Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[WildCat]

The rest of your post didn't make me flinch, if you'd stop using strawmans for a second you could actually contribute something here.

Is there a single truther anywhere who knows what a strawman argument is?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The rest of your post didn't make me flinch, if you'd stop using strawmans for a second you could actually contribute something here. But I watched that video. It's bad. Oh boy, is it bad. I mean, Loose Change bad. He uses examples of synchronous explosives use as a demonstration to why explosions are loud - That's at deceitful. Then he demonstrates that failing steel is loud too. Then he argues that because no explosives can be heard, there couldn't have been explosives, completely ignoring that failing steel-like sounds can also not be distinctively heard, rendering his entire point about not hearing explosions on the recordings moot.

And then he goes on and on about pulverizing concrete *after* he's stated that it was mostly gypsum. I have the distinct pattern of my palm now wedged into my forehead because I had to listen to him explain how hard it is to turn concrete into dust.

And then he argues that you could produce the ginormeous dust clouds without the use of explosives, which would argue for a pure-thermate hypothesis, but then he can't even reject such a pure thermate hypothesis, where -according to his argumentation- dust clouds were formed by the collapse itself, although the collapse were initiated by thermate weakening the steel.

And the rest is just name calling and non sequiturs, saying that Chewbacca was a wookie living on Endor, hence the WTC was not an inside job.

Bad, bad attempt at refutation.

First of all, how are synchronous explosives louder than asynchronous ones? You imply that the reason for the volume in the examples provides are because they are synchronous. What makes non-synchronous explosives inaudible to video cameras? And why would supposed demolitions in the twin towers not be "synchronous"?

Furthermore, as was demonstrated in the explosives demolition video examples, the sounds of the explosions detonating are much, much louder than any other collapse sounds. Arguing that the falling steel not being heard implies that such noises are only as loud as demolitions; the example videos clearly demonstrate that this is not the case. The demolition noises are heard well above the collapse sounds. Contrast that to the WTC; in videos of the WTC collapse, you do clearly hear the rumble of debris falling, yet you hear no explosives at all.

Next: e^n's argument about gypsum in concrete is not negated by the fact that it's difficult to pulverize it. There is no contradiction is saying concrete is difficult to pulverize and allowing that a small amount did pulverize. You yourself create a strawman to make this argument.

You also produce a false-dilemna argument with your dust-cloud explanation. The fact is, you don't need explosives or thermate to produce such a cloud; all you need are the collapsing towers. What about the cloud's size or composition indicates that it was thermate generated? And how do you account for the fact that Steven Jones's own work negates the thermate hypothesis when his own spectroscopic work demonstrates that components are missing from the debris, barium nitrate in particular?

These are not good rebuttals, Dabljuh.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is there a single truther anywhere who knows what a strawman argument is?

That's a blatant ad hominem.

Dave

 

[1337m4n]

Which one of those is a "linear shaped cutting charge"? You seem to be a little confused yourself. There's no such thing as a "thermite cutter charge", it's a fabrication of the truth movement. It's not entirely clear whether "cutter charge" is common jargon. Before you nitpick others' terminology, get your own straight.

Dave, it seems that the term "cutter charge", like the use of "pull it" to reference controlled demolition, was entirely an invention of the Truth Movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=cutter+charge&go=Go

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cutter+charge%22&btnG=Google+Search

 

[1337m4n]

My time is too precious to waste it on filling the vacuum that only a very generous philantrope would call an intellect.

You are posting disingenuous nonsense on an Internet forum full of complete strangers. Have you presented your "smoking gun evidence" to lawyers, detectives, courts, law enforcement agencies, congressmen, etc? Do you think you are saving the world by posting here? Nobody likes you.

To say on an anonymous internet forum that your time is precious is an inherent lie. People whose time is truly precious do not post on anonymous internet forums. Instead, they actually get their lazy butts off of the computer and get stuff done.

 

[GlennB]

MRC_Hans is now on ignore. My time is too precious to waste it on filling the vacuum that only a very generous philantrope would call an intellect. Go back to high school, and get that diploma after all! It's the school's job to educate you basic stuff, not mine

If you're going to be that pompous then you really MUST get your speelling, sintax and grammer absolutely spot on.

 

[twinstead]

Pompous fools ROCK!

