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

[tsig]

Great rebuttal..you just proved you really do have no relevane....just blabbing on about prime numbers.

You didn't get the joke?

 

[tmd2_1]

An airplane is considerably more complicated than a two or three ingredient chemical equation.

Because aeronautics isn't based entirelly on mathematics. The basics of aeronautics is engineering which means math, but then you have to contruct and install parts, lots of people involved, lots of room for mistakes.

In mathematics, there are no mistakes, provided peer-review of course. In the simple mathematics we need for this problem, there are no mistakes, period. This knowledge has been with us for over a century.

I said that the aluminum was orange as it fell just as the material from the south tower was.
I also stated that a great deal of contamination in the material would also greatly affect the colour of the material when heated(you brush that away with a wave of your hand)

NOW however I once again follow your command and watch a video and this time its such a complete balls-up of the forces involved I have to question the author's claim of holding a degree.

Now I did not take engineering, I took physics.

We had a little joke in physics;
What is the difference between a physicist and an engineer?(my apologies to all real engneers)
Answer:
Given the premise that all odd numbers are prime numbers conduct an experiment to prove or disprove.
Physicist:
1 - prime
3 - prime
5 - prime
7 - prime
9 - not prime
11 - prime
13 - prime
Conclusion: Obviously 9 disproves the premise.

Engineer:
1 - prime
3 - prime
5 - prime
7 - prime
9 - not prime
11 - prime
13 - prime
Conclusion: other than the obvious experimental error with one result the premise is proven and all odd numbers are prime

This is another of your problems, tmd. You aren't willing to listen to people who actually know their stuff. Instead you rely solely on someone who's working outside his area of expertise simply because he is on youtube.

I'm going to leave for now...as I explained to Scott summers this thread can be viewed as nothing but a success. Yes I know I sound a little arrogant, but compared to you guys it's nothing. I'll leave you with these three quotes by Richard Feynman...if you're as smart as you say you are, you'll know who he is...if not look him..you may find he was a pretty smart guy who may have accomplished just one or two little things in his life.

“I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.”

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”

 

[dafydd]

This has got to be the most elaborate "if I ran the circus" arguments I've ever seen

More like the lunatics running the asylum.

 

[Oystein]

You wrote a lot it's hard for me to respond to it all...just due to time.

More to the point, it is hard for you to respond at all adequately.

This brings me to my first point...you have all this time to write this, and you can't make time to watch cole's videos.

I don't have "all this time". I spent a good time of my spare time of 3 days reading this thread. Man, what a laborious train wreck!
Most of what I wrote has nothing to do with what Cole might present. I am well prepared. I know my arguments. I fully understand where and why yours fail. That's why I can write these posts rather speedily.

I have watched SOME of Cole's videos.
Unless you make a specific claim and back it up by reference to specific statements and images in the Cole videos, I know you are wasting my time, as you can't even put in words what your claim is and what the evidence is.

How do you want me to give you a timestamp when it's all important? Every minute of it.

Nonsense. If it takes more than an hour to make a specific claim and back it up, the whole argument is not well specified.

Are you scared of what's on it?

Poisoning the Well Logical Fallacy. Try to avoid it in the future!

He proves quite easily that what was falling from the south tower could not have been aluminum mixed with any office supplies.

So what? Nothing in my post is in any way, form or shape dependent on that flow containing aluminium. You are totally missing any and all points I raised, and the totally of my argument.

If you don’t like his results prove him wrong by experiment. It shouldn’t be very difficult to melt aluminum to 1800F and see what happens if you try to add these things. This is something NIST should have done instead of just hypothesizing that this is what would happen.

Totally irrelevant.

It seems like most of your post is just going on and on....in an attempt to make thermite seem impossible.

Thermite as the explanation that you hint at is not only excessively improbable, it also does nothing to further the quest defined in your OP. This, and the very non-existence of even any such a theory.

For example the more you write, would indicate a lot of evidence, and many things against thermite. Just by the sheer volume.

Not just volume, also the quality of my arguments.

But in actuality most of what you wrote is somewhat repetitive.

Repetitions are a proven method of teaching and learning. Unfortunately, it so far fails in your case.

First of all molten steel is a big problem for the official story...

Why? How would it relieve Al Qaeda of the responsibility to hijack and crash planes?

most people even those on this site will admit it.

Can you name any such people? If not, please retract.

To say it's not, even in smaller amounts you'd be disagreeing with a lot of people.

How many? Please show me that "a lot of people" here would disagree.
Anyway, even if tue, that is an Ad Populum Logical Fallacy. Learn to avoid it.

It's clear that molten steel casts series doubts about al qaeda doing it.

Why is that clear? The case and evidence against Al Qaede rests in no way shape or form on the non-presence of molten steel. Unless you lay - and prove! - out a theory to the jury that would explain that link.

I was only saying I can't answer when the witnesses saw molten steel/rivers of steel, I'd have to ask them. I would guess early.

What reasoning is behind that guess? If you can't spell out convincing reasons, you better admit and retract.

If you watch cole’s videos he has NASA photographs showing high temperatures consistent with thermitic reactions, for a few days after the event.

Video-id and timestamp, please.

As I said the fires may or may not be indicative of anything.

I hear you: You don't know. Please cut from your argument any proposition when you don't know if it's true. Should save us all a lot of time reading that nonsense.

I don’t think landfill fires is a 1 for 1 comparison. There are many things in landfills that would not be found at the WTC….brush….wood, all catch fire more easily.

Yes, and it goes the other way round, too.
Bottom line is: You don't know. Please cut from your argument any proposition when you don't know if it's true. Should save us all a lot of time reading that nonsense.

What is interesting is Steven jones paper, in which Jones had to request information via a FOIA.

Please explain to the jury why that is interesting. Does it cast any light on the evidence against and culpability of Al Qaeda? If so, elaborate! Seems like you have a theory in the back of your mind that you want the jury to accept. If so, spell out that theory - and prove it!

It is seen here http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ Say what you will about Jones…this paper is really just about the EPA data. I can’t imagine him lying about that and the EPA not taking action against him.

Oh. But remember how you (falsely) accused us of arguing that "government would not lie"!? What a hypocrite you are!
I am however not saying that Jones lies in this paper (I know though that he has lied elsewhere in the past).

The data Jones presents shows the EPA figures were higher then what they initially released at the time. Strange they would do that. Some of the data suggests some chemical reactions that are peculiar . Some as far in as February 2002.

What does that mean with regard to the evidence against and culpability of Al Qaeda? If so, elaborate! Seems like you have a theory in the back of your mind that you want the jury to accept. If so, spell out that theory - and prove it! I expect you to properly cite Jones' article (that is: quote from it, and tell us what page you quoted from).

As for a dog being twice as likely to melt steel then thermite, how can you say that with a straight face? Thermite gets to temperatures 1500F higher to melt steel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite If you watch Cole’s videos you see he melts steel with only the smallest amount of it….I mean we’re talking single digit pounds.

You did not understand my argument at all. Let me elaborate - and please note that this is now a short lesson for you in chemical physics and thermodynamics! Pay attention, and try to learn:

The terms "heat", "temperature", "energy", "power" have very specific meanings in physics. We are going to need them all when thinking about what various sources of chemical energy can do to materials.

• Energy is "the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems" (Wikipedia). Such work, in our context, can come in the form of heating a mass to a higher temperature, or melting it. It is measured in the SI-unit Joule (J). Chemical energy exists in the form of molecular bonding and can get released through exothermic chemical reactions.
• Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. think of it as an energy differential. It too is measured in the SI-unit Joule (J).
• Temperature is something quite different from Heat: It is measured in a totally different SI-unit, namely the Kelvin (K), or often °C or °F. "Temperature is tied directly to the mean kinetic energy of particles", meaning molecules or atoms in our context, which is called the themal energy. Thermal energy has a habit of dissipating towards a state where the entire physical system is at the same temperature. That means any mass that has a higher temperature than its surrounding will cool, and cooler mass will warm up.
• Power is "the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted" (Wikipedia), or energy conversion per time unit. It is thus measured in Joules per second, J/s. 1J/s is defined as 1W (Watt)

Chemical compounds that can burn contain chemical energy. One can both theoretically calculate and measure the chemical energy content of compounds per mass unit: Energy per mass unit is called "energy density", and expressed in J/g (Joules per gram), or more often kJ/g (kilo(thousand)Joules per gram). This is a chemical property of materials that cannot be changed by purely physical processes such as grinding, melting etc. Fossile fuels typically have an energy density above 40kJ/g, many organic compounds (plastics, fats, proteins, resins...) typically come in anywhere between 15 and 40 kJ/g. Some composite organic materials (which also may contain inorganic compounds) such as wood, paper, body tissue are somewhat lower: Wood and paper have somewhere between 15 and 18kJ/g, food somewhere between 5 and 25kJ/g, the human body (including all the water it contains) an average of around 10kJ/g. Thermite has even less energy density: The theoretical maximum is 3.9kJ/g - no kind of Al-Fe-thermite can exceed that value (I say this just in case you read about "nano-" or "super-"thermite somewhere and truther try to make you believe that stuff has somehow more energy - it doesn't), but in practice there are losses, and actual thermite has an energy density of only 1.5-3kJ/g.

When things burn, they release "heat", that is they transfer their chemical energy; either as radiation (which in turn "heats" up other materials when absorbed) or by raising the temperature of the reaction products and their immediate surrounding by contact.
The temperature that is reached by is an emergent property of a thermodynamic equilibrium that ensues, and is dependent on several factors. Chief among them are
a) the rate at which chemical energy is released by burning
b) the rate at which heat is transfered away
The thermite reaction reaches very high temperatures not because thermitze contains or releases so much energy or heat, but because
a) it burns fairly quickly and
b) more importantly, none of the products of the thermite reaction are gasses. When organics burn, they always release gasses, which transfer the heat away very quickly.
After the reaction is over and temperature has peaked, temperature of course will drop again towward thermal equilibrium, and do so faster the higher temperature difference still is.
So we see that melting of steel (or indeed melting of thermite's reaction products) is dependent on the reaction releasing more heat per mass and time unit than gets whisked away by heat transfer at temperatures at or below the melting point of steel. Rate of energy transfer/conversion, as we saw, is called "power". We could say that thermite can only melt steel if it burns with enough power per mass unit to offset the heat loss.

Now. I was looking at the idea: What happens if we somehow could make thermite burn not very quickly (a pound gone in a matter of seconds) but slowly over a matter of "weeks"? To make "weeks" plural, we must talk about at least 2 weeks. In other words, what happens if we convert the chemical energy not in, say, 5 seconds, but 2 weeks? Obvious answer: Power will decrease accordingly. As I said, perfect thermite would have an energy density of 3,900 J/g. Burn the bulk of it in 5 seconds, and you get a power of 780W per gram. Burn one pound (metric), and you get 390,000 Watts. That is a lot of power!! Think of 3900 conventional lightbulbs of 100W each in one place - damned yes, that gets hot and surely can melt some stuff! However convert the 3900J/g over the course of 2 weeks, which is 1,209,600, and power per gram is down to 0,00322W/g, or power per pound of thermite is a mere 1,61. Think of one of those tiny bulbs on your christmas tree, and try to cook one pound of water with these - can it be done? No. Can it melt steel? Hell no!

Comparison to the power per mass unit of mammals - let's take humans now instead of dogs. Daily recommended calory intake for a healthy adult is 2000kcal, that is 8373.6kJ. This much energy gets converted into heat during 1 day, or 86,400 seconds. So a person produces 8,373,600 Joules / 86,400 seconds = 96.92W. Let's round that to 100W, assume one person to weigh on average 70kg or 140 pounds, and our heat power is 0.71W/pound. That is slightly less than half the specific power of our slow-burning thermite (dogs are smaller and more active, they have more power per mass). Our energy conversion allows us to maintain a temperature of some 15°C above our environment. Slow-burning thermite wouldn't achieve much more. This emergent temperature however is very much below the ignition point of thermite - the reaction could not continue on its own.

Conclusion: Slow-burning thermite is impossible, it could not sustain itself; even if it were possible, it would do no more than warm up its surrounding by more than 30°C.[/B]
​

As far as dogs melting steel, if that were true, you would have nothing to worry about in terms of molten steel.

Well, the point is dogs can't melt steel, and neither can't slow-burning thermite.

I don’t like writing this, but I would think humans give off at least as much energy as dogs, and humans were burning for many…many weeks. So there should be a lot of molten steel if something that is twice as likely to melt steel then a substance already proven to melt steel was known to be in the rubble and sadly in abundance.

Well, I was talking about the heat production of living dogs - the heat they produce by digesting and using their food. We know what sort of temperature that gives us - around 37°C. Far from melting point of steel.

However, you are right that there were burning bodies, mostly human, but no doubt a few dogs as well. I did the calculation once: Human bodies have an energy density that is 3 to 7 times higher than that of thermite! So yes, that too should alert you to the fact that slow-burning thermite, if it could exist, would not be a hazard at all.

 

[Dumb All Over]

I think the problem is almost none of the experiments that have been done...go against the official story.

You understand this statement makes you a true, blue Truther?

 

[dafydd]

Great rebuttal..you just proved you really do have no relevane....just blabbing on about prime numbers.

You didn't get the point. No surprise there.

 

[WildCat]

Last I'll say..let me know when you have experiments (or anything really) proving anything you say, or anything others say is false...I'll be glad to see them

Did you read the NIST reports?

Just like these?

That never gets old, I lol every time!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Just like these?

[qimg]http://www.petersnewyork.com/GAGE2.JPG[/qimg]

Every time I see this, I think of how we have truthers complaining that the NIST modeling techniques - using advanced software that use real world imputs -are unsuitable; meanwhile Gage can plop a couple of card board boxes and go "tadah!" and they'll eat it up like mint chocolate truffles. THe irony is so juicy

 

[WildCat]

You have no relevance...you can't see something silver hanging from a cylinder, trying to maintain that it was orange.

Also..again you have only words...and words that make little sense at that.

I love it when one of a truthers personalities argues with the other one! At least part of tmd2_1 knows he makes no sense at all!

 

[WildCat]

I think the problem is almost none of the experiments that have been done...go against the official story.

What makes that a problem?

 

[WildCat]

Wait, is he implying that the weight of the falling structure was apparently less as it fell, so it couldn't have been the reason for the total collapse?

w.t.f.

Even physicists agree that a falling object has no weight, so how could it possibly damage anything in its path?

 

[dafydd]

Every time I see this, I think of how we have truthers complaining that the NIST modeling techniques - using advanced software that use real world imputs -are unsuitable; meanwhile Gage can plop a couple of card board boxes and go "tadah!" and they'll eat it up like mint chocolate truffles. THe irony is so juicy

It's a classic. And tmd wants us to take nutters like Gage seriously.

 

[WildCat]

This is another of your problems, tmd. You aren't willing to listen to people who actually know their stuff. Instead you rely solely on someone who's working outside his area of expertise simply because he is on youtube.

Well not just anyone can put a video on youtube, there is an extensive and rigorous peer-review process.

At least that's how it works in tmd2_1's bizarro world.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

That's why they drop rockets onto the launch pad just before lighting them off. In fact, if you drop them from high enough they'll just float off into orbit.

 

[WildCat]

I'm going to leave for now...as I explained to Scott summers this thread can be viewed as nothing but a success.

Like Bob Dylan sang "there's no success like failure".

And you have failed rather spectacularly.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Notice how you ignored most of my post again? And that's the problem with people like you, reality is selective.

No he doesn't. He may get the overall proportional size correct, but he doesn't have teenie tiny bolts. He doesn't have teenie tiny trusses. He doesn't have a vast amount of materials used in the WTC. Do you know WTF a replica is?

and scaling down (or up) is virtually impossible to do accurately for complex structures because some factors increase linearly, some by the square and some by the cube

 

[Oystein]

...
I clearly say I don't know how much thermite was there, and I don't know when the molten steel was found.
...

You want to cast "reasonable doubt" on the prosecution's case against Al Qaeda.
The prosecution's case is in no way concerned with the presence or non-presence of molten steel anywhere at all.

In order to make this issue of supposed molten steel grounds for reasonable doubts about the prosecution's case, you need to explain to the jury why the presence of molten steel would give rise to such doubts. Obviously, you seem to believe that thermite provides such an explanation, and you want the jury to follow you on your beliefs. You would thus have to explain

• That molten steel was in fact present - you don't know that
• That there exists no other explanation for molten steel except thermite - you don't know that
• That molten steel was reported at points in time consistent with the use of thermite for demolition on 9/11 - you don't know when molten steel was reported
• That there was enough thermite present to both demolish the tower and create the molten steel that was observed in the amounts that were observed - you don't know how much thermite your theory requires
  
  That is not a strong argument, is it? Do you believe you could actually convince any impartial juror of your belief if it contains no less than four "I don't know"s?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You'd have to take that up with them. I don't know...simply saying IF there was...it could have been unreacted thermite.

so your "proof" is a "could have been"?????? why can you not consider"that it could have been" a metal other than steel????

 

[WildCat]

So yes, that too should alert you to the fact that slow-burning thermite, if it could exist, would not be a hazard at all.

It would be about as hazardous as rust, which is actually iron slowly burning.

tmd2-1, have you ever burned yourself touching rust?

 

[dafydd]

so your "proof" is a "could have been"?????? why can you not consider"that it could have been" a metal other than steel????

That is a mystery.