Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

[uke2se]

What negative?

It is only dishonest if I know it to be dishonest.

MM

Fair enough. Asking someone to perform a logically impossible action - such as proving a negative - in order to win an argument is dishonest. Please stop doing it.

So, to summarize, there's no evidence of explosives. All the videos captured sound from the collapses. None of them captured sound from any demolition charges. We get two different explanations for this from our twoofers: A hush-a-boom was used (i.e, the explosions where somehow dampened, a feat that has yet to be shown even remotely possible) and the mics where improperly placed to pick up explosions (which seems odd given the mics managed to pick up the sounds of the collapses just fine). In short, our twoofers are struggling with this huge hole in their "theory".

 

[Miragememories]

"Then why are you arguing thermite? Which was it, explosives or thermite?"

I believe nano-thermite has an explosive characteristic.

"Explosions != explosives"

That is not a question.

"If you have a problem with speculation, why did you even mention thermite?"

Because it has been found extensively in the WTC dust. This is not speculation.

"Explosions still != explosives. Explosions being heard does not mean anything except that explosions were heard."

Your point?

You asked the question about mic placement.

Explosions being heard, but not recorded. Ears are more sensitive and more prevalent than microphones.

It's difficult to answer when too many of your questions are obviously meant to be rhetorical.

MM

 

[TheRedWorm]

Let me ask you then, how explosive is nano-thermite? Is it powerful enough to replace regular explosives like RDX and dynamite?

 

[BigAl]

I believe nano-thermite has an explosive characteristic.

The characteristic you are looking for is called "brisance" where high values are explosive and low values, not so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance​

Please explain why you believe that nano-thermite has a high brisance value.

If you can't point to a source, you are flat-out making stuff up.

 

[TSR]

Because it has been found extensively in the WTC dust. This is not speculation.

.
No, it is a flat-out untruth.
.

 

[Miragememories]

Fair enough. Asking someone to perform a logically impossible action - such as proving a negative - in order to win an argument is dishonest. Please stop doing it.

So, to summarize, there's no evidence of explosives. All the videos captured sound from the collapses. None of them captured sound from any demolition charges. We get two different explanations for this from our twoofers: A hush-a-boom was used (i.e, the explosions where somehow dampened, a feat that has yet to be shown even remotely possible) and the mics where improperly placed to pick up explosions (which seems odd given the mics managed to pick up the sounds of the collapses just fine). In short, our twoofers are struggling with this huge hole in their "theory".

When you explain where I'm asking someone to; "perform a logically impossible action - such as proving a negative - in order to win an argument", I'll stop. Until that time, I don't know what you are talking about?

Regarding your summary;

You have not proven there was no evidence of explosives, some, not all, of the videos captured collapse sound, I'm not qualified to state whether the sound of demolitions was, or was not embedded in the sound recordings, I don't know what the hush-a-boom reference is about, the mics did not pick up the collapses "just fine" and I give that as my professional opinion.

I also don't like the derogatory term "twoofer". If you use that term again don't expect a reply. I manage not to insult you with such a label and I think can show me the same respect. Okay?

MM

 

[Christopher7]

No, it is a flat-out untruth..

That is flat-out denial.

 

[Miragememories]

.
No, it is a flat-out untruth.
.

Well until you can do more than say it is untrue, I stand in disagreement with you!

MM

 

[Miragememories]

The characteristic you are looking for is called "brisance" where high values are explosive and low values, not so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance​

Please explain why you believe that nano-thermite has a high brisance value.

If you can't point to a source, you are flat-out making stuff up.

Well since you like to do your research at Wikipedia, I give you their response on the subject of nano-thermite and super thermite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

"Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates.

But because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.

MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.

Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy.

Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials.

Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s."

MM

 

[TSR]

That is flat-out denial.

.
Those pictures are flat-out not therm*te.
.

 

[TSR]

Well until you can do more than say it is untrue, I stand in disagreement with you!