 

[thewholesoul]

Define 'way'.

no need to get petty

How do you think the towers should have collapsed without controlled demolition.

they wouldn't have

From what the videos show the collapse propagation is straightforward, indicated even more so by the core columns lagging behind the main collapse.

yet you cannot test this straightforward process or find an exmaple in the natural world when approx 1/10th (12 floor) of a structure/object crushes the remainder (92 floor)

If the propagation of the collapse were not a pancaking, then it would reasonably be assumed that the core columns would have for the most part been dragged down with the main collapse. Between 40 and 60 stories of each stood for several seconds after the collapse

tell me, do you know which core columns survived? go check that out.

If anything the only solid areas you've covered are post collapse, and the youtube vid I critiqued in Post #90 wasn't a very good source for you to use. Do you have a different source that would validate your claim? My point is, you pointed to a video to prove that NIST was lying about molten steel findings, but the video itself does a bad job at corroborating the 'evidence'. I don't know if for a lack of time or a lack of willingness on your part to address this but I would appreciate it if you would clarify on the matter.

sorry i couldnt address it sooner. are you refering to the video with the NIST representative disagreeing with the premise i.e. that there was molten steel in the rubble pile?

As far as making the connections with the material coming out of the 82nd floor of the south tower shortly before its collapse, I asked you once if you thought it was cutting the intended column you stated it was. If that is the case how does it connect to post collapse condition given the following:

- The same was not seen in the North tower
- there were not multiple instances of the material coming out in either tower
- The video I quoted showed no sign of thermite reactions on the exposed core columns prior them finally collapsing. (and it supports progressive pancake collapse)

the fact remains taht molten metal that could not possibly be aluminium poured out of south tower. there was a bright flash, white smoke and pressure pulses accompanying this flow. all unexpalined by those in charge of the investigation. your trying to pin me into speculation. so let me answer the above. i dont know why the same was not seen in the north tower etc. now tell me does that mean that the molten metal was aluminium?

Most of the visible columns in this picture show no visible signs of having been cut. They snapped at the connections...[

but not all the core columns eh? some of them remained...which ones remained grizzly? which ones did not "snap" at their connections and why?

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

no need to get petty

he's not being petty, you simply have been told and explained to how things work over and over and no matter ho many times, you just don't get it. Clearly the upper limit of your comprehension and learning have been met and can go no further.

they wouldn't have

And yet you cannot back this claim up. Show us the mathematics that prove this. And tell us why you, nor anyone has ever been able to do this yet.

yet you cannot test this straightforward process or find an exmaple in the natural world when approx 1/10th (12 floor) of a structure/object crushes the remainder (92 floor)

I am sure that's what you would like to believe. Unfortunately as usual you are simply wrong and making incorrect uneducated ignorant statements. What you are claiming is that if something has never happened before, then it cannot happen. This would negate all existence since something always has to happen for a first time.

Tell you what genius, you show us another example of a 110 story building being hit by large commercial jets full of fuel, encountered severe structural damage, had their fire protection removed, and had no firefighting at all, but still remained standing.

***How come you are unable to provide a single example of this to prove that buildings under this condition have never collapsed?

the fact remains taht molten metal that could not possibly be aluminium poured out of south tower. there was a bright flash, white smoke and pressure pulses accompanying this flow. all unexpalined by those in charge of the investigation. your trying to pin me into speculation. so let me answer the above. i dont know why the same was not seen in the north tower etc. now tell me does that mean that the molten metal was aluminium?

That's not a fact, that's an idiotic and incorrect statement.

but not all the core columns eh? some of them remained...which ones remained grizzly? which ones did not "snap" at their connections and why?

peace

If you bothered to read the NIST report (and let's be honest, you have never ever read it) you might know the answer to these questions. What's important here is that you are trying to claim that a report you never even read is wrong.

 

[Dabljuh]

And how do you account for the fact that Steven Jones's own work negates the thermate hypothesis when his own spectroscopic work demonstrates that components are missing from the debris, barium nitrate in particular?

Barium nitrate is not a necessary requirement for the presence of thermite. Much the same way that tiger droppings are not a necessary requirement for the presence of tigers. So if you're in the living room and your mate returns from the bathroom with a pale face, blood on his arms, and there are loud sounds coming from the bathroom area, you do not refute his statement "There... is a tiger in the bathroom" by saying "It's impossible that there is a tiger in the bathroom because there are no tiger droppings here [in the living room]", instead you point out the improbability and difficulty of getting a tiger into the bathroom and proceed there confidently to take a leak.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Yes people, magical thermite that leaves no traces. It's anti-matter thermite that destoys all matter involved.

Perhaps Dab can show us an example of a thermite reaction that leaves no traces behind.

LOL!!

 

[1337m4n]

Barium nitrate is not a necessary requirement for the presence of thermite. Much the same way that tiger droppings are not a necessary requirement for the presence of tigers. So if you're in the living room and your mate returns from the bathroom with a pale face, blood on his arms, and there are loud sounds coming from the bathroom area, you do not refute his statement "There... is a tiger in the bathroom" by saying "It's impossible that there is a tiger in the bathroom because there are no tiger droppings here [in the living room]", instead you point out the improbability and difficulty of getting a tiger into the bathroom and proceed there confidently to take a leak.

That analogy is Stundie-worthy.

Clearly you do not understand chemistry.

Barium Nitrate is a chemical product of a thermite reaction. In other words, wherever there is a thermite reaction, barium nitrate will be produced.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Barium nitrate is not a necessary requirement for the presence of thermite. Much the same way that tiger droppings are not a necessary requirement for the presence of tigers. So if you're in the living room and your mate returns from the bathroom with a pale face, blood on his arms, and there are loud sounds coming from the bathroom area, you do not refute his statement "There... is a tiger in the bathroom" by saying "It's impossible that there is a tiger in the bathroom because there are no tiger droppings here [in the living room]", instead you point out the improbability and difficulty of getting a tiger into the bathroom and proceed there confidently to take a leak.

You said thermate. That was what you specified in your earlier post:

... the ginormeous dust clouds without the use of explosives, which would argue for a pure-thermate hypothesis, but then he can't even reject such a pure thermate hypothesis, where -according to his argumentation- dust clouds were formed by the collapse itself, although the collapse were initiated by thermate weakening the steel.

Therefore I addressed thermate. Barium nitrate is indeed a component of that compound.

If you meant to say thermite originally - instead of just moving the goalposts because the original statement was rebutted - then you're still missing the boat with your arguments. There was nothing about the debris cloud that indicates thermite usage at all, nor were there any characteristic effects left on the debris. You're not proving either assertion.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

1337m4n, I'm sorry, I hate to say this, but no, Ba(NO₃)₂ is not a product, it is an additive.

Thermate grenades: these special-purpose grenades are (obviously) filled with a substance called thermate. Thermate is a powdered mixture of 1 part barium nitrate, 2 parts aluminum, and 3 parts iron oxide (rust).

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Ground/Misc.html

Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

The product of thermate combustion would include nitrate and barium oxide. And a basic thermite reaction would simply be combustion between ferrous oxide and aluminum, producing aluminum oxide and plain iron.

I don't want to contradict posters debating truthers here, but unfortunately, the information was wrong. Just wanted to make sure the info here is correct, that's all.

HT: Arkan Wolfshade, back in 2006

 

[Dave Rogers]

the fact remains taht molten metal that could not possibly be aluminium iron or steel poured out of south tower.

Fixed that for you.

Dave

 

[Dabljuh]

To quote wikpedia, emphasis added by me

The main chemical reaction in thermate is the same as in thermite: an aluminothermic reaction between powdered aluminum and a metal oxide. In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate

In this thread we use the terminology "Thermite" synonymous with "aluminoferric thermite", and similiarly, Thermate may simply be thermite with sulfur added. There are other types of thermite whose final product is not iron, but can be one of a range of metal oxides that can be used instead of iron oxides, as long as they're used in conjunction with elemental aluminium in an aluminothermic reaction. Thermites without both aluminium and iron may be possible, but also may be uneconomic or may not be able to produce an useful temperature.

The effect of elemental sulfur is to to create an eutectic when cutting through steel, reducing the melting point of structural steel to around 1000 degrees celsius from 1315 when steel liquifies - Needless to say, steel depending on type becomes plastic already a hundred to several hundred degrees below the melting point, a fact that is used in forging.

This following being my own guesswork, corrections and specifications may be posted, the speculative nature however do not whatsoever change the outcome of the final refutation:
The barium nitrate may be added to also cause oxidation of the sulfur to achieve a higher reaction temperature, and possibly increase the rate of the aluminothermic reaction. But to a similiar effect (as an oxidizer), potassium nitrate or potassium permanganate could probably be used as well. Edit: Prof. Jones' analysis actually shows an abundant amount of manganese in an atypical pattern, meaning it's not the manganese that is ordinarily put into steel to make it more machinable.

However, barium is one of the first elements anyone looking for explosives would be searching for, as it's a common compound in explosives, if not in the main charge itself, it'll be found in many priming mechanisms. Furthermore, for the effectivity of thermate and Dr. Jones' findings perfectly corroborate the suggestion of a barium-free thermate.

