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

[Dabljuh]

Six of the hijackers survived? Laughable. They all died in the flames. How could they not have?

You're arguing there were any hijackers. How much proof do you have for that assertion?

 

[applecorped]

Here's proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fMB3jJ4yOc&feature=related

 

[twinstead]

Sigh.

Trotting out long-debunked crap like the so-called 'alive hijackers' does NOT help your cause, Dabljuh. All you're doing is showing those who actually DO look at evidence that you don't.

 

[LashL]

Yes, and one of those limits is that the phenomena that the theory purports to explain must actually exist, and if they do, are not already explained by other better-supported theories.

I could create a theory of why the moon gets shy and hides itself every month, which you wouldn't be able to refute. (No one has expertise in the moon's feelings, so any reason I give for why the moon gets shy would be irrefutable.) But you wouldn't need to refute it; you need only show that the disappearance of the moon on a monthly cycle is already adequately explained as the expected consequence of well-understood and thoroughly documented processes affecting the relative positions of earth, moon, and sun.

Similarly, it's irrelevant whether your thermite theory is refutable or not, because it is not necessary to explain any of the phenomena it purports to explain. It's as irrelevant as Max's heat-weakening theory, Apollo20's Ammonium Perchlorate theory, and my iron-deadweights-dropped-from-high-altitude-dirigibles theory, and for the same reason. The observed phenomena are already adequately explained as the expected consequence of well-understood and thoroughly documented processes affecting a steel structure and its contents exposed to collision damage and fire.

That is why, to make it appear relevant, you had to start out with an unsupported and non-credible assertion in your very first post in this thread: that the cores of the towers were each capable of supporting six times the weight of an entire tower. To anyone with the slightest knowledge of structural engineering (or of the most basic economics of building construction), that's as silly as if I introduced my embarrassed-moon theory by first asserting that the moon doesn't actually orbit the earth, in order to make it seem like there were phenomena that my theory was needed to explain.

And that, in turn, is why once you have satisfied yourself that your unnecessary theory has survived the JREF forum's most desperate attempts to refute it, there is no next step after that. The press, the courts, academia, corporate interests, professional societies, and political organizations will all readily perceive that your theory is useless and so it's "irrefutability" is of no import. Even truthers will pay you little attention because ultimately all you're doing is repeating what other, better-known, more widely published truthers are telling you. Why get their lies second-hand from you, when they can more easily get them directly from the people making them up? You will get no hush money because hush money is only paid to someone who knows something important enough to be hushed. An unnecessary theory, unsupported by evidence, not even well-formulated enough to be refutable, doesn't come close.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Very nicely said, very nicely presented, and well worth repeating.

 

[Dabljuh]

Good Lord, you think your inductions are scientific?

I probablly really shouldn't ignore you. Even though the points you raise are excessively dumb, without exception, you at least try hard to come up with points unlike most of the spammers.

You cannot say that thermite hypotheses are scientific, not when you cannot demonstrate their effect on the steel members.

The effect of thermite on steel is well enough established.

Jones's microspheres do not rise to that level (and by the way, you've still dodged the issue of what you called the "nanostructure"). All the evidence you've presented have been shown to have mundane origins.

It should have been 'microstructure' as the structure is in the micrometer range, not the nanometer range (which would be... atoms almost) and the microspheres still corroborate a thermite theory even if you do not acknowledge that this type of microsphere could not have been created by torches of any kind.

On top of that, the proposal that thermite was necessary entails a belief that the towers would not have collapsed of their own accord, even with the impact damage and fires. Analyses by NIST, Arup, the University of Edinburgh, and others contradict that possibility, clearly establishing that impact damage plus fires were sufficient to bring the towers down.

Yet the building was designed to withstand an impact like that. I acknowledge that there is a small chance that it *could* happen anyways, that the towers would collapse upon impact of an aircraft.

But obviously to the people who perpetrated this heinous attack, this chance was not good enough, so they assisted the collapse with thermite.

If that's the case, why would thermite be needed?

Oh, yes, why would they, I really can't think of a reason...

