No Explosives Here?
- Thread starter atavisms
- Start date
Oops, you posted lie. Why do you post lies? Why do you repeat lies from other people?
Here it is steel saved to study. OOPS
You failed to read NIST and other reports. There are many investigation you failed to find. Did you google you way to ignorance?
OOPS, here is a scientist (a PhD I bet) studying WTC steel (the steel you lied an said was disposed of)! OOPS, did you mean to lie and spread false information? Are you working for terrorists?
Did you know this is photographic evidence? Jones used this photo as proof it was cut with thermite. He lied, this was cut after 911. Jones lies about 911. He is still making up delusions.
You are apologizing for the terrorist who did 911 by making up and supporting the lies you post trying to blame unknown people for 911. You can't even tell us your evidence; you don't have any!
You are the one posting lies based on hearsay, and false information. You are guilty of telling lies or being very gullible. Which is it?
911 was investigated; Are you willfully being ignorant and ignoring the many investigations and tons of evidence?
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Like that nobody has adressed your issues, like the "Swiss cheese steel." I have, repeatedly. It looks just like you would expect steel that has been exposed to a strong acid to look. I have worked with thermite and demonstrated its use for arson and sabotage and it does not leave that kind of marks on the steel.
As for your remarks about the character of a man being more important than the degrees he holds. Steven Jones is a loser. He hangs out with Nazis. To hell with him.
atavisms
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 315
gimme a break - this makes sense?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M&feature=player_embedded#t=148
(linked from 911physicstruth.wetpaint.com)
I have not been through this site so I should comment. Im commenting on my past experience looking at (what are only hopeful) debunkings (not actual ones imo)
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
So in your opinion, how was the crime scene improperly processed? What could've been done (or not done) to your satisfaction?
TokenMac
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 432
How about page one
MikeW said:
McHrozni said:
funk de fino said:
Need any more because there is more.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
No. Proudfootz is an idiot. He is comparing the impact of a ten-car freight train to a Bug.
atavisms
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 315
No, to your question on the NFPA's Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations definition of “high-order damage.” My quote on 'textbook implosion' was re wtc7
(*actually 'it wasnt really a textbook implosion bc there were not loud separate booms like yuo would normally hear'
obviously it wasn't nearly as explosive.
we can the neat rubble pile on7, and the debris field and smoldering craters on 1&2 - The regulation can clearly be applied to either structure
2: The fact that they found some intact wall board or concrete does not explain what else they found..
Someone can now say, 'there were no smoldering pits of fire that would not go out bc warners bros pieces and numerous basement spaces (doesnt gravity drive thing down) were found intact.' Both are true. and that is a small part of how this division works.
These were massive spaces, the tallest buildings of their day, 'over-designed and highly redundant.'
atavisms
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 315
atavisms
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 315
what could have been done to satisfy yours if they were your children?
Nah. I just was right thinking that a lot of other posters would handle your ass on all the other nonsense you posted. As the lies you posted in that post might not be obvious to most people I thought I would point them out.
I'm sorry that i didnt specify that in my first post.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
OP response part I
Time to respond to the OP, which I have not done yet (if I replicate anyone else's work, my apologies). I will break this up into segments for easier reading.
The proposal that explosives were used is contradicted by the established evidence. Your images and videos are showing the natural consequence of a building collapse; you would expect to see large, billowing clouds formed from the huge amount of wallboard, insulation, and other interior components. No resort to concrete "pulverization" is necessary. Undoubtedly some concrete was indeed rendered as dust and contributed to the cloud, but it is a mistake to presume the billowing clouds witnessed were entirely concrete. Photographic evidence shows that many large pieces of concrete remained after the collapse.
Regarding explosives use in general:
Jim Hoffman is wrong, and is selectively presenting only one piece of evidence in that link. I myself found a few images myself that directly contradicted the notion that the "non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles", and posted them over in a response over at the SLC blog.
Here's one post that considers Hoffman's claim that things were rendered as dust. Conclusion: Hoffman's analysis is flawed. Here's a thread listing some of Hoffman's flaws regarding another, separate claim.
