Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[Edx]

I knew this was waste of time, you can show nothing, you do know nothing and you trying to act as an expert.

You are going on ignore.

Show me explosives that can propel steel around and we can see how powerful they need to be.

Show me explosives that can instantly remove 8 stories of a building.

You can't, because your "explosives" only exist in science fiction. Even if 911 was inside job and even if the WTC was brought down by something other than impact and fire damage, you'd still be wrong about damn near everything back to front.

 

[atavisms]

Truthers in general are a special breed of special needs, but these two take the cake, really.

And this, the labels and derogatory comments, must be the most cogent arguments you can muster,. Otherwise we would not see this inability to reply with compelling arguments from so many so often. In fact, there are many sound reasons why millions of people the world over conclude those buildings were destroyed with explosives.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In fact, there are many sound reasons why millions of people the world over conclude those buildings were destroyed with explosives.

The lack of sound is the reason a subset of the few who believe those fantasies had to start making up stories about thermite instead.

Dave

 

[atavisms]

You didn't actually read any of those documents did you? You just typed thermite and explosive into the search fuction and linked to the list didn't you? You didn't realise that someone would actually read the papers did you?
We aren't truthers you know. We will read what you link.

You can see I did not link to any specific paper. The link is to search engine where you can probably find the answer to that question. You can see the keywords I used so Im not sure what your point is. Use your own if it's more effective. The point was to direct people where they would probably find the answer. And in all this verbiage not a word about whether or not the material can be engineered to have high explosive properties. It can.

As a materials engineer I'm always interested in reading new things so I read this one.


Explosive consolidation of combustion sythesized ceramics: TiC and TiB2

Basically it's a process called self-propagating high-temperature synthesis (SHS) used to make ceramics with a density of 98%.

Simply react a powder by combustion in an insulated container and then use the pressure from a separate* explosive to compact the hot pourous ceramic instead of sintering and pressing or hot isostatic pressing (HIP).

*Page 7.

There are 2 references to thermite in the paper and none of them relate to thermite being used as an explosive.

Do I really have to track it down for you? The point is that thermitic materials can be engineered to have high explosive properties. You can refer 1000 different papers that do not address this fact and thereby avoid it altogether, but that doesn't make it any less true.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do I really have to track it down for you?

Yes. When you make a claim, the proper thing to do is point directly to information that supports that claim. How is it that you don't understand that?

The point is that thermitic materials can be engineered to have high explosive properties. You can refer 1000 different papers that do not address this fact and thereby avoid it altogether, but that doesn't make it any less true.

So make it true. Point us to any papers that do discuss it. They seem to be very much in the minority, so rather than tell us we need to sift through thousands of papers that don't discuss the topic, why not simply point to at least one you had in mind.

You did get this ridiculous notion from one of these papers you claims exists, right? Or did someone tell you these papers existed, you believed them, and now you're telling us they exist without having ever confirmed their existence for yourself.

Guess what? Unicorns exist. Go find one. I don't need to point one out, because they are out there. It's up to you to locate one amongst all the horses and zebras of the world. Go! For I have spoken truth.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do I really have to track it down for you?

Yes, you do. That's rather the whole point. You're making a claim that:

... thermitic materials can be engineered to have high explosive properties. You can refer 1000 different papers that do not address this fact and thereby avoid it altogether, but that doesn't make it any less true.

But if you don't refer to any papers that do address this "fact", it remains simply an assertion. So please give a source that claims that thermitic materials can be engineered to have high explosive properties.

Of course, it's irrelevant, for reasons I've already given, but it would do you - and indeed all truthers - a lot of good to get into the habit of supporting your claims.

Dave

 

[Myriad]

You can see I did not link to any specific paper. The link is to search engine where you can probably find the answer to that question. You can see the keywords I used so Im not sure what your point is. Use your own if it's more effective. The point was to direct people where they would probably find the answer. And in all this verbiage not a word about whether or not the material can be engineered to have high explosive properties. It can.

I don't understand why you'd expect anyone to believe you about that point, when you can only link to arbitrary search pages and not to any papers describing an actual high explosive nanothermite formulation.

I get hundreds of thousands of search results when I Google "porcine aviation." Is that evidence that pigs can fly?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[NoahFence]

And this, the labels and derogatory comments, must be the most cogent arguments you can muster,. Otherwise we would not see this inability to reply with compelling arguments from so many so often. In fact, there are many sound reasons why millions of people the world over conclude those buildings were destroyed with explosives.

Not quite. The labels and derogatory comments are what's left after truthers flat-out ignore every explanation given to them. There's nothing left to do but state the obvious.

 

[Edx]

Do I really have to track it down for you? The point is that thermitic materials can be engineered to have high explosive properties. You can refer 1000 different papers that do not address this fact and thereby avoid it altogether, but that doesn't make it any less true.

No material on earth can vaporise an entire 8 stories of a building instantly.

No material on earth can hurl heavy steel around and yet not have the characteristics of a high explosives ie. huge detonations, visible blast waves, air condensing, extremely violent ejection of matter.

Your explosives only exist in science fiction. PS: I replied to you before telling you all this.

 

[atavisms]

This subject requires reading of engineering manuals and having an education, not Plato. If you think some anonymous ideologue posting on a relatively obscure internet forum is going to convince a real skeptic that he isn't full of crap then you have another thing coming, sir. ?

Actually you don't need to read either to be 100% certain those buildings were blown up. You just need to look at the facts and let them lead you to most obvious explanation. (Remember Occam's Razor) This is a case where either explosives were used, or the laws of physics were altered for the day. And that is a true dichotomy.

In a trial we call this 'the preponderance of reason' and what properly informed lay people use to decide (even the most serious life and death) cases in which there is completely contradictory testimony from 'experts.'

The reference to Plato regards the way in which people generally conform to social pressure. Plato goes on at length on this issue in a number of different places. There have also been a slew of psychological experiments that reveal the same thing. For example:
asch: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=asch+experiments&aq=f
Milgram: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=milgram+experiment&aq=0&oq=milgram+

and others reveal the same phenomena.
The Milgram Experiments are especially shocking because the subjects believed they were actually (potentially seriously) harming another person and they did so anyway when prompted by an authority figure to continue.

 

[NoahFence]

Actually you don't need to read either to be 100% certain those buildings were blown up. You just need to look at the facts and let them lead you to most obvious explanation. (Remember Occam's Razor) This is a case where either explosives were used, or the laws of physics were altered for the day. And that is a true dichotomy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Occam's Razor something to do with the simplest explanation?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In a trial we call this 'the preponderance of reason' [...]

There you go fantasizing again. That's not how courts work. If evidence is not available, it doesn't matter how reasonable any non-supported claim sounds. You're clearly and astoundingly ignorant about a great many topics.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually you don't need to read either to be 100% certain those buildings were blown up. You just need to look at the facts and let them lead you to most obvious explanation. (Remember Occam's Razor) This is a case where either explosives were used, or the laws of physics were altered for the day. And that is a true dichotomy.

Please explain exactly which laws of physics would have to have been violated if explosives were not involved. If this relates to quantitative violations of physical laws, such as your unsupported assertion that "gravity alone cannot possibly account for that level of energy", please give estimates of the quantities involved, with justification for their derivation. Otherwise, all you're doing is making meaningless assertions.

Dave

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Occam's Razor something to do with the simplest explanation?

Not exactly; it has more to do with the fewest new assumptions. "God did it" is about as simple an explanation as you can get, but there are quite a few assumptions implied in that explanation.

 

[atavisms]

You don't know squat about what a controlled demo sounds like....
You can't do stuff like this in secret.....
and I don't expect you to be witty enough to reply to this either.

They must have been rigged with explosives 'in secret' because the events themselves are not in question.

WTC1&2 were turned into this in 15 second each after burning for just 56 & 102 mins.


powdered concrete and building contents covered the Island from 'river to river'


and the 47 story wtc7 into this in 6 or 7 seconds:


The cores in the Towers could only be accessed through the elevator shafts/ There happen to be a 'large elevator modernization project' going in the months before 9/11 and, (I read at ae911truth.org) the cores had their own floor system of some sort that people could move around in with no one in the offices being able to detect their presence.

We cannot pretend to know every aspect of how these events were carried out and executed only that observed events clearly confirm the use of preplanted explosive. I know how difficult it is to believe. I responded the same way when this idea was first presented to me. But remember, just because something seems even very unlikely to us, that is not a good reason to dismiss it. (personal incredulity is a logical fallacy) We have to use the available evidence and follow it to the most likely conclusion. In this case it's explosives.

NIST btw, after accurately stating that freefall is categorically impossible in any supported structure went on to change their final report and admit that freefall did occur at WTC7- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA Freefall = explosives.

 

[Edx]

i dont understand why you keep ignoring the fact that the explosives you claim were used are physically impossible and do not exist.



YOUR STAR TREK WEAPONS DONT EXIST

 

[twinstead]

They must have been rigged with explosives 'in secret' because the events themselves are not in question.

You realize that you just can't "say" stuff and have it be true, right? I mean, you're just some cult member on a relatively obscure internet forum. I have absolutely no reason for me to believe a word you say. So, for now I defer to the commonly-held narrative which IMO is supported by the preponderance of evidence, your fevered gesticulations aside.

powdered concrete and building contents covered the Island from 'river to river'
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_349174abc7158489f6.jpg[/qimg]

So you think there might have been a couple sheets of drywall in the towers?

and the 47 story wtc7 into this in 6 or 7 seconds:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_349174e63a75540e72.jpg[/qimg]

Why do you insist on lying about how long it took the building to collapse? I'm seriously interested to know.

The cores in the Towers could only be accessed through the elevator shafts/ There happen to be a 'large elevator modernization project' going in the months before 9/11 and, (I read at ae911truth.org) the cores had their own floor system of some sort that people could move around in with no one in the offices being able to detect their presence.

Yea, you read things at ae911truth.org, and accept it with no questions asked, don't you? Well. ae911truth.org says it, it MUST be true, huh?

We cannot pretend to know every aspect of how these events were carried out and executed only that observed events clearly confirm the use of preplanted explosive. I know how difficult it is to believe. I responded the same way when this idea was first presented to me. But remember, just because something seems even very unlikely to us, that is not a good reason to dismiss it. (personal incredulity is a logical fallacy) We have to use the available evidence and follow it to the most likely conclusion. In this case it's explosives.

Who is this WE, anyway? You are a member of a tiny, insignificant cult totally ignored by real engineering and scientific organizations. And, sometimes something seems very unlikely because it IS. I don't need some ideologue to try to shove that unlikely