And if that's not, if the towers would have indeed remained standing without intervention, how are those groups wrong? I place particular emphasis on the Edinburgh/Arup researchers, as conspiracy peddlers tend to ignore them in their arguments.

What your opinion on whether the airplanes alone would have sufficed or the Edinburgh/Arup's opinion is, is irrelevant. To the people who put thermite into the building, it was obviously not enough. And for good reason: The building was rated against aircraft impacts, remember?

Also, the hypothesis fails on the predictive level. If thermite was used, then preparations for the emplacement of such would be noticeable, as access to the structural supports of the towers would be necessary.

With access to the elevator system, the core should be easy. There's enough witness testimony about funny business going on in the weeks before 9/11 to refute your objection. Also, the presence of the thermate.

Also, if thermite was used, then the temperature analysis of the steel should have shown temperatures not in the 600 to 800 degree C range NIST and FEMA note, nor in the "approaching 1000 degree" C range Biederman and Sisson note, but the over-2000 degree C temperatures that thermite works at. The fact that the Worcester Polytechnic analysis doesn't show that, and in fact shows eutectic effects which by necessity would have happened at lower temperatures, contradicts the prediction thermite use would show clear effects.

the Biederman and Sisson note you're arguing is full of fail and aids, to create an eutectic, you need to melt both materials in question first, which can be a real problem if you for example want to create a tungsten eutectic where the tungsten melts only at a temperature where most other metals already evaporate.

You can't spray sulfur on solid structural steel and expect it to melt at 1000°C suddenly. And even then, the paper only gives 1000°C as a lower bound for the temperature not knowing that for an eutectic to form from pure metals, you need to heat both pure metals to their respective melting temperature.

And still: Heating steel structures to 1000°C? That is almost impossibly reached by an office fire. Only a few fires in the WTC complex ever got this hot for a short time, and you need a long time to heat something to such a high temperature. And so by the sheer amount of samples you could rule this mechanic out as a reason even if it would work!

No. Thermate explains the observation. Biederman and Sisson are rightfully abbreviated thusly: BS.

Jones analysis of the spheres,

You seem under the impression the spheres were the only thing he investigated. Your confusion when I mentioned 'nanostructure' gives away that you have no clue about the scope of Jones' investigation.

plus his terrible interpretations of various phenomena from the towes (I again point at his silly conclusion regarding 1,3-DPP in the face of the numerous plastics in the towers, plus the fact that EPA sampling showed it being generated months after the event),

this is why I ignored you. You don't seem intellectually capable of reading something simple and understanding what it means. You simply lack the intelligence or the scientific judgment. The 1,3-DPP was not added after the collapse. They measured for a time after that collapse and during that time they measured 1,3-DPP.

Some people are just not made out to be skeptics.

Inductive conclusions based on false premises and acceptance of misrepresented phenomena is hardly science.

Stop embarassing yourself and stop wasting my time and yours. I'll keep you on ignore.

 

[Dabljuh]

Very nicely said, very nicely presented, and well worth repeating.

Except wrong, a big big proof by assertion fallacy.

Refute the evidence or call me daddy!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And not once have you ever tried to explain how they got all of that thermite there before 911, how they avoided all those employees, how they got all those volunteers, and how all that thermite stayed in place when the planes impacted the towers...

Dab, congratulations, you've already used the proof by assertion method

You've yet to bring that beyond speculation still... It's been 7 years, what's taking so long Dab?

Yet the building was designed to withstand an impact like that. I acknowledge that there is a small chance that it *could* happen anyways, that the towers would collapse upon impact of an aircraft.

But obviously to the people who perpetrated this heinous attack, this chance was not good enough, so they assisted the collapse with thermite.

This is all opinion Dab... Ever going to prove how they got this material inside the towers? If it's on multiple floors cutting the core columns, then why wasn't there visible signs of heating on multiple levels where the core briefly remained standing Dab? You do realize that the cores were briefly visible after the floors and exterior columns fell right? That numerous cameras caught it on tape right?

