• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

tmd2_1 said:
As I have been saying to many people, go out and do your own unflawed experiment. No one seems to want to do that.
Click to expand...

On what?

The conversation was about Jones claim that he had tested material from the debris and that it was not aluminum. I do not have samples from the debris. I do not know where Jones got his sample. I also note that Jones is speaking about the molten flow from the south tower then immediatly shows a small sample of his implying that it is a sample of that flowing material.

OBVIOUSLY IT ISN"T, unless Jones had some magical way of determing where in the debris such samples could be located positively or unless someone was foolish enough to run to the side of the twoer while it still stood and collect hot samples.

As for the colour of flowing aluminum at 1800F, your own video shows FLOWING pure aluminum as orange. The material flowing out of the towers was by no means pure and IS flowing.
So the experiment has been done. Its not that flawed except in using pure aluminum, but the conclusions are flawed as the observations made do not back the conclusions put forth.
 
jaydeehess said:
On what?

The conversation was about Jones claim that he had tested material from the debris and that it was not aluminum. I do not have samples from the debris. I do not know where Jones got his sample. I also note that Jones is speaking about the molten flow from the south tower then immediatly shows a small sample of his implying that it is a sample of that flowing material.

OBVIOUSLY IT ISN"T, unless Jones had some magical way of determing where in the debris such samples could be located positively or unless someone was foolish enough to run to the side of the twoer while it still stood and collect hot samples.

As for the colour of flowing aluminum at 1800F, your own video shows FLOWING pure aluminum as orange. The material flowing out of the towers was by no means pure and IS flowing.
So the experiment has been done. Its not that flawed except in using pure aluminum, but the conclusions are flawed as the observations made do not back the conclusions put forth.
Click to expand...

On what aluminum what look like mixed with material.
 
jaydeehess said:
Oh I read it all, including;


So this unnamed 'engineer' spent a few hours looking ONLY at the pictures they had of the 9/11/01 aircraft. He didn't bother to look at anything else, like other photos of 767s, or Boeing's own website.
Hope they didn't have to pay this anon engineer.



Oh, yeah, like Boeing's website!



I don't know exactly why Boeing gave the answer they did and I don't particularilycare. It raises no suspicion in me about the plane in question nor Boeing itself.
What is absurd is that the reporters and the engineer could not be bothered to access free info from Boeing themselves. That they could not be bothered doing a little leg work and finding other photos of 767s or even travelling to an airport where a 767 is and looking at it themselves. Instead they decided to remain seated in their office. Perhaps in a small town weekly newspaper one would not have resources but IIRC you said that this is a big important paper and that these are top line reporters.
Again, why is it that I, a guy who hung around with journalism students 35 years ago, can come up with the other photos and the Boeing drawings and, if I were so inclined travel two hours down the highway(I DO live in a small town) to an international airport where I at one time worked, and go on the tarmac and look at 757 and 767s? Yet these trained and important reporters could not tear themselves out of their chairs.
We also do not know the exact wording of the request to Boeing. I know what the exact wording of other 911 conspiracy groups corresspondance was to other organizations such as PfT's dealing with the NTSB. I am sure Boeing knows how those conversations go as well. I am not suprised that Boeing refused to speak on the issue.
Click to expand...

All spin
 
tmd2_1 said:
Anyone who attempts to do something to the contrary of it. All I know of is Woods, hers are not a very good attempt.
Click to expand...
So "anyone" does not include "Judy Wood".

Then it is not "anyone". That's moving the goalposts.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Yes I re-watched it and determined that he didn't specifically say where it came from. He says it wasn't aluminum from the plane.

Watch at about 1:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&NR=1
Click to expand...

I have watched, a few times now. Do you not find it somewhat disingenuous to be speaking about a sample and say its not aluminum from the plane? When Jones next begins speaking in that video he is talking about thermate and then the flow from the south tower.

It most certainly seems to be his intent to have the listener believe that this sample is from that pre-collapse flow. In fact you originally bought into that exact implication..

I recall being upset when GWB and Cheney began talking about 9/11 and then immediatly switching to speaking on Iraq and Hussein and how bad they are. The clear intent was to have listeners tie Iraq to 9/11 and it was successful with many people actually believeing that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. When called on this the administration correctly said that they had made no statements connecting Iraq to 911.

Here we have Jones taking a page out of the Bush/Cheney playbook and you , and how many others, fell for it.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
On what aluminum what look like mixed with material.
Click to expand...

Which I covered in the last part of my post ;

As for the colour of flowing aluminum at 1800F, your own video shows FLOWING pure aluminum as orange. The material flowing out of the towers was by no means pure and IS flowing.
So the experiment has been done. Its not that flawed except in using pure aluminum, but the conclusions are flawed as the observations made do not back the conclusions put forth.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is that when it stopped flowing and cooled it was silvery.
Two problems, the camera does not , probably could not from its angle, follow the material all the way to the ground much less focus in on it there, and it simply would not be pure aluminum. Its mixed with gypsum dust, broken furniture, office supplies and equipment, aircraft seats and wiring, and possible human remains. That will, as you have said, float on top of an aluminum flow, and there is a LOT of materail for such contamination. Much more than the mass of aluminum melting. Now what do you suppose is most visible,, pure aluminum or the slag of carbon based debris on the top or outside of an aluminum flow?

Oxidation of those contaminants will increase as the flow gathers speed in falling through the air until you have smaller cinder covered solids.

If I had the resources, I don't, to heat aluminum to 1800 F and throw in handfulls of dust and debris and pour it out 15 feet above the ground, I'd do it.
If I were to do this I'd probably use aluminum drink cans instead of a pure aluminum sample.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
All spin
Click to expand...

Your characterization of them being damn good reporters is not spin?
I have shown you several pictures of a 767 in which the pod's identity is quite apparent. Pictures of 767s certainly existed in 2003 when they wrote the article. In fact there were already many debunking articles on it as well IIRC.
But these intrepid reporters did not bother with any of that. Instead they sat transfixed with the pictures of the 911 Boeing 767. They did no research of their own about 767s. They have one anonymous aviation expert who looked again at nothing other than these 911 pictures.

That's plain lazy.
 
OCaptain said:
But she's not nutty cause she believes that 9/11 was an inside job

She's nutty cause she dared speak out against Steven Jones.

Right?
Click to expand...

No she's nuts because she believes in direct energy weapons and who knows what else. I think she's a no planer...I don't know...I don't follow her at all. I mean everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess, but some of hers are down right scary.
 
tmd2_1 said:
No she's nuts because she believes in direct energy weapons and who knows what else. I think she's a no planer...I don't know...I don't follow her at all. I mean everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess, but some of hers are down right scary.
Click to expand...
Whom do you follow?
 
OCaptain said:
Whom do you follow?
Click to expand...

First of all I didn't mean follow in the sense of like following that persons beliefs. I meant more as like you follow your favorite sports team. See what they are doing, where they are in the standings etc... I don't follow one particular person or group, I try to gather as much information as I can from all sources evaluate it and than come to a conclusion. In the case of Judy Wood she's demonstrated to be (putting it kindly) somewhat lacking. So I don't pay much attention to what she has to say.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom