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

[Oystein]

People make mistakes...assumptions are wrong...etc...etc. My plane example fits...why flight test anything then?

People don't make mistakes when doing experiments?!?

Are you saying Albert Einstein never did one thing right in his entire career?!?

 

[Oystein]

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

Exactly!

 

[Sabretooth]

Just hang in there a little bit longer guys, summer vacation for the kids is almost over...

tmd has no interest in having a real conversation about the thread that he started. I, unfortunately, wasted my time in post 155 when I set up items for him to return comments to, but he chose to ignore them and yammer on about subjects he knows nothing about.

He's a troll, and a bad one at that. We're better off ignoring this one.

 

[uke2se]

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”

You really should take those quotes to heart, tmd. That you view this thread as a success speaks towards you suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your arguments have been absolutely squashed in this thread, and you have shown yourself to be ignorant about almost everything you purport to discuss, and that you are unfamilliar with how science works, and even that you're distrustful of science. Nothing of this is positive.

This thread has been a(nother) success for debunkers in the respect that we have shown the kind of person who makes up the average twoofer, but other than that, we have failed to convince you - even though that seems like an impossible prospect.

I wish you luck in future endeavors. Hopefully, in a few years, you will look back at this time and smile at how gullible you were. It has happened to several people here. It stings the ego, but when you finally wake up from your fantasies, it actually feels good.

 

[dafydd]

He's a troll, and a bad one at that. We're better off ignoring this one.

I agree. School is starting soon anyway.

 

[tmd2_1]

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



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.



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



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



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.



Totally irrelevant.



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.



Not just volume, also the quality of my arguments.



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



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



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



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.



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.



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



Video-id and timestamp, please.



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.



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.



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!



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).



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).



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]
​

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



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.

Here it is right from NIST...molten steel is a big deal.

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

So if there was molten steel...it is a big problem for the official story

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

facepalm icon anyone.....


more evidence that tmd simply is incapable of getting it.

 

[BStrong]

Oystein, you are a better man than I - I stopped trying to educate truthbots long ago.

 

[ergo]

A troofer lie long debunked. Securacom was excused from its contract in 1998, and Marvin Bush was only on the board of directors through 1999 and was not even a shareholder by 2000.

Not going to mention the "completion contract" still in effect on 9/11/01?

Meaningless. With 198 elevators in the towers alone, not even counting what was in the rest of the complex, elevator maintenance, annual inspections and renovations would have been almost continuous in the complex.

And your point was....?

 

[WildCat]

Here it is right from NIST...molten steel is a big deal.

I'm sorry, you seem to have made an error. Please re-post and quote the part where NIST says molten steel was a "big deal". You appear to be quoting from a FAQ list... do you know what FAQ stands for?

 

[tmd2_1]

You really should take those quotes to heart, tmd. That you view this thread as a success speaks towards you suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your arguments have been absolutely squashed in this thread, and you have shown yourself to be ignorant about almost everything you purport to discuss, and that you are unfamilliar with how science works, and even that you're distrustful of science. Nothing of this is positive.

This thread has been a(nother) success for debunkers in the respect that we have shown the kind of person who makes up the average twoofer, but other than that, we have failed to convince you - even though that seems like an impossible prospect.

I wish you luck in future endeavors. Hopefully, in a few years, you will look back at this time and smile at how gullible you were. It has happened to several people here. It stings the ego, but when you finally wake up from your fantasies, it actually feels good.

Think about what you just said...most of my points weren't even touched (because I know they can't be debunked) any yet they were all destroyed? How is that even possible? All this talk about molten steel..thermite...etc...I got most people to say they can't prove what metal was molten or not. Showed clear evidence Gross is a liar (or grossly negligent) Showed thermite can melt steel quite easily. Showed what was coming out of the tower is more then likely steel.

Some of the debunking points as I've said are even more then laughable. WTC 7 was a mistake. Yeah 6 hours early. If everyone knew it was going to come down why did it take NIST so long to release anything. When they finally do..it says something...our fires were not based on what was viewed? What kind of science is that? And you laugh at people like Cole. It's a joke it really is, a total joke. Sheer numbers does not mean victory...just because there are more of you repeating the same BS doesn't mean your right. If you look at this objectively, how can it be viewed as anything but a success? It's not the physics that keep people from believing about 9/11. It's the implications of what it means...no one wants to think about that. I didn't for a while. Let me say this...the number of people who were "truthers" and now beleive the official story are far less then the reverse. I can only think of maybe 10 people that have done that. While thousands it's the reverse. There's a reason for that.

 

[grandmastershek]

I didn't try to do anything the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. I will not address this again.

Translation: I will not debate it, I am right and that's the end of it!

The fail is strong with this one.

FYI TMD- You would be the prosecution since you are claiming wrong doing. Your won arguments make you look like a moron.

I said I don't want to get into it...watch the video. I will not address this again either.

Translation: My claims satisfy my misled concept of logic & science, so you should be happy with it to.

 

[DGM]

Not going to mention the "completion contract" still in effect on 9/11/01?

Do tell, Would that be what someone said the now CEO said but can't confirm due to "security reasons"?

 

[WildCat]

Think about what you just said...most of my points weren't even touched (because I know they can't be debunked) any yet they were all destroyed? How is that even possible?

Every single one was debunked by page 2: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7431308#post7431308

That you aren't smart enough to understand this is not our fault. What did Clint Eastwood's character Josey Wales say? "A man's got to know his limitations". You don't appear to know yours. Wikipedia should link to this thread as an extreme exaple of the Dunning-Krueger Effect.

 

[grandmastershek]

Not going to mention the "completion contract" still in effect on 9/11/01?

And your point was....?

Probably that ultimately your argument of overseeing security was FoS.

That you aren't smart enough to understand this is not our fault. What did Clint Eastwood's character Josey Wales say? "A man's got to know his limitations". You don't appear to know yours. Wikipedia should link to this thread as an extreme exaple of the Dunning-Krueger Effect.

Heh...willful ignorance embodied.

"Nothing is more dangerous than sincere ignorance & conscientious stupidity" MLK

 

[Animal]

Not going to mention the "completion contract" still in effect on 9/11/01?

Even if thy had signed a recent contract, (revenue ended for their security contract in 1998 ) your bogie man Marvin Bush had no connect with the company that your claim depends on

And your point was....?

<snicker> by point was you and your troofer myths have been bitch slapped by the facts again.

Nice snippage of your gross error regarding occupancy at the WTC..

 

[tmd2_1]

tmd has no interest in having a real conversation about the thread that he started. I, unfortunately, wasted my time in post 155 when I set up items for him to return comments to, but he chose to ignore them and yammer on about subjects he knows nothing about.

He's a troll, and a bad one at that. We're better off ignoring this one.

Most of these are not even worth responding to but I will. Remember one of me many of you...I miss things.

1. Lloyd admits to being “in on it”.
- Objection. Even if this were remotely true, how does this disconnect OBL from the attack? Is this truther video an actual confession that he was “in on it”? No. He’s just some taxi driver who was in the wrong place at the wrong time…Your honor; strike that defense from the record. Strike one. Next.

Easy enough to answer...he said what he said. You can spin it anyway you want. But it's hard to believe any rational person can watch that person and not have questions.


2. Aziz El Hallan got a piece of FL77.
- Objection. So what? How does this disconnect OBL from the attack? Despite the few minutes difference between where he said he was versus the TV station, there is no reason to disbelieve his story or reasons for being there. Objection stands. Strike two. Next.

Yeah just waltzing into the studio with a piece of the plane is normal?? Why was he even allowed in? I could they aunthticate it besides talking to the authorites, at which time they should come for him. It's a total joke...total..and complete joke.



3. Early report of WTC 7 collapse.
- Objection. Considering the countless errors the media makes on a daily basis (and especially on 9/11), this can, by no means, be used to absolve OBL from the attacks. There were many errors made that day (ex: Delta 1989)…and considering that firefighters had mentioned that WTC7 was in danger of collapse, having the BBC report that it did collapse is not such a stretch of the imagination that they were incorrect. It cannot be considered as hard “evidence” to absolve OBL. Objection stands. Strike three. Next.


Yeah this was no error...saying building 6 came down, when it was 7 that's an error...this is not. If everyone knew this building was going to come down...why was NIST stumped and then take 7 years to release anything with stuff in it like NIST did not use the observable fires, and they won't even release what their data is backed on.



4. UA175 reported as still flying.
- Objection. This little youtube piece means nothing. We all know where UA175 ended up, as evidenced by countless video angles and radar data. Even if that grainy video does really read as “UAL 175” is still in the air, the real evidence clearly disputes that. Nothing about this piece absolves OBL. Objection stands. Strike four. Next.

This speaks for itself

5. John Gross lied.
5a. Witnesses to the “molten steel”.
- Objection part 1. For this argument to hold any weight, you would have to prove Gross was lying and in a specific context. There was no “molten steel” documented at the GZ site at any point during the rescue operation or during the cleanup process. Assumptions of Gross’ motivation do not absolve OBL.
- Objection part 2. Unless you can produce affidavits of said witnesses that are qualified to make such statements, then this argument is equally useless. Objections stand. Strike five and 5a. Next.


There was by witnesses...he lied about that. I can produce videos of said witnesses.

6. OBL not on the FBI wanted list.
- Objection. This has no bearing on proceedings and/or the ability to prosecute OBL. Plainly, if it were, then anyone brought to trial that isn’t a part of that list could use it as a defense. Everyone and their grandmother knew that OBL was #1 on the list of people the USA wanted to capture. Just because the FBI doesn’t specifically mention him, it doesn’t absolve him of any criminal activity. Objection stands. Strike six. Next.

It wasn't so much he was or was not on the list..it was no hard evidence that irked me a little bit.



7. Mysterious sulfur not tested by NIST, et al.
- Objection. Once again, this has zero to do with OBL. This would be objected straight outta court as irrelevant to the case. Objection stands. Strike seven. Next.

A lot of things have nothing to the with OBL..but have to do with another suspect(s) not a good arguement.


8. Some hijackers are still alive.
- Objection. Unless there is proof of your statement (and I mean proof, not some woo website and youtube nonsense), this couldn’t even be brought into the courtroom. You have to produce evidence to back up a claim if you want it considered as a defense. Objection stands. Strike eight. Next.

Here's at least one...this is no CT site...just a site promoting africa...http://allafrica.com/stories/200109240325.html
It actually says it was the same guy, the authorities apologized to him, and yet we still use his picture and identity.

9. Insider trading.
- Objection. Was OBL doing the trading? No? Objection stands. Strike nine. Next.

Great reasoning because it had to OBL...not circular or anything...but I can't blame you, you only get it from NIST.

10. Israeli behavior.
- Objection. Was OBL dancing in the streets of Manhattan? Where, on God’s green earth, does the actions of these folk have to do with OBL? Oh, that’s right…nothing. Objection stands. Strike ten. Next.

Another suspect.

11. Ceecee Lyles recording.
- Objection. For two reasons. Number one, the guy admits to editing the damn recording! Number two, if that’s not good enough, any “anomalies” on the tape are most likely the result of magnetic tape artifacts, which is absolutely common. Objection stands on number one alone. Strike eleven. Next.

Never heard of any anomalies that resulted in someone of different gender speaking your words back to you.

12. “Strange” behavior of Boeing.
- Objection. Boeing has no right or qualification to comment on national security matters, especially during an ongoing investigation. Further, seeing that the only places that identify this as an issue is a woo website, the credibility of such arguments is an auto-fail. Objection stands. Strike twelve. Next.

yeah like saying it's a regular jet is a big deal

In all honesty though I do appreciate you responding to everything...it's a lot more then what most other people did, and I apologize for missing it.

 

[Animal]

So if there was molten steel...it is a big problem for the official story

Since there was no molten steel and no evidence has EVER been provided of the claimed molten steel.........your rambling babbling nonsense is moot.

 

[tmd2_1]

Every single one was debunked by page 2: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7431308#post7431308

That you aren't smart enough to understand this is not our fault. What did Clint Eastwood's character Josey Wales say? "A man's got to know his limitations". You don't appear to know yours. Wikipedia should link to this thread as an extreme exaple of the Dunning-Krueger Effect.

Yeah for large sample of it on display by most of you.

 

[DGM]

Yeah for large sample of it on display by most of you.

You seem to think you have this all figured out. Why are you not trying to get anything done about it? If you have, I apologies and ask what.