguments.  In fact, those in high places themselves
rely upon the gullible masses to escape scrutiny.

Consequently an impasse is soon reached for reasons
which WaveWatcher has referred to.

Until those participants who lack knowledge are able
to "get up to speed' by means of "inside experience"
little progress can be made in their ability to see
through the daily "show" dutifully performed by the
"talking heads."

As in all of life's aspirations, knowledge is key.
The more truthful the knowledge the better.

Unfortunately, in today's world getting to the truth
is not an easy task.  Too many are fearful of finding
painful truth - the pill is an easier swallow.

Life goes on - until it doesn't anymore...


---------------------------
A man gets depressed, he gets sad, he thinks about quitting and folding, but he never does. He pushes through adversity. - Chad Howse
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3116
tExB=qr
It seems all the technical guru's fell silent on this statement by EM that I challenged.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=237.175

Post 189 By EM, Challenge post: 192 by ION

All of those who should know better were strangely silent so I gave up and walked away.

Basically EM is saying he can get the same heating and light output of an incandescent filament with pulses of 3 to 4 Watts input versus 60 Watts input at 120 VAC, 60 Hz.

I have great respect for EM, but believe him to be wrong on this issue.

Seems people pick and choose who they will support based on other belief systems that they agree or disagree on. This is not scientific inquiry and is immature behavior.

I will be silent a lot because of this, having now lost faith in the objectivity of some high profile forum members..

I asked EM about it;  Here is his quick explanation.  By the way,  I have asked how a disruptive discharge coil can melt tungsten with only a few watts output and no one ever explained how.

@ION, Grumpy,  et. all,   here's a diagram of the filament temperature profile under pulsing.

If I were to have a DC waveform of the same RMS power, meaning I spread out the pulsed power over the whole period of the cycle,   the temperature of the filament would be below the one required to produce visible light.   The decay you are seeing in the temperature, is very similar to an RC time constant, except here the "C" is like the thermal mass of the filament, and R is the radiation resistance for the heat.   Like I've said, I tried this an I lit a 60 watt bright bulb with 3 to 4 watts.    the problem is a bit more complicated and involves heat transfer rates, nonlinear filament resistance, and non linear heat flow as temperature changes, but this is the concept in a nut shell.

So, what does this have to do with TK?     almost nothing,  so forget I brought this up.  (this is part of my "secret" that I used to mesmerize the crowds)  ;D

EM

He added an image too.  Why argue the issue?  At first I thought he was talking about lighting bulbs with his mini Tesla coil, which made sense.  There are many ways to light a bulb.

In that thread, it was pointed out that TK is lighting his bulbs with conduction current and no apparent power source, and that point just died right there.

   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2607
    Mile High makes a statement that should not go unchallenged:

Wow Wee.
....
But the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel and that resulted in the collapses of the buildings and the explanation is so easy and so simple,

... and so wrong.  
  MH, you provide a clear example of a "simple" explanation that is unsupported and unsubstantiated -- unless you can provide substantiation, can you?
  
The press made statements like that early on, that the "the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel", but I challenged these statements given the temperatures reached in office fires (I looked at the data) and the temperature required to melt steel (about 1500 C).  I concluded that the steel did not melt and said so in my talks.


Then we have the National Institute of Standards and Technology that looked at the question and concluded:

Quote
NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahren- heit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Cel- sius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)”
Reference:  S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, answers to fre- quently asked questions”, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, August 30, 2006.

So -- I challenge you to provide evidence to support your statement, "the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel and that resulted in the collapses of the buildings and the explanation is so easy and so simple..."   Perhaps a video of a steel beam melting (not just bending) during an office fire?  Thanks.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 118
@PhysicsProf
 A quick question, physicists  believe that conservation of energy and matter and  the laws of
thermodynamics 
cannot be violated ever. Because of this, perpetual motion is impossible, most devices presently
 here require creation of energy so therefore are impossible. A free energy device therefore is
  impossible, because it requires creation of energy. There are claims of free energy devices
 using pseudoscientific energy, like cold electricity, vacuum energy, radiant energy,
 zero point energy or other things ,pure bull.What is your view on conservation of energy and matter and
 the laws of thermodynamics? 
   
Group: Guest
The press made statements like that early on, that the "the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel", but I challenged these statements given the temperatures reached in office fires (I looked at the data) and the temperature required to melt steel (about 1500 C).  I concluded that the steel did not melt and said so in my talks.

If a+b = weakening and b + c = weakening then a + d = weakening, one might think. And one might think that weakening is actually possible at fire temperatures and actually happened here. Might one? Melting is not required, only a loss of load strength resulting in sagging and pulling away from the bolts that held the whole works together.

Bearing in mind that the impacts and explosions inside blew off the protective covering off the steel, lowering its fire resistance substantially along with the rated -load strength-:

A:WTC

The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#cite_note-NIST-chapter1-47

B:From some ignorant hick of a fire chief, I guess, who couldn't possible know his business of what happens during fires? http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html:

Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

C: From Wiki

Steel loses strength when heated sufficiently. The critical temperature of a steel member is the temperature at which it cannot safely support its load. Building codes and structural engineering standard practice defines different critical temperatures depending on the structural element type, configuration, orientation, and loading characteristics. The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which its yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel

D:NOVA

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPqxJpykW00[/youtube]

Edit: corrected typo
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ... 100
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-12-09, 18:12:56