Ultimately the notion that the noted absence of barium would somehow falsify the notion of thermate being used is just absurd. Why anyone would argue this escapes my mind. Your resistance only makes my penis harder.

 

[Dabljuh]

Fixed that for you.

Dave

you're talking about the pre-collapse video showing a yellow-white glowing liquid flowing from out of the windows, right? How is it impossible for this to be steel or iron? The only refutations of this hypothesis I've seen so far have been blatantly illogical and founded in ignorance.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

To quote wikpedia, emphasis added by me


In this thread we use the terminology "Thermite" synonymous with "aluminoferric thermite", and similiarly, Thermate may simply be thermite with sulfur added. There are other types of thermite whose final product is not iron, but can be one of a range of metal oxides that can be used instead of iron oxides, as long as they're used in conjunction with elemental aluminium in an aluminothermic reaction. Thermites without both aluminium and iron may be possible, but also may be uneconomic or may not be able to produce an useful temperature.

The effect of elemental sulfur is to to create an eutectic when cutting through steel, reducing the melting point of structural steel to around 1000 degrees celsius from 1315 when steel liquifies - Needless to say, steel depending on type becomes plastic already a hundred to several hundred degrees below the melting point, a fact that is used in forging.

This following being my own guesswork, corrections and specifications may be posted, the speculative nature however do not whatsoever change the outcome of the final refutation:
The barium nitrate may be added to also cause oxidation of the sulfur to achieve a higher reaction temperature, and possibly increase the rate of the aluminothermic reaction. But to a similiar effect (as an oxidizer), potassium nitrate or potassium permanganate could probably be used as well. Edit: Prof. Jones' analysis actually shows an abundant amount of manganese in an atypical pattern, meaning it's not the manganese that is ordinarily put into steel to make it more machinable.

However, barium is one of the first elements anyone looking for explosives would be searching for, as it's a common compound in explosives, if not in the main charge itself, it'll be found in many priming mechanisms. Furthermore, for the effectivity of thermate and Dr. Jones' findings perfectly corroborate the suggestion of a barium-free thermate.

Ultimately the notion that the noted absence of barium would somehow falsify the notion of thermate being used is just absurd. Why anyone would argue this escapes my mind. Your resistance only makes my penis harder.

So it's not thermate you're talking about, it's thermite. Got it. Anyway, as I said:

If you meant to say thermite originally - instead of just moving the goalposts because the original statement was rebutted - then you're still missing the boat with your arguments. There was nothing about the debris cloud that indicates thermite usage at all, nor were there any characteristic effects left on the debris. You're not proving either assertion.

I see that you're still not addressing the lack of any signatures of thermate or thermite signatures on the debris, let alone trying to address the notion of how the dust cloud has anything to do with whether thermite was used or not. To be honest, these arguments have gotten boringly repetative. Try overcoming the arguments at Debunking 911 first, as well as the ones at 911 Myths. Then see if there's anything original left over.

 

[Dabljuh]

So it's not thermate you're talking about, it's thermite. Got it.

I've clearly exposed the ambiguity of the terminology. If you continue to exhibit this subhuman level of intelligence, I'll just add you to the ignore list.

I see that you're still not addressing the lack of any signatures of thermate or thermite signatures on the debris,

I see that you're still not acknowledging the presence of therm(a|i)te signatures in the debris. Denying real evidence just gives you more bonus points on "Who goes on my ignore list next"

let alone trying to address the notion of how the dust cloud has anything to do with whether thermite was used or not.

Does it have to? Is this relevant? What's relevant is this: If thermite was used, there is a good chance for the dust to contain thermite signatures. Oh, it does?

To be honest, these arguments have gotten boringly repetative. Try overcoming the arguments at Debunking 911 first, as well as the ones at 911 Myths. Then see if there's anything original left over.

I've read that before. When I talked about horrible failures of attempting to disprove the thermite hypothesis, I was thinking specifically of that one. The guy uses photographs that shouldn't be used to falsify the chemical analysis and eyewitness accounts in the first place. Non sequitur, "I don't have a convincing photograph for thermite usage, hence there is no tiger in the bathroom." The guy doesn't understand basic principles of scientific theory and is about as convincing as the hobo telling me the other day we didn't land on the moon because the photos look shopped.

 

[CptColumbo]

That analogy is Stundie-worthy.

Clearly you do not understand chemistry.

Barium Nitrate is a chemical product of a thermite reaction. In other words, wherever there is a thermite reaction, barium nitrate will be produced.

Does it follow that where there is Barium Nitrate there is a thermite reaction?

If no, what else produces Barium Nitrate?