.
You made the affirmative claim, it's up to you to provide support for it.

I'll wait right here...
.

 

[Christopher7]

The characteristic you are looking for is called "brisance" where high values are explosive and low values, not so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance​

Please explain why you believe that nano-thermite has a high brisance value.

If you can't point to a source, you are flat-out making stuff up.

Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.
"The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says.
Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.
"Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times," Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.
Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates.
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/?a=f

 

[uke2se]

I believe nano-thermite has an explosive characteristic.

It doesn't. For something to be classed as an explosive it needs to be an actual explosion, defined (by wiki) as: a sudden expansion of the material after initiation, usually accompanied by the production of light, heat, sound, and pressure.^Wiki
Nano-thermite reacts like ordinary thermite, although with a much higher release of energy. There is no explosion.

 

[TSR]

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/?a=f

.
And when is that article dated?
.

 

[BigAl]

Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.
"The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says.
Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.
"Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times," Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.
Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates.
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/?a=f

Please quote the paragraph in the above that you believe supports your claim that there is some nano ecplosive as powerful as TNT/C4/RDX, etc, and silent.

 

[uke2se]

When you explain where I'm asking someone to; "perform a logically impossible action - such as proving a negative - in order to win an argument", I'll stop. Until that time, I don't know what you are talking about?

Fine. Right here:

"I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure."

The proof you require would demand us proving a negative, i.e, that thermite could NOT be used. That is logically impossible. We can rule it out based on evidence, and have done so, but we can't prove it. The proper sentence, using the right burden of evidence would be this:

"I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative COULD be used to create a core failure".

This requires positive evidence, and the burden rests on the person suggesting that thermite did play a role in bringing down the towers.

Regarding your summary;

You have not proven there was no evidence of explosives,

Again with reversing the burden of evidence? Neither I or anyone else have to prove that there were no evidence for explosives. You and others like you asserting that there were explosives have to provide such evidence. You have not. The logical conclusion is that no explosives were used.

some, not all, of the videos captured collapse sound,

The videos where the cameras were close to the towers did capture the sound of the collapse. They did not capture any sounds of explosions.

I'm not qualified to state whether the sound of demolitions was, or was not embedded in the sound recordings,

I thought you said you were an expert? Nevertheless, alienentity, who is an expert in this has checked, and there are no sounds of demolition. Only the clear sound of collapse. Really, no further analysis is needed. It's cut and dry: We can hear the collapse but no demolition charges - conclusion: there were no demolition charges.

I don't know what the hush-a-boom reference is about, the mics did not pick up the collapses "just fine" and I give that as my professional opinion.

I'm just as qualified as you to say that the mics did pick up the collapses just fine. As evidence, I point you to the videos of the collapses where we can clearly hear them.

I also don't like the derogatory term "twoofer".

Tough.

If you use that term again don't expect a reply.

Don't care.

I manage not to insult you with such a label and I think can show me the same respect. Okay?

You insult the memory of the 3000 people that died that day with your loony assertions. Expect no respect from me.

 

[triforcharity]

That is flat-out denial.

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img204/3239/redgraychipswithspheres.jpg[/qimg]

Tell me something. How did it react in a vaccuum? This would be a telltale sign, as thermite creates it's own oxygen.

 

[phunk]

But we don't have good recordings that disprove the existence of internal demolitions inside sealed buildings.

Actually we do. All the videos that don't show the windows exploding are excelent recorded proof that there were no internal demolition explosions.

 

[TexasJack]

uke2se, I can't believe you have to explain what proving a negative is. These guys come in with a whole suitcase of logical fallacies, don't they?

 

[Christopher7]

Actually we do. All the videos that don't show the windows exploding are excelent recorded proof that there were no internal demolition explosions.

The videos don't show the bottom part that exploded. Eight of the lower floors were removed with explosives. This is the only way the top part could fall at free fall acceleration.

Hand waving and denial cannot change this is a simple fact of physics.