 

[Dabljuh]

And not once have you ever tried to explain how they got all of that thermite there before 911, how they avoided all those employees, how they got all those volunteers, and how all that thermite stayed in place when the planes impacted the towers...

Dab, congratulations, you've already used the proof by assertion method

You've yet to bring that beyond speculation still... It's been 7 years, what's taking so long Dab?



This is all opinion Dab... Ever going to prove how they got this material inside the towers? If it's on multiple floors cutting the core columns, then why wasn't there visible signs of heating on multiple levels where the core briefly remained standing Dab? You do realize that the cores were briefly visible after the floors and exterior columns fell right? That numerous cameras caught it on tape right?

All of that is irrelevant. I don't need to prove how the thermite got there or how it was ignited or who or what now that I've proven that thermite was there - you should be able to work out the rest now by yourself.

I never claimed I had complete insider knowledge on the entire operation. Even if I did, would you believe me? All I can prove to you without a doubt is that thermite was there. You can object all you want, you can protest that it's hard to get thermite there. You can protest that everyone and their dog would immediately have noticed since many people have a daily routine of checking the core columns of the building they work in. You can protest the suggestion that this all could have been done on one weekend prior to the attack.

But that's what it is - Protests. I've proven that thermite was there. Work out the rest yourself.

 

[AZCat]

Yet the building was designed to withstand an impact like that...

...And for good reason: The building was rated against aircraft impacts, remember?

There buildings weren't "rated" against aircraft impacts - there isn't such a thing (at least not in the same sense as wind, fire, snow, etc. loads). What is likely is that the designers did some calculations to predict whether the buildings would withstand the impact from a particular aircraft under particular conditions. Unfortunately we cannot examine the calculations or the assumptions made by the designers, so we have no way of knowing how good their analysis was. It is likely there was a great deal of simplification in order to reduce an otherwise intractable problem to one that was solvable, especially considering the technology of the time.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

All of that is irrelevant. I don't need to prove how the thermite got there or how it was ignited or who or what now that I've proven that thermite was there - you should be able to work out the rest now by yourself.

I never claimed I had complete insider knowledge on the entire operation. Even if I did, would you believe me? All I can prove to you without a doubt is that thermite was there. You can object all you want, you can protest that it's hard to get thermite there. You can protest that everyone and their dog would immediately have noticed since many people have a daily routine of checking the core columns of the building they work in. You can protest the suggestion that this all could have been done on one weekend prior to the attack.

But that's what it is - Protests. I've proven that thermite was there. Work out the rest yourself.

Add-on to address claims...





Portions of the cores were still standing after the rest of the towers fell ahead... In none have I seen any visual indications of the thermite charges cutting them, or any part that had been visually heated. They lost the bracing that the floor's transferred from the exterior columns

Then please feel free to answer as to why no such visible signs are showing in the video I posted many a pages ago.... there was as much as 60 stories of the core still standing for a brief time following the floor and exterior column failure. Why, do we not see visible signs of heated steel on the remnants of the cores.

Better yet why are the cores not completely failing with the main collapse if you've proven that thermite was present inside the cores and severed the connections.

 

[Par]

Six of the hijackers survived? Laughable. They all died in the flames. How could they not have?

You're arguing there were any hijackers.

So what happened? Did they crash down onto the street below and then get up, dust themselves off and then scurry down into the subway, or did they just leap through the burning wreckage at the impact site and shout to a stunned office worker to hold the elevator for them?

Six of the hijackers survived indeed. What a weird belief. You’re a fine fellow.

 

[Dabljuh]

There buildings weren't "rated" against aircraft impacts - there isn't such a thing (at least not in the same sense as wind, fire, snow, etc. loads). What is likely is that the designers did some calculations to predict whether the buildings would withstand the impact from a particular aircraft under particular conditions. Unfortunately we cannot examine the calculations or the assumptions made by the designers, so we have no way of knowing how good their analysis was. It is likely there was a great deal of simplification in order to reduce an otherwise intractable problem to one that was solvable, especially considering the technology of the time.

Well the problem is twofold. First of all is the lateral force. That's not a big problem, if your building survives hurricanes with 130mph winds, it is going to survive any number of aircraft rammed into it.

