Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

TheRedWorm said:
I asked you this before, but all I got was irrelevant nonsense: it's been nearly a decade; what do you hope to accomplish by posting here?
Click to expand...
I have accomplished a great deal debating here.

1) Using the links provided by y'all, I proved that diesel fuel fires did not play a part in the collapse.
NIST abandoned that idea.

2) I pointed out the statements in conflict with the "10 story gouge" that Shaym Sunder lied about in the PM "Debunking" article.
NIST abandoned that idea.

Debating here is a way to hear the denial arguments and develop counter arguments. :)
​
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
Christopher7 said:
I have accomplished a great deal debating here.

1) Using the links provided by y'all, I proved that diesel fuel fires did not play a part in the collapse.
NIST abandoned that idea.

2) I pointed out the statements in conflict with the "10 story gouge" that Shaym Sunder lied about in the PM "Debunking" article.
NIST abandoned that idea.

Debating here is a way to hear the denial arguments and develop counter arguments. :)
​
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Good points Chris.

This forum exposes 9/11 Truth Supporters to the worst of the naysayers.

Denial got them 2008.

Wait until they see what is coming next.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Good points Chris.

This forum exposes 9/11 Truth Supporters to the worst of the naysayers.

Denial got them 2008.

Wait until they see what is coming next.

MM
Click to expand...
Thank you MM. After a while the childish insults become humorous and one can focus on debunking the sidestepping, double talk and outright denial. ;)
 
Miragememories. Christopher7.

Why was WTC a Controlled Demolition?
What was the purpose?
Do you think that the two WTC Towers falling might not have been enough for your alleged Conspirators?

Why did they add a whole extra building into the plot with another huge potential for discovery?



It's like the supposed Moon Hoax.
If Apollo 11 was a hoax and everyone believed it. Why did NASA risk discovery by repeating it another 6 times?

WTC7 being a 'Controlled Demolition' makes as much sense.
 
Know what I enjoy most about this conversation? The longer it continues, the more you truthers deny the evidence, and the weaker your arguments become.

Works for me!:D
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Miragememories. Christopher7.

Why was WTC a Controlled Demolition?
What was the purpose?
.
Click to expand...

Oh, please for God's sake don't ask them about motives. That has nothing to do with the physics we're talking about.

This thread is so far OT anyway.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Miragememories. Christopher7.

Why was WTC a Controlled Demolition?
What was the purpose?
Do you think that the two WTC Towers falling might not have been enough for your alleged Conspirators?

Why did they add a whole extra building into the plot with another huge potential for discovery?



It's like the supposed Moon Hoax.
If Apollo 11 was a hoax and everyone believed it. Why did NASA risk discovery by repeating it another 6 times?

WTC7 being a 'Controlled Demolition' makes as much sense.
Click to expand...
Why?

Because fires alone have a long history of not causing concrete and steel buildings to collapse.

Why?

Because 9/11 was a spectacle, the bigger the better.

Why?

Because the devastation from the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 would have necessitated the demolition of the surrounding WTC buildings anyway.

At least this way Larry collected some insurance money.

In a nutshell, you ask the innocent to speculate on the motivations of the guilty.

MM
 
It is at the heart of it though? They can speculate all they want on what combination of thermite, thermate and explosives were used and how fast the building fell and which bit started first but they are putting the cart before the horse.
 
Senenmut said:
so your making a claim that this is a steel column that is in the nist report?
Click to expand...

If you could read English, you would be able to come to the conclusion I was saying nothing of the sort

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''
Click to expand...

See above. Try again.
 
beachnut said:
Can you explain the eutectic stuff and how it dovetails to your idiotic CD claims based on nothing?

You have no technical stuff to support your CD lie. lol
Click to expand...

First they'd have to show that thermate can produce a eutectic erosion. They cannot, so they are avoiding that burden of proof and attempting to make CD skeptics prove a negative.
 
Miragememories said:
... This does not require a peer-reviewed technical paper.

MM
Click to expand...
You promised technical stuff and spew nonsense. I am impressed but this is all you ever did. You have nothing to argue but a delusion of CD based on nothing.
You can't tie the eutectic to your scenario, you can't explain your scenario, you have no evidence, no clue what happen on 911 and blame unknown bad guys. Terrorists did 911; after 8 years given all the evidence and answers you continue to claim CD and can't produce a single technical explanation. It does require a peer-reviewed paper, and you will not be producing it ever to support your CD lie.

Miragememories said:
... Until Dr. Greening, or the NIST come up with a better alternative theory, the CD explanation is the best available. ...
Click to expand...
This is as close as you get to technical; total nonsense based on a delusion of CD.

How does the topic of the thread work with your scenario? Eutectic stuff?
 
Last edited:
What makes a human being lie, obfuscate and distort reality the way C7 and MM are doing? I'm struggling to find a motive. The only thing I can think of is religion, which was my original theory. Trutherism just has to be religious in nature. It's the only thing strong enough to turn a person completely away from reason, making him able to swallow lies and logical fallacies without question.

MM complains that nobody offers any technical evidence to debunk his assertions. Of course, he fails completely to realize that he is the one who has to offer technical evidence supporting his deluded idea. C7 is playing leap-frog from one argument to the next, apparently unable to grasp any of them fully, relying on logical fallacies to keep a loose grip on the thread. I wonder who they think they're fooling. As someone pointed out in another thread, no truthers are going to read this and not post, so all lurkers are either rationalists or don't care about the twoof movement. There's nobody to convert for them. They are wasting their time. Does twooferism demand that adherents preach their doctrine? Is this some kind of penance?

As there's nothing left to say in the thread except continuing to look at the train wreck our truthers are creating, I'm finding it interesting to think about the psychological concepts of twooferism, so I thought I'd write up a thread-summary as I see it.
 
C7 and MM:
You've both been doing this for years, what have you actually accomplished?

Remember the "Loose Change Forum"? Those were fun days.
 
DGM said:
C7 and MM:
You've both been doing this for years, what have you actually accomplished?

Remember the "Loose Change Forum"? Those were fun days.
Click to expand...
Is that what it's all about here?

Fun?

If you believed, like I do, that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the 3,000+ people were murdered by people still at large, would you feel right dismissing it as not a problem DGM?

Would that be fun?

If you folks ever presented a good argument that could allow me to believe that 19 arab hijackers were behind it all, I would gladly stop my 9/11 Truth activism.

This may be fun and games for you here in JREF but it certainly isn't a source of amusement for me and the many thousands in the 9/11 Truth Movement who feel likewise.

I envy you your smug confidence that you know the truth and can sleep soundly at night.

Hopefully you are right and I am wrong.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Is that what it's all about here?

Fun?

If you believed, like I do, that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the 3,000+ people were murdered by people still at large, would you feel right dismissing it as not a problem DGM?

Would that be fun?

If you folks ever presented a good argument that could allow me to believe that 19 arab hijackers were behind it all, I would gladly stop my 9/11 Truth activism.

This may be fun and games for you here in JREF but it certainly isn't a source of amusement for me and the many thousands in the 9/11 Truth Movement who feel likewise.

I envy you your smug confidence that you know the truth and can sleep soundly at night.

Hopefully you are right and I am wrong.

MM
Click to expand...
Nice play on emotions.

I lost a good friend when 175 hit the south tower.

As soon as you come up with a complete and fact based narrative I will listen.

Why do you think "truthers" like Gage, DRG and Jones feel the need to lie and "truthers" never question them? You can't deny they lie.
 
DGM said:
Nice play on emotions.

I lost a good friend when 175 hit the south tower.

As soon as you come up with a complete and fact based narrative I will listen.

Why do you think "truthers" like Gage, DRG and Jones feel the need to lie and "truthers" never question them? You can't deny they lie.
Click to expand...

I have had no reason to believe that Gage, DRG and Jones are liars. I have no doubt they have made some errors, as would be expected when so much material is put forth, but I believe they act out of sincerity.

I to suffered the painful loss of a friend who was inside WTC 2 on 9/11.

And for several years I accepted the official story.

WTC7 changed my mind.

I repeat my question DGM and it is not a contrived "play on emotions";

If you believed, as I do, that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the 3,000+ people in the WTC Twin Towers were murdered by people still at large, would you feel right dismissing it as not a problem?

MM
 
Unless the CTs can offer up a coherent hypothesis, they have more problems than any so-called "official story"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom