POSITIVE EVIDENCE for WTC7 Controlled Demolition
- Thread starter 1337m4n
- Start date
Not really. What would it tell us? Are we so incapable of imagination that we can't trust anything that we're told unless it's accompanied by a video?
If I were a 'truther' I wouldn't believe that the animation was a fair representation so long as it contradicted my 'beliefs'.
And what would 'truthers' do with it anyway?
Would it go the way of the 'early xmas present' that was the WTC tower blueprints? Will another 'truther' waste days of his/her life attempting to do...something... with the animation only to find that his/her fellow 'truthers' have already lost interest.
Or would it be like that 'smoking gun' of the ATC recordings? Oh sorry, that was no different than the blueprint debacle.
And so, the mask finally comes off.
The thing that makes you seem irrational is your inability to learn. In fact, that is just about the definition of irrationality.
In any case, I hope at some point you understand what I've been trying to tell you. Until then, it appears I've done all I can. Good luck.
There's no mask Mackey. I've stated my position several times.
Things aren't always black and white; 'truther' vs 'rational people'.
A lot of very rational people support the alternative theory.
Anyway, I did learn a lot during this discussion.
Good luck to you too.
Well, considering the American people paid for it, why not release it?
By not releasing it, it suggests there may be something to hide.
Spins
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 702
Even though it's evident Sizzler is a full blown truther and doesn't really seem to know much about anything his interpretation of the Wikipedia article on thermate and barium nitrate is correct.
Basically thermite is a pyrotechnic material that generates heat through the reaction of a metal and a metal oxide. Thermate on the other hand is a pyrotechnic material that generates heat through the reaction of a metal, a metal oxide, and a more energetic oxidizer such as potassium perchlorate or in the case of TH3 barium nitrate.
The clue is also in the name because the -ate in thermate signifies a higher oxidation state than the -ite in thermite.
I know Jones does specifically mention Thermate-TH3 in his paper, if he ever claims this was used at the WTC then the barium nitrate argument is valid.
BTW am I the only one who suspects that Sizzler may just be another pdoh sock?
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Yes, that age-old propaganda technique of using facts, logic, and critical thinking in support of claims.
Henceforth I shall call you "Fizzler."
Oh, and that "OCT?" That's called reality. Sorry it's inconvenient for you. Better luck next incarnation.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The American people got the results of the simulation that they paid for. Do you think that the company that makes the software to run it should now have to give it away? You have no idea what your even asking them to release.
Northwestern University spent tons of money on a simulation and you "truthers" threatened them and called them shills.
Why ask for something you really don't want?
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
That may be (do you have a source for that info?), but the reason for his interpretation is entirely incorrect. That's what I tried unsuccessfully to get him to see. Arriving at the correct answer by accident isn't a reliable way to go through life.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
What does dragon dung look like, then ?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Given that the use of thermite in building demolitions is about as well documented as the existence of dragons, that is in fact rather a pertinent question.
Dave
I don't think it's quite that simple. I know it's tempting to correlate the "thermate" with the "barium nitrate" form, viz. the NO3- group, but it doesn't hold in general. "Thermite" does not contain iron "oxite." Instead, thermite contains iron oxide, which has various forms, but none of them is FeO2. We don't call it "thermide," instead the whole class of metal reactions is called a "thermite reaction."
The thermate that we know and love is generally basic thermite plus barium nitrate and some other goodies. We aren't removing iron oxide and replacing it with barium nitrate, for example. There is no change to the basic thermite reaction, just addition of a sympathetic reaction.
This discussion metions alternate formulations, e.g. manganese thermite and chromium thermite. Manganese and chromium are similar to iron but exist in different oxidized states. These are also called "thermites."
This leads me to conclude that "thermate" is a colloquial or even commercial name. Having said that, I Am Not A Chemist, and if anyone has real information, I'd like to learn. But I'm not aware of any actual "thermate" that isn't specifically thermate-TH3.
Futhermore, the objections I've put forth in this thread rule out any thermite reaction in creating the sulfidized steel, regardless of its specific composition.
Dr. Jones did claim to have found a barium signal in early versions of his paper, not realizing that it is also a component of fluorescent lighting. His signal -- and his story -- were so weak that he seems to have dropped it in favor of some ridiculous custom cocktail of thermite.
Also, I gravely doubt this is pdoh back to haunt us. If it is, he's improved his ability to communicate dramatically.
And, people, bear in mind that I offered the guy half of my monthly NWO salary--we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars here.*
*Well, there is that problem with the checks themselves, of course. They still seem to be routed south-of-the-border down Meh-hee-co way. I just don't know what to do. I work so hard and that fat, masked son-of-a...ah, what's the use?