Second is the structural damage. The exterior of the WTC was designed in a particular way that made the exterior structure somewhat redundant, i.e. you could fly planes into it and the load would simply shift around the hole.

The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707 at 500mph, and the terrorists/arsonists would, in their preparation for the attack, have figured that out. So they would have realized that they can't (or not likely) make the building collapse by flying airplanes into it. So instead they used thermate as a means of destruction, and the planes were just the distraction.

Next thing you have is unintelligent or corrupt structural engineers proclaim that the fire must have done it. Wow! Obviously. Well, since, anyone who argues with that is sent to Guantanamo. Or at least won't ever get a job again, what with the state being the #1 customer of all structural engineers and architects, scientists etc...

 

[Dabljuh]

So what happened? Did they crash down onto the street below and then get up, dust themselves off and then scurry down into the subway, or did they just leap through the burning wreckage at the impact site and shout to a stunned office worker to hold the elevator for them?

Six of the hijackers survived indeed. What a weird belief. You’re a fine fellow.

Ok, let me rephrase it since it's obvious that you're so badly informed you're hearing it for the first time.

Six of the alleged Hijackers were found alive in Arabistan.

Since you're not very bright, I'm gonna explain this to you: Arabistan is where arabs live.

 

[Dabljuh]

Then please feel free to answer as to why no such visible signs are showing in the video I posted many a pages ago.... there was as much as 60 stories of the core still standing for a brief time following the floor and exterior column failure. Why, do we not see visible signs of heated steel on the remnants of the cores.

Better yet why are the cores not completely failing with the main collapse if you've proven that thermite was present inside the cores and severed the connections.

What does this prove? That you can't see the thermite on the collapsed core when you zoom in so much that a single core column is nearly one pixel wide?

I've proven that the thermite was there. You need to refute that proof if you want to prove there was no thermite there. What you're doing again, is just stalling, obfuscating, handwaving. Irrelevant. Waste of time.

 

[Par]

Ok, let me rephrase it since it's obvious that you're so badly informed you're hearing it for the first time. Six of the alleged Hijackers were found alive in Arabistan. Since you're not very bright, I'm gonna explain this to you: Arabistan is where arabs live.

Oh you should have said so! It all makes perfect sense now. If they were found in Arabistan, then – well – obviously they could have survived the plane crashes. What preposterous lot of utter gibberish.

 

[1337m4n]

I probablly really shouldn't ignore you.



this is why I ignored you.




I'll keep you on ignore.

He never was on ignore and he still isn't. And neither am I or anyone else you claim to have on ignore.

Just because I can't bear to see you make yourself look like a moron any longer:

1) Click on user's screename
2) Click "Add [user] to your Ignore list"
3) ????
4) PROFIT!

 

[Dabljuh]

Oh you should have said so! It all makes perfect sense now. If they were found in Arabistan, then – well – obviously they could have survived the plane crashes. What preposterous lot of utter gibberish.

You have been tested on your capability of being a productive member in this thread. Instead you have been identified as an useless ignorant spammer, and consequently been put on ignore.

 

[1337m4n]

Six of the alleged Hijackers were found alive in Arabistan.

Since you're not very bright, I'm gonna explain this to you: Arabistan is where arabs live.

I guess most of the world is Arabistan since there are people of Arabic descent just about everywhere.

Did you have a point or were you just going to spout subtle racism?

 

[Par]

You have been tested on your capability of being a productive member in this thread. Instead you have been identified as an useless ignorant spammer, and consequently been put on ignore.

He’s right! He’s absolutely right! Six of the hijackers survived, and I’m a “spammer”, no less. How utterly unfathomable. His brain must be made of little more than a few pieces of old string.

 

[WildCat]

Ok, let me rephrase it since it's obvious that you're so badly informed you're hearing it for the first time.

Six of the alleged Hijackers were found alive in Arabistan.

Since you're not very bright, I'm gonna explain this to you: Arabistan is where arabs live.

Oh, and did you hear they found Bigfoot? He was in Bigfootistan! That's where Bigfoot lives!