Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[ergo]

I think the point's been amply made, though. If the testimonials are about what was heard then they would be statements like: "It sounded like..." and not statements like "It was gunfire!", "it was a cannon!", "It was a bomb!" "I heard trains!!"

 

[T.A.M.]

Exactly. So those who used the word like were using similes, and beyond that comment is all speculative, so my suggestion is use occam's razor.

For those who did not use similes, you must a. Look at the language arround it, and if convince they meant explosives, b. be a real rsearcher (aimed at Mcqueen specifically) and go interview them.

TAM

 

[ergo]

Exactly. So those who used the word like were using similes, and beyond that comment is all speculative, so my suggestion is use occam's razor.

And Occam's razor would suggest that if many people are saying that something sounded like "bombs" or "explosions" then that probably is indicating that something of that nature occurred.

 

[ergo]

For those who did not use similes, you must a. Look at the language arround it, and if convince they meant explosives, b. be a real rsearcher (aimed at Mcqueen specifically) and go interview them.

Why should McQueen do it? Why didn't the original investigation do it?

 

[T.A.M.]

No it says that lots of people heard loud bangs in a building that was hit by a jet airliner, had 10 floors devistated, had people falling to the ground, and elevators falling to the ground, had electrical failures, and was about to collapse.

Seriously.

Oh, and javaman, i appreciate your example, and i would hope that if someone called into 911 and said that they heard something that sounded LIKE a bomb, that the operator would still tell them to get out. We are not talking about htat situation or anything close in this case....valiant effort to misconstrue though.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Why should McQueen do it? Why didn't the original investigation do it?

Tney did...thes quotes are from interviews. My point, is if Mcqueen has a theory which contradicts the official story, and is a legitimate rsearcher, then for those quotes he feel point to something besides what we know, he should interview the people again, narrowing the questions to what they actually heard or thought they heard when they said "explosion".

TAM

 

[ergo]

No it says that lots of people heard loud bangs in a building that was hit by a jet airliner, had 10 floors devistated, had people falling to the ground, and elevators falling to the ground, had electrical failures, and was about to collapse.

No, that's not Occam's razor.

 

[T.A.M.]

Ok you are being obtuse, and i am about to put you on ignore for it. Occams razor states that the simplest answer is likely the correct one. In a building with no evidence of explosives, and no evidence that anyone planted any, but where a jet airliner had just slammed into it, which was having electrical failures, and had bodiez and elevators fall (all of which we know to be factual), the most simple explanation for loud bangs that sounded like explosions is that the loud bangs were caused by the falling bodies, elevatorz, transformers, etc...not that they were caused by detonator charges.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

In the absence of ANY other evidence that there were bombs, why would anybody insist anybody who said what they heard sounded like bombs actually were hearing bombs, considering everything that was going on with those buildings, were indeed bombs?

The ONLY rational opinion should be, "well, I guess what they said sounded like bombs could have been something else besides bombs, so If I really believe there were bombs I'd better find some corroborating evidence to support that and quit using eye-witness accounts of things that sounded like bombs as evidence until I do".

 

[Dave Rogers]

One of the main attributes of thermite reaction is? Heat. Lot's of heat. If heat of common fire weakened the structure imagine how much a thermite reaction would help!

I can see you haven't tried. Heat needs to be applied to the structural components. Thermite tends to burn through things and drain away, dissipating the heat in doing so. Nobody has come up with a viable means of cutting a vertical structural member with thermite that doesn't require some mechanism very much larger than that member; one method was suggested in 2005 IIRC involving a large ceramic device to cut a small steel rod, but scaling it up to the WTC towers, even if possible, would require several tons of hardware to be placed in the public areas of the buildings.

You seem to think it's trivially obvious how thermite was used to weaken the structure. It isn't, and whenever a truther tries to suggest a method, they come up with something laughably absurd. Please feel free to try and do better, but remember, you have to suggest a possibility. Just handwaving and saying "it was thermite" is an appeal to magic.

Oh and by the way nanothermite does exist Development of Nanothermite Composites with Variable Electrostatic Discharge Ignition Thresholds

Maybe the term is misused by truthers, but shouldn't be made fun of and further misused by debunkers.

It shoud be made fun of, for two reasons. Firstly, nanothermite burns even faster than thermite, and would be even less capable of producing the high temperatures in the rubble pile months after the collapses that your more geometrically literate brethren so frequently advance as evidence of thermite. Secondly, due to the well-known effect by which aluminium forms a surface oxide layer, nanothermite contains a much higher ratio of aluminium oxide to metallic aluminium than larger-grained formulations, and has therefore typically only about 40% of the energy density of thermite; it's even less capable of causing thermal damage.

If you want to cause severe thermal damage to a structure, you're better off with something having a higher energy density. Kerosene, paper, wood and suchlike have typically about ten times the energy density of thermite, and they release that energy at a temperature low enough that they won't melt through anything holding them in place.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

Exactly. So those who used the word like were using similes, and beyond that comment is all speculative, so my suggestion is use occam's razor.

But you're just going in circles to benefit your position. First you claim that nobody heard explosions. Then when testimonials are put forth by your "own side" you brush them away because the use the word "like". Which is very common way to express such things BTW. Now you want a firm statement on the lines of "it was a bomb". But then you'd just argue, why, how could they make such a bold statement if they were not right in front of it? Did they see the charge? you'd say. Did they see the cables? you'd say. So for you it's bad if they do and bad if they don't. You'll just brush it away as you did with they youtube videos once they started to counter your claims. Recall window blowouts? CDs without windows? The ambulance and the real close CD shot. Youtube was good when you brought the arguments, but bad when others did. Just the same is the word "like" which now sits on the shelf right by "youtube".

 

[Dave Rogers]

And Occam's razor would suggest that if many people are saying that something sounded like "bombs" or "explosions" then that probably is indicating that something of that nature occurred.

No, it would suggest nothing of the sort. Explosions are fairly common in building fires, and explosions sound like bombs. Things falling on other things are very common in building collapses, and things falling on other things sound quite like bombs. Occam's Razor suggests that we don't invoke things that weren't already known to be there when we can explain everything in terms of things that were already known to be there. Occam's Razor, therefore, suggests that we shouldn't assume there were bombs present on the basis of noises that could be fuel/air deflagrations or large objects falling.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

It shoud be made fun of, for two reasons. Firstly, nanothermite burns even faster than thermite, and would be even less capable of producing the high temperatures in the rubble pile months after the collapses that your more geometrically literate brethren so frequently advance as evidence of thermite.

But since those "pile fires" were not produced by thermite (according to the debunker camp). Thermite could still have been used to weaken yet leave no evidence later. Being consumed faster benefits the thermite use theory rather than weakens it.

Do realize that common fires were very "cold" compared to thermite. So even 40% energy content of thermite is still well above the temperature required t begin weakening metal.

 

[twinstead]

Were they? Prior to the 911 call. Mhh conspiracy after all!

Indeed. The police dispatcher could have been in on it, and the cops involved could have been working for the CIA trying to hide the actual crime, and any witness who said it sounded more like a car backfire than a gun shot were threatened with death. Hell, the 911 operator could have been in on it as well!

So, before insisting that since the caller heard what he thought sounded like a gunshot it MUST have been a gun shot, the competent investigator would start with evidence that there was a cover up. Unless any was found, he could safely assume the caller was simply mistaken.

 

[BigAl]

But you're just going in circles to benefit your position. First you claim that nobody heard explosions.

Who here said nobody heard explosions? Lots of people correctly reported hearing noises like explosions at WTC.

"Like" is a simile. Explosion means "loud noise."

 

[carlitos]

The incredulity is tedious.

Here's a comment on "simile" in case anyone's interested.

 

[Sabretooth]

Let me clarify this. I'm using a quote from a trained eyewitness brought for by none other than beachnut to bring forth the contradictions in the debunker's position against bomb. Now I have nothing against the non existence of bombs, but to arrive to it through this set of contradictory comments on your part just makes no sense.

If in the end we realize no bombs were planted that is OK with me. But to huff and puff in one direction then come up with this and the marvelous statement on sabertooth's part Using similes does not further an arguement. is just marvelous and a true representation of debunker logic. It's valid as long as it supports it and invalid when it counters it. I'll have to put the word "like" right along "youtube" on the shelf of things that were, but then were not once they went against debunker theory.

You are grossly misinterpreting the context of why I said that.

YOU and other truthers contend that there were bombs. The only piece of evidence you can come up with is that ear-witnesses comment that they heard "what sounded like bombs and/or explosions".

Barring physical evidence, quoting people describing noises by the way of simile does not prove an argument.

However, I already know that you're thinking in your little truther mind that it does not disprove an argument either...and you would be partially right...but again, there is no physical evidence or signature of bombs and/or thermite and/or any other form of demolition materials.

So the simile argument is moot in both directions seeing that we cannot prove or disprove any evidence or a lack thereof. Therefore, we can throw away ALL ear-witness statements.

Now it's your turn to show evidence of bombs and or explosives. Good luck!

 

[T.A.M.]

But you're just going in circles to benefit your position. First you claim that nobody heard explosions. Then when testimonials are put forth by your "own side" you brush them away because the use the word "like". Which is very common way to express such things BTW. Now you want a firm statement on the lines of "it was a bomb". But then you'd just argue, why, how could they make such a bold statement if they were not right in front of it? Did they see the charge? you'd say. Did they see the cables? you'd say. So for you it's bad if they do and bad if they don't. You'll just brush it away as you did with they youtube videos once they started to counter your claims. Recall window blowouts? CDs without windows? The ambulance and the real close CD shot. Youtube was good when you brought the arguments, but bad when others did. Just the same is the word "like" which now sits on the shelf right by "youtube".

No, what i have consistently said is noone has reported a SERIES of loud explosions. Please provide me evidency to the contrary.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

But since those "pile fires" were not produced by thermite (according to the debunker camp). Thermite could still have been used to weaken yet leave no evidence later. Being consumed faster benefits the thermite use theory rather than weakens it.

Since there isn't any evidence for thermite, it does neither. You have still to suggest any plausible means by which a charge of thermite - any kind of thermite - could have been held in contact with a structural member long enough to weaken it.

Do realize that common fires were very "cold" compared to thermite. So even 40% energy content of thermite is still well above the temperature required t begin weakening metal.

Point, meet Java Man. Java Man, this is the point. I don't think you've met.

Truthers use the term 'nanothermite' because the prefix 'nano' makes it sound sooper sciencey and gives the impression they know what they're talking about. They like to give the impression they've come up with something better than thermite for bringing the towers down. The humourous irony lies in the fact that nanothermite would be worse than thermite. As a general rule, if a truther starts talking about nanothermite, he doesn't understand what he's talking about. And, yes, that includes Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit, both of whom are extraordinarily idiotic and disgraces to their professions.

Incidentally, energy density and temperature are completely different properties, and describing an energy density as higher than a temperature makes as much sense as describing a colour as louder than a parallelogram.

Dave

 

[Disbelief]

Let me clarify this. I'm using a quote from a trained eyewitness brought for by none other than beachnut to bring forth the contradictions in the debunker's position against bomb. Now I have nothing against the non existence of bombs, but to arrive to it through this set of contradictory comments on your part just makes no sense.

No, you purposely miss the main point - that bombs for a manmade demolition would have clearly been heard on multiple audio devices in the area. Also, there would have been people deafened by the blasts. So, the evidence for bombs is some witnesses comparing the sounds to a bomb while the evidence against is nothing captured on audio, no injuries from manmade explosives, no det cord, no signs on the steel, etc. How can you possibly say that the case has not been settled - no bombs.

If in the end we realize no bombs were planted that is OK with me. But to huff and puff in one direction then come up with this and the marvelous statement on sabertooth's part Using similes does not further an arguement. is just marvelous and a true representation of debunker logic. It's valid as long as it supports it and invalid when it counters it. I'll have to put the word "like" right along "youtube" on the shelf of things that were, but then were not once they went against debunker theory.

What evidence would make you say that there were no bombs? You act like you have an open mind, but everyone can see through the charade. As for the similes, I was just pointing out that there are multiple descriptions of the sounds. Giving one more weight than another is what the TM does to try and prove their case. So, if we both agree to not use witness statements to support our side, what evidence is there for bombs?