Bottom line: Hoffman has not proven to be accurate or correct, any of his analyses on 9/11 are suspect because of his lack of rigor. Each claim should be examined on their own merits, but the fact that he makes them renders them suspect from the beginning. See links above.
Time to respond to the OP, which I have not done yet (if I replicate anyone else's work, my apologies). I will break this up into segments for easier reading.
The proposal that explosives were used is contradicted by the established evidence. Your images and videos are showing the natural consequence of a building collapse; you would expect to see large, billowing clouds formed from the huge amount of wallboard, insulation, and other interior components. No resort to concrete "pulverization" is necessary. Undoubtedly some concrete was indeed rendered as dust and contributed to the cloud, but it is a mistake to presume the billowing clouds witnessed were entirely concrete. Photographic evidence shows that many large pieces of concrete remained after the collapse.
Regarding explosives use in general:
- http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
- http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
- http://debunking911.com/overp.htm
- http://911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148862
- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72894&highlight=pulverized+concrete
- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91469
Jim Hoffman is wrong, and is selectively presenting only one piece of evidence in that link. I myself found a few images myself that directly contradicted the notion that the "non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles", and posted them over in a response over at the SLC blog.
Here's one post that considers Hoffman's claim that things were rendered as dust. Conclusion: Hoffman's analysis is flawed. Here's a thread listing some of Hoffman's flaws regarding another, separate claim.
Bottom line: Hoffman has not proven to be accurate or correct, any of his analyses on 9/11 are suspect because of his lack of rigor. Each claim should be examined on their own merits, but the fact that he makes them renders them suspect from the beginning. See links above.
Last edited:
95 percent air.
Who built them? He said impacts and fires precipitated the gravity collapse. Oops, you been schooled by the chief structural engineer.
http://media.www.ndsmcobserver.com/...e.Center.Engineer.Discusses.Work-876101.shtml
http://www.hera.org.nz/pdf files/world trade centre.pdf What do you think about this independent paper by a structural engineer? What do you think?
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/report.php Research reports on 911. Did you google any of these? What did you think about each independent research report?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/ When you researched the number one source for WTC structural information what did you think?
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheBridge/Archives/V32-1EngineeringandHomelandSecurity.aspx A real journal. You can read more from real engineers.
If you could do rational googling; You would be able to form rational conclusions on 911. How can you post lies after 8 years of not understanding 911?
This is your evidence? Talk? r u trying to say, "they were super strong, can't fall, like the Titanic can't sink?" LOL
Please stop posting proof you have no clue and go earn a degree in engineering; it hurts to see humans in so much denial and ignorance, unable to comprehend reality.
You are running on empty
Last edited:
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
I don't have a problem with the way the crime scene was handled. You seem to.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
OP response part II
We have. Just because there is an unfortunately low signal to noise ratio of considered posts in 9/11 CT here doesn't mean that no analysis has been done. In particular, look at the substantive posts in response to Jones's earlier microspheres work (so many links; just do a forum search yourself) as well as his and Harrit's Bentham paper, Newton's Bit's (link 1, link 2) and Ryan Mackey's and Dave Roger's refutations of Gordon Ross's claims (overview link; scroll down to Ross section), as well as Sunstealers critique of the latest Bentham paper.
It's true that many of us have indulged in somewhat unfortunate black humor and condescension towards those people, but so much of that is driven by their own behavior in peddling mistruths and cargo-cult science. After a while, the insult to proper scientific conduct becomes intolerable.
Citing his CV does not change the fact that the paper he's one of the authors of is fatally flawed, nor does it change the fact that other contributors have written fatally flawed works on 9/11 in the past. Your paragraph here is the classic "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, and it falls flat in the face of the Bentham paper's flaws.