Belz...
Fiend God
Uh oh. Mackey mentioned the JREF boogeyman!!
Does that mean The Theory of Evolution is mine?
Does that mean The Theory of Relativity is mine?
Others have pushed this logical fallacy around and it just isn't accurate.
Your above analogy would apply to this:
Proposed:Therm?te would cause WTC to fall.
Fact:Building fell
Assertion: Therefore, therm?te must have been in the building.
The above, does not apply to any assertions made by Jones or myself in this thread.
A tweaked version of your example is more accurate.
Proposed:If there was a dragon in my garage, there would be no room for a car.
Fact: There WAS no room in your garage yesterday, and although there is room today, there is also something resembling dragon dung in the middle of your garage.
Assertion: A dragon MAY have been in your garage yesterday.
The above of course, is not a fallacy considering the dung and the use of MAY not "therefore".
To continue, you also have a large dog who enjoys going to the bathroom in your garage. So is the dung from your dog, or possibly a dragon? Further research would tell.
So it seems that although your example is an example of a logical fallacy, it does not represent anything I asserted in this thread. If you are going to use analogies, at least attempt to make them accurate.
In response to this:
You wrote:
Now you are are lying. There are no lab tests confirming the source of sulfur for WTC collapses. Why lie?
I quote from Greening:
Show me one journal article that actually establishes a source of the sulfur VIA lab experimentation.
You replied
Nice revisionism. Lets see how this progressed shall we.
You chose not to respond to that. You explicitly said, and I quote:
"
Um, no. Thermate is not a valid source."
Your above statement is FALSE
My point stands.
I retract past comments about this. You were very precise with your use of thermate and thermite. I was not. I apologize.
You've actually gotten this backwards.
Official hypothesis=current champion
Alternative hypothesis=underdog (and at the moment by a long shot)
So again, who has everything to lose? And, who has nothing to lose?
Hey, remember the thread you started, the one that brought your "questions" to our attention? Around page 9, I asked if we could skip to page 14 and simply discuss your belief that the Towers were blown up. I was wrong. It required much more disingenuous drivel on several threads to get us here, but, by George, here we are!
Do you feel at all sheepish about your transparently disingenuous approach? There were people here--very bright people who nevertheless wanted to give you the benefit of any doubt--who took you at your word. Is an apology in order? (I know the answer, but it really isn't a rhetorical question.)
Last edited:
To date, not one has surfaced. Really. Not a single one.
What did you learn that helps you to understand why the pernicious nonsense you swallow is baseless?
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
The whole thermate argument seems to me to be a matter of meaningless semantics. Let's see what Jones has actually found. He's found a number of elements to be present in the debris, all of which would be expected to be present, in appropriate proportions corresponding to the amounts expected to be present. The fact that he hasn't found significant amounts of barium indicates that a specific military thermate formulation was not used to demolish the towers. The remainder of his results simply show that it is impossible, based on chemical analysis of residues alone, to disprove the presence of thermite reactions, whether basic or augmented, in the collapses.
That's it. No positive evidence, just a lack of evidence against his hypothesis from that one technique. Nothing to see here.
Dave
That's it. No positive evidence, just a lack of evidence against his hypothesis from that one technique. Nothing to see here.
Dave
adoucette
Scholar
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2007
- Messages
- 109
There is little reason to "make it public" in that you need a lot of prerequisites to make use of the model. They used a cluster of computers to run this model, but that isn't actually a requirement, just that without it the simulations would take a lot longer to run.
But, the FEA tools they used are commercial software you can buy and you CAN get the the Databases that NIST used as input to them for low cost based on simply submitting a FOIA request.
see h t t p ://occams.info/nist-wtc/
Arthur
Mackey wrote:
Are you joking me?
You now know SO2 is a by-product of a thermite+sulfur. And you know SO2 is the byproduct of many other 'natural' materials in the building that would have to go through a reduction reaction to eventually be able to cause sulfidation.
So what you are saying then is that although theoretically, thermite + sulfur is a possible source, your objections have ruled out any possible source of thermite+sulfur in the building.
Would you like to restate your specific objections so that it is clear; leaving no problems in semantics, or misinterpreted unspoken thoughts?
Are you joking me?
You now know SO2 is a by-product of a thermite+sulfur. And you know SO2 is the byproduct of many other 'natural' materials in the building that would have to go through a reduction reaction to eventually be able to cause sulfidation.
So what you are saying then is that although theoretically, thermite + sulfur is a possible source, your objections have ruled out any possible source of thermite+sulfur in the building.
Would you like to restate your specific objections so that it is clear; leaving no problems in semantics, or misinterpreted unspoken thoughts?