Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

tmd2_1 said:
Well that's what I'm saying...getting all that thermite and steel is not really feasible, but you can have scaled down models. Look at Cole's videos he melts steel with only a few pounds
Click to expand...

You're not answering my question. Do you think you can sketch up a reaction on paper and trust the conslusion - provided peer-review, of course?
 
uke2se said:
You're not answering my question. Do you think you can sketch up a reaction on paper and trust the conslusion - provided peer-review, of course?
Click to expand...

Not 100% without experiment (that doesn't mean they're wrong of course)...if they experimented and then wrote the paper then yes.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I have the right to go with either, or any of multiple theories, and to change my mind as I go... you don't big difference. One way and only one way. You have to jump threw hoops defending it. I've said many times I don't know. It's almost not important...if that is molten steel pouring out,(which looks like it was) there was clearly something else going on. How much or little thermite (if it was thermite at all) becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You seem to have retreated into fantasyland now with unknown agents with unknown properties being responsible for what may or may not be steel.
 
This has been very interesting to watch. It started out with some smug kind of claims about how tmd2_1 seemed to feel were new claims that raised doubts about explanations of the WTC attacks. The claim took the form that these doubts would be dependable to any reasonable person. Along the way, the typical gang of Truther names appeared both old and old members with new names urging tmd2_1 along in his claims that something new was being said.

Along the way it became clear that nothing new was really being said. I think even our friend tmd2_1 has to admit that. Real question here for tmd2_1 - do you think you've said anything new that hasn't been said before on the JREF?

And now we're back to the same old question. How much thermite was used? Was it a lot? Was it just a little? Truther tmd2_1 doesn't want to tell us and insists the only way to find out is if we have a whole shiny new investigation.

I guess you don't get it...no one here believes in Dr. Steve's paper. And since no one in the world has cited it except for David Ray Griffin, I guess no one else believes it either. Some of that has to do with the piece of crap journals that Dr. Steve and his gang insist are the best places to publish their Earth-shaking findings.

But they are Earth-shaking, and you have to wonder why no one else cares about them. Is it the global Illuminati conspiracy? Is it the Retoids? Do they really run Earthly science? Why doesn't anyone else care what Dr. Steve has to say? Why? Why isn't the entire construction world talking about Dr. Steve and his finding of thermite at the WTC? Why does no one in the thermite research community seem to care? Are they in on it, too?
 
Holy Carp I literally laughed out loud near the end of tmd's latest video offering.

Yes, the apparent weight of a falling object is less, measured by a non-acellerating scale
WHILE THE object is falling.
HOWEVER!!!!
That is not where the increase in force comes from. In the video there are several instances in which one can see the needle pin to max when the weight hits while the author simply ignores this and wants us to note the decrease while the object is falling.

He says he is a professional engineer but seems to have slept through classes on dynamic force. While he does mention 'impulse' at one point he seems to wish its effect away.

Here's the thing;
if a falling object exerts less force at all times then anyone who believes this in invited to first place a 3/4 inch steel hex nut on their head and note its weight. No problem.
Now have a buddy raise it up 3 feet above your head and then let it drop at free fall upon your head and make note of the change in apparent weight (ie. as the author states this is the force exerted by this object)
As soon as possible come back to this thread and tell us whther the static hex nut seems to weigh more or less than the one that was moving when it contacted your head.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Not 100% without experiment (that doesn't mean they're wrong of course)...if they experimented and then wrote the paper then yes.
Click to expand...

Do you feel the same way about theoretical physics and maths? I mean, it appears to me that your problem is a general distrust of science.
 
tsig said:
You seem to have retreated into fantasyland now with unknown agents with unknown properties being responsible for what may or may not be steel.
Click to expand...

Retreated? He never left. His orthography says fourteen years old.
 
I mean, tmd, what you're basically saying is that even if you were shown through the use of maths and chemistry that the energy contained in thermite is enough to melt x pounds of steel, you wouldn't believe this unless it was shown to you in an experiment (youtube video)?

You also bring up that scaled experiments would be ok, but how can you trust that? How do you know what happends with the results in a scaled experiment?
 
Scott Sommers said:
This has been very interesting to watch. It started out with some smug kind of claims about how tmd2_1 seemed to feel were new claims that raised doubts about explanations of the WTC attacks. The claim took the form that these doubts would be dependable to any reasonable person. Along the way, the typical gang of Truther names appeared both old and old members with new names urging tmd2_1 along in his claims that something new was being said.

Along the way it became clear that nothing new was really being said. I think even our friend tmd2_1 has to admit that. Real question here for tmd2_1 - do you think you've said anything new that hasn't been said before on the JREF?

And now we're back to the same old question. How much thermite was used? Was it a lot? Was it just a little? Truther tmd2_1 doesn't want to tell us and insists the only way to find out is if we have a whole shiny new investigation.

I guess you don't get it...no one here believes in Dr. Steve's paper. And since no one in the world has cited it except for David Ray Griffin, I guess no one else believes it either. Some of that has to do with the piece of crap journals that Dr. Steve and his gang insist are the best places to publish their Earth-shaking findings.

But they are Earth-shaking, and you have to wonder why no one else cares about them. Is it the global Illuminati conspiracy? Is it the Retoids? Do they really run Earthly science? Why doesn't anyone else care what Dr. Steve has to say? Why? Why isn't the entire construction world talking about Dr. Steve and his finding of thermite at the WTC? Why does no one in the thermite research community seem to care? Are they in on it, too?
Click to expand...

Without a doubt this has all been tremendously in my favor. Almost all of this thread was devoted to molten steel, which is just one of my points. One I even said possibly to. Some were hardly touched, and some of the "debunking" was laughable. WTC 7 at least 6 hours early a mistake. Yeah if everyone knew that was coming down...why was NIST initially stumped took them 7 years to release anything, and when they did release something...they had something like our fires do not reflect what was visually observed. Any defense of that was laughable. Aziz, the doofus with the piece of the plane...photographed somewhere else..all laughable. Even the molten steel...most people saying it may or may not have been....that right there is reasonable doubt. So if I got the only point that was reasonably debated...to where it is at...what else can this thread by viewed as?
 
jaydeehess said:
Holy Carp I literally laughed out loud near the end of tmd's latest video offering.

Yes, the apparent weight of a falling object is less, measured by a non-acellerating scale
WHILE THE object is falling.
HOWEVER!!!!
That is not where the increase in force comes from. In the video there are several instances in which one can see the needle pin to max when the weight hits while the author simply ignores this and wants us to note the decrease while the object is falling.

He says he is a professional engineer but seems to have slept through classes on dynamic force. While he does mention 'impulse' at one point he seems to wish its effect away.

Here's the thing;
if a falling object exerts less force at all times then anyone who believes this in invited to first place a 3/4 inch steel hex nut on their head and note its weight. No problem.
Now have a buddy raise it up 3 feet above your head and then let it drop at free fall upon your head and make note of the change in apparent weight (ie. as the author states this is the force exerted by this object)
As soon as possible come back to this thread and tell us whther the static hex nut seems to weigh more or less than the one that was moving when it contacted your head.
Click to expand...

You have no relevance...you can't see something silver hanging from a cylinder, trying to maintain that it was orange.
 
uke2se said:
I mean, tmd, what you're basically saying is that even if you were shown through the use of maths and chemistry that the energy contained in thermite is enough to melt x pounds of steel, you wouldn't believe this unless it was shown to you in an experiment (youtube video)?

You also bring up that scaled experiments would be ok, but how can you trust that? How do you know what happends with the results in a scaled experiment?
Click to expand...

Right I want to see it done...this isn't a math proof...it's a real world thing.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Right I want to see it done...this isn't a math proof...it's a real world thing.
Click to expand...

But why? Why don't you trust science? Why do you think that if you see it in a youtube video, it's more real than if you see it in math?
 
uke2se said:
But why? Why don't you trust science? Why do you think that if you see it in a youtube video, it's more real than if you see it in math?
Click to expand...

People make mistakes...assumptions are wrong...etc...etc. My plane example fits...why flight test anything then?
 
uke2se said:
But why? Why don't you trust science? Why do you think that if you see it in a youtube video, it's more real than if you see it in math?
Click to expand...

I think the problem is almost none of the experiments that have been done...go against the official story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom