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

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

dafydd said:
That is a mystery.
Click to expand...
Indeed, as ifall the lead and aluminum (available in great quantitis on tat floor) and other metals with a far lower melting temperature than steel were not affected at all by the extreme heat that melted steel. :boggled:
 
tmd2_1 said:
...you see red hot steel being pulled out on 10/21...red hot steel over a month later despite all the cooling efforts? ...
Click to expand...

Explain how the thermite that was supposedly used to demolish the towers on 9/11 did heat that piece of red hot steel on 10/21 - six weeks later? How much thermite would it have taken to heat this particular piece of red hot steel to the temperature it has in the image? To do so
  • estimate the mass of steel that is red hot in the image
  • look up the specific heat of steel
  • estimate the temperature it has, using charts that map glow colour to temperature
  • compute how much energy was necessary to do this, using the values you obtained in the first three steps
  • make a reasonable assumption about the time that has passed since the thermite burned to heat that particular piece of steel
  • estimate what percentage of the energy originally released by the thermite reaction has been lost due to radiation, convection, and heat flow within the material
  • estimate what percentage of the thermitic energy was transferred to that piece of steel, rather than remained with the reaction products or gone to other material not shown here
  • from the above estimations, calculate a reasonable range for the energy that was released to produce that red hot glow
  • from the energy total you found in the previous step, calculate the amount of thermite needed to release so much energy, using an optimistic value for energy density of 3kJ/g

I think you will find that for every pound of steel you see glowing there, you will need very much in excess of ten pounds of thermite.


Note however that that steel is not melted, and never has been melted, and that "red-hot" is indicative of temperatures very commonly reached in hydrocarbon fires. For example, the coals under your barbeque meat are red-hot.
 
tmd2_1 said:
... I don't have to prove another theory to show the official story is not true or cast serious doubts on it. ...
Click to expand...
You have to supply evidence. All you have done is spread lies, fantasy and false information. The doubt you have is due to ignorance in physics, engineering, flying, FAA, NTSB, FDRs, fire systems, fire science, fire fighting, etc. You have doubts because you lack knowledge. One day you might gain knowledge and be upset 911 truth fooled you with lies, hearsay, and fantasy.
 
tmd2_1 said:
...I also know you premise that is could not have been steel pouring form the south tower is false. It very well could be. Watch Cole's videos he proves it could not have been aluminum mixed with anything by experiment. Don't like his results, use that big brain of yours and prove him wrong by experiment.
Click to expand...

Your logic is fallacios in the extreme.

It isn't relevant at all whether or not that flow contains aluminium or not.
All that matters for your argument to even get started is whether or not it contains molten steel.
You have not shown that. And that's where the ball stops already.
In fact, compelling reason exists why it can't have been molten steel. But that isn't even needed. You need to show it is molten steel, and you can't, and you haven't. End of story.
 
tmd2_1 said:
that's one of the most absurd things I have ever read. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution

and you are prosecuting so whats your problem? we are merely questioning your case or if you have a prima facie case to start with. It appears you do not.
always....Besides...there was so much evidence we couldn't file an indictment against the guy, which is a much lower threshold of proof,..
Click to expand...
.

round and around we go, when you will stop nobody knows......

don't give me any spin I've heard it all...that's all it is, is spin. The number 1 guy should have had an indictment against him.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. but the fact he did or didn't is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Proving Osama did it is not a requirement of an attack by 19 Muslim extremists on 911. Even if he was innocent it wouldn't change ANY of the other facts
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

Special Pleading Logical Fallacy. Educate yourself on what that is, and learn to avoid it in the future.

tmd2_1 said:
...
I've said many times I don't know.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that not knowing things serves as a good argument in a debate or defense strategy.

No comment needed on that folly.

tmd2_1 said:
It's almost not important...if that is molten steel pouring out,(which looks like it was) there was clearly something else going on.
Click to expand...

And if not, then not.
That's why it is important. You are saying "if A then B, therefore B, eben if A may be true". That logical fallacy is so basic it needs no name - any kid can spot it.

tmd2_1 said:
How much or little thermite (if it was thermite at all) becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not if you want to convince the jurors that molten steel is an explanation for the supposed observations and the collapse; the jury will not understand that argument, unless you explain the theory to them. And in that theory, you need to provide for enough thermite to actually explain all the observations you want to explain by the theory. It is possible in principle to establish a lower bound. Try it! You want to convince jurors, not have them go by blind faith in the infallibility of Cole, Jones, Ryan, not?
 
Sabretooth said:
Just like these?

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


that was probably the best indication that Gage A) has NO clue or B) that he knows his target audience VERY well. I suspect its B) and he is laughing at them all the way around the world and to the bank!
 
tmd2_1 said:
To "prove" it you bet. Look at the design of aircraft...lots of computer modeling/theories...etc...etc...the flight test it...then it doesn't happen the way they thought it would...they go back made adjustments do it again
Click to expand...

LOL one is simple chemistry and pretty predictable the other is is an combination of immensely complex structures and mechanisms that has to not kill people.

The first I would do on paper with a near 100% accuracy rate, the latter not so much because of the scope and the risk. It should be noted however that modern airliners rarely crash on their first flights......
 
tmd2_1 said:
In correct..burden of proof is always on the prosecution. They have to prove the case, I only have to cast doubt on it...i think it's clearly been done.
Click to expand...

Your point is moot.

The prosecution's case against Al Qaeda for hijackings and murder does not mention temperatures or any molten or hot but unmolten metal anywhere at all. So it does not have to prove anything with regard to that issue. It is something the defense introduced, and has not yet connected to the prosecution's case.

You are trying to convince the juror's that AQ isn't guilty because someone else is guilty. To make that claim a valid argument, you must assume the burden of proof.

See, the defense on any murder case could state that molten ice cream was found somewhere in the gutter, and claim, without presenting an explanation, that this somehow casts doubt on the culpability of that murderer. I literaly mean any and every murder case could be tried to put into doubt with literally that argument. Would the prosection in each case have to prove there was no molten ice cream, just because you say there was? Rubbish!
 
tmd2_1 said:
that's one of the most absurd things I have ever read. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution always....
Click to expand...

You are pushing the argument that someone who is not AQ demolished the towers using thermite. Correct?
That is a prosecutor's argument, not a defense argument.
 
grandmastershek said:
I can only imagine that court case:

Judge: Call your next witness.

Govt defense: I call JREF poster TMD. Now sir, what evidence do you have that 9/11 was an inside job?

TMD: Well if you watch the videos & look at the pictures you can see molten steel.

Govt def: OK...so how did you determine it was steel?So what?

TMD: I looked at it and it looks like molten steel.

Govt def: And you have some sort of expertise in this area?

TMD: Well I watch a lot of youtube.
Click to expand...

ftfy.

The argument ends right there. TMD draws no logical connection to the prosecution's case.
 
tmd2_1 said:
yeah i present people who have done experiments, you just sit there right a couple of words..and that's the way it is???
Click to expand...

One thing that hasn't been pointed out here but is worth pointing out:


Experiments serve no good at all without any accompanying theory!

Experiments are done to verify or falsify predictions made by a theory, or to accumulate data in a systematic way to fine-tune a theory (for example, fill it with empirical values).

You have no theory and even resent with disdain the very idea that you ought to present one.
But without theory, all your fancy experiments on YT are worth naught.
 
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