Again:
We have. Just because there is an unfortunately low signal to noise ratio of considered posts in 9/11 CT here doesn't mean that no analysis has been done. In particular, look at the substantive posts in response to Jones's earlier microspheres work (so many links; just do a forum search yourself) as well as his and Harrit's Bentham paper, Newton's Bit's (link 1, link 2) and Ryan Mackey's and Dave Roger's refutations of Gordon Ross's claims (overview link; scroll down to Ross section), as well as Sunstealers critique of the latest Bentham paper.
It's true that many of us have indulged in somewhat unfortunate black humor and condescension towards those people, but so much of that is driven by their own behavior in peddling mistruths and cargo-cult science. After a while, the insult to proper scientific conduct becomes intolerable.
Citing his CV does not change the fact that the paper he's one of the authors of is fatally flawed, nor does it change the fact that other contributors have written fatally flawed works on 9/11 in the past. Your paragraph here is the classic "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, and it falls flat in the face of the Bentham paper's flaws.
Again:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
OP response part III
Yes. See here. The amount of gravitational potential energy existent in each of the towers is 1.01 x 1012 Joules. Repeat: 1,010,000,000,000 joules. If you want a comparison to put that into perspective, a kiloton of TNT releases 4.184 × 1012 joules. Given this, and given that the collapse was chaotic with collisions between many interior components resulting in many of them being thrown for a distance away from the twin towers (examine the damage to neighboring buildings for examples of this), then it is entirely reasonable to expect body parts would also be flung some distance away. This all can be explained by nothing more than either pneumatic expulsion or being propelled away via interior components colliding. There's no mystery to this at all.
And no, the concrete was not "blown apart", not anywhere close to the degree that you're implying. See links above.
This was already explained above. This paragraph is based on a false premise, namely that the concrete was blown to microscopic dust. This didn't happen. Again, see above.
Yes. See here. The amount of gravitational potential energy existent in each of the towers is 1.01 x 1012 Joules. Repeat: 1,010,000,000,000 joules. If you want a comparison to put that into perspective, a kiloton of TNT releases 4.184 × 1012 joules. Given this, and given that the collapse was chaotic with collisions between many interior components resulting in many of them being thrown for a distance away from the twin towers (examine the damage to neighboring buildings for examples of this), then it is entirely reasonable to expect body parts would also be flung some distance away. This all can be explained by nothing more than either pneumatic expulsion or being propelled away via interior components colliding. There's no mystery to this at all.
And no, the concrete was not "blown apart", not anywhere close to the degree that you're implying. See links above.
This was already explained above. This paragraph is based on a false premise, namely that the concrete was blown to microscopic dust. This didn't happen. Again, see above.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
OP response IV
The answer is: Flammable towers contents. The University of California "Delta" group, in their environmental impact analysis (link is a PowerPoint presentation on their findings taken from here), determined that there were 4.3x1013 joules of flammable content. Given that a fire doesn't release all that at once, and given that there was enough present in terms of mundane office contents (paper, furniure, etc.) to compare it in terms of sheer magnitude (albeit not in terms of sheer "explosiveness") with an atomic bomb (the Hiroshima atomic bomb was estimated to have released 6.3x1013 J), it's not unreasonable to conclude that the fire would burn for a long, long time indeed. There were tons upon tons of flammable contents to burn.
Yes, and that NY Times article was written in February of 2002. The author was quite obviously unaware of the work by Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson explaining the eutectic corrosion. That erosion was not done by any thermate or any other material, but by simple exposure to the chemical stew in the part of the debris pile those steel components were recovered from.
To put things in perspective: Only an isolates few pieces were recovered. The eutectic corrosion phenomenon was quite obviously not consistent throughout the towers. But thermite and other incendiaries proposals are; had this erosion been due to thermite or other incendiary sources, it would have been noted on many, many pieces, not the few it was found on.
Also, let's recall what Ryan Mackey pointed out: That the presence of the remains of a eutectic reaction contraindicates the present of incendiaries like thermite that would be hot enough to erase such remains.
This by itself is enough to refute the rest of what you wrote, but at risk of gilding the lily, we'll consider the following paragraphs on their own terms.
(to be continued)
The answer is: Flammable towers contents. The University of California "Delta" group, in their environmental impact analysis (link is a PowerPoint presentation on their findings taken from here), determined that there were 4.3x1013 joules of flammable content. Given that a fire doesn't release all that at once, and given that there was enough present in terms of mundane office contents (paper, furniure, etc.) to compare it in terms of sheer magnitude (albeit not in terms of sheer "explosiveness") with an atomic bomb (the Hiroshima atomic bomb was estimated to have released 6.3x1013 J), it's not unreasonable to conclude that the fire would burn for a long, long time indeed. There were tons upon tons of flammable contents to burn.
Yes, and that NY Times article was written in February of 2002. The author was quite obviously unaware of the work by Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson explaining the eutectic corrosion. That erosion was not done by any thermate or any other material, but by simple exposure to the chemical stew in the part of the debris pile those steel components were recovered from.
To put things in perspective: Only an isolates few pieces were recovered. The eutectic corrosion phenomenon was quite obviously not consistent throughout the towers. But thermite and other incendiaries proposals are; had this erosion been due to thermite or other incendiary sources, it would have been noted on many, many pieces, not the few it was found on.
Also, let's recall what Ryan Mackey pointed out: That the presence of the remains of a eutectic reaction contraindicates the present of incendiaries like thermite that would be hot enough to erase such remains.
This by itself is enough to refute the rest of what you wrote, but at risk of gilding the lily, we'll consider the following paragraphs on their own terms.
(to be continued)
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
OP response V
Already dealt with above. This does not prove molten steel; on the contrary, a steel/iron oxide/iron sulfide eutectic would have been destroyed had the temperatures truly been high enough to melt steel.
Before going any further, I should point out that there was more than just steel at the World Trade Center. Ignoring the tons of aluminum present in the facade, and the tons of aircraft grade metals present in the jets that hit them, you have all sorts of internal items - wiring, enterprise-class battey backups, piping, furniture, other non-furniture internal components and fixtures, etc. - that also could have melted in the fires.
However, it is a tenant of 9/11 conspiracy fantasy that any sightings of molten metal automatically means that the metal is steel, given that the context of any of those citations are to buttress thermite claims. Those fail 20 ways from Sunday, but again, we'll deal with the following paragraphs on their own merits. Just recall that molten metal does not necessarily indicate molten steel when you consider such claims.
Already dealt with above. This does not prove molten steel; on the contrary, a steel/iron oxide/iron sulfide eutectic would have been destroyed had the temperatures truly been high enough to melt steel.
Before going any further, I should point out that there was more than just steel at the World Trade Center. Ignoring the tons of aluminum present in the facade, and the tons of aircraft grade metals present in the jets that hit them, you have all sorts of internal items - wiring, enterprise-class battey backups, piping, furniture, other non-furniture internal components and fixtures, etc. - that also could have melted in the fires.
However, it is a tenant of 9/11 conspiracy fantasy that any sightings of molten metal automatically means that the metal is steel, given that the context of any of those citations are to buttress thermite claims. Those fail 20 ways from Sunday, but again, we'll deal with the following paragraphs on their own merits. Just recall that molten metal does not necessarily indicate molten steel when you consider such claims.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
OP response VI
We'll ignore the fact that DRG - a known and demonstrably inaccurate researcher (don't try to call that ad hom without examining the paper at the link) - was quoting another demonstrably inaccurate researcher (Christopher Bollyn), the fact remains that former forum poster Pomeroo (Ron Wieck) personally talked to Mark Loizeaux, and Loizeaux said something a fair amount different to Ron.
- http://www.google.com/search?q=molt...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
- http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb
- http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
We'll ignore the fact that DRG - a known and demonstrably inaccurate researcher (don't try to call that ad hom without examining the paper at the link) - was quoting another demonstrably inaccurate researcher (Christopher Bollyn), the fact remains that former forum poster Pomeroo (Ron Wieck) personally talked to Mark Loizeaux, and Loizeaux said something a fair amount different to Ron.
Last edited: