• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

Christopher7 said:
Well said. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Yet there is NO pervasive evidence. You cannot have "unignited" thermite! It either all burns off or it is IGNITED!

I'm starting to understand why pomeroo got banned from this forum. He simply lost his patience with people like you.
 
Chorduroy said:
Thermite's supposed pervasiveness throughout the dust is based on the assumption that the Harrit et al paper is remotely honest. It's not.
Click to expand...
Who are you to call these professionals liars?

You asked for experts. You got experts. You just call them liars. What a joke. :D It is perfectly clear that absolutely nothing can penetrate your wall of denial.

Harrit himself declared on the Coast to Coast debate that "anyone with a brain and two eyes" could tell that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. He had arrived at his conclusion WELL BEFORE looking at the evidence.
Click to expand...
That is the most profound evidence. It's enough for a reasonable person.

By definition, his conclusions are flawed because of his bias.
Click to expand...
By that measure, everyone on both sides is biased and therefore their opinions are flawed. :rolleyes: Dumb.

A real scientist would have reserved judgement until the experiments were carried out, and let them guide his conclusions.
Click to expand...
He is a real scientist and you are not. :D
The video is self evident so he looked into it.
 
dc1971 said:
Yet there is NO pervasive evidence. You cannot have "unignited" thermite! It either all burns off or it is IGNITED!

I'm starting to understand why pomeroo got banned from this forum. He simply lost his patience with people like you.
Click to expand...
You persist with the "I can't figure out how they did it, therefore, it could not happen."

I call this "reverse logic". "It can't be because . . ."

Instead of objectively looking at all the evidence, y'all keep singing from the denier choir hymnal and poo-poo any evidence that refutes the OCT.

Anyone with two eyes and a brain can see thru you.
 
Christopher7 said:
By that measure, everyone on both sides is biased and therefore their opinions are flawed. :rolleyes: Dumb.
Click to expand...

Interesting how Truthers will always refer to EVERYONE else in the world who has a firm grip on reality and won't take one second to buy into ridiculous conspiracy theories as DUMB!

Good job C7!! This has allowed me another check on my Checklist of Trutherisms!
 
Christopher7 said:
Anyone with two eyes and a brain can see thru you.
Click to expand...

Sure, and you use yet another Trutherism to get your point across.

Ask me how many times I've been called Einstein or Shill, dumb, stupid, brainless, or have been told to 'use my brain' or 'look it up' or the father of them all - "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! FACT!" ???
 
dc1971 said:
Yet there is NO pervasive evidence. You cannot have "unignited" thermite! It either all burns off or it is IGNITED!
Click to expand...
You know everything there is to know? No!

It cant be because . . . . It can't be because . . . . What I see, just cant be, because because because.
 
Gamolon said:
Christopher7.

Question about NIST's images you keep posting.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg

Can you tell me how far the "At 16 sec." frame's northwest corner has fallen compared to the "At 15 sec." frame's northwest corner?

There is a one second difference between frames.

I used 621 feet as the height and came up with 2.81 feet per pixel measurement.

Can you tell me what you get? I get about a 33 foot difference.
Click to expand...
Using the scale on screen method I came up with ~20 feet at the north west corner. Your measurement is probably more accurate than mine so shall we settle on ~30 feet?

I edited the graphic to be more accurate and changed "1-2 sec" to "About 1 sec".
http://a.imageshack.us/img826/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg

Q: Do you detect any movement from 14 to 15 sec? If not, I will change that too.
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
I shouldn't get on here to smack around truthers after 6 drinks... it throws my grammar and spelling to ****.
Click to expand...

Let me correct you one more time. What you should have said is:

"When I try to divert a thread by questioning the level of education of a truther, I'd better not draw attention to my own lack of education."
 
bardamu said:
Let me correct you one more time. What you should have said is:

"When I try to divert a thread by questioning the level of education of a truther, I'd better not draw attention to my own lack of education."
Click to expand...

I don't think you should project your own shortcomings onto other posters.
 
dc1971 said:
Yet there is NO pervasive evidence. You cannot have "unignited" thermite! It either all burns off or it is IGNITED!

I'm starting to understand why pomeroo got banned from this forum. He simply lost his patience with people like you.
Click to expand...

I believe that the core columns that were filled with nanothermite consumed all of the incendiary material. But the nanothermite that was used in/on the floors was not so contained and some of it did not ignite. That's what is found in the dust.
 
lapman said:
Not even close. It has to be proven that it can do the job first. Since thermite in any form has yet to be used in any confirmed demolition done before or since 9/11, it is still a non-candidate.
Click to expand...

Christopher7 said:
Wrong!
This is a denial tactic. "Tell me something you could not possibly know or I will ignore the evidence we do have."
Click to expand...

Justin39640 said:
If you don't know if it can do the job, how can you insist it did the job??
Click to expand...

Christopher7 said:
By the results.
Click to expand...

Chris - that's indescribably poor reasoning.

My theory that the buildings were brought down by magic pixies wielding nano-anglegrinders holds up just as well if your standards of logic are applied. Or that the buildings were made with a secret "special steel" that could be dustified just by passing a certain electric current through it.

Incidentally - have you noticed that you claim explosives when there's a need to explain the synchronised appearance of the collapse, but then
move back to therm?te when you need to explain the lack of explosions?

The two are mutually contradictory. Doesn't it worry you that you absolutely must support two opposing theories at the same time?
 
pgimeno said:
There's more. In this QA NIST clarifies the scope and reasoning of the previous assertion in more detail. The relevant excerpt (trying to be brief, but not to misquote, go to the link to verify):
In the draft WTC 7 report [...], NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds [...]. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions.

[...]

The analyses of the video [...] revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.
​
So Christopher7 is applying a quote with a scope which covers the first 5.4 seconds as a whole, to the second stage where the building fell "essentially in free fall" (which is not the same as "exactly in free fall", no matter how often he tries to push that).
Click to expand...
Good point. Thank you.
Actually, the words he chooses to obfuscate the facts do not change the facts. In this case "essentially in free fall" is within 0.1% or "indistinguishable from" free fall acceleration.

"This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above."

Now NIST is saying the exterior frame instantly stopped providing any resistance at all for ~100 feet.

There was always some resistance because the exterior frame was folding up, it was not breaking up. There was "a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous." This can be seen in the video simulation. The walls are folding asymmetrically as would be expected. All the columns could not suddenly go from full support, as the slight pause in both graphics indicates, to no support - instantaneously.
graphcompare.jpg
 
Last edited:
dc1971 said:
I agree! No!

But what I do know... You cannot have "unignited" thermite! It either all burns off or it is IGNITED!
Click to expand...
If used in the usual manner.

We don't know how nano-thermite could have been used because it's top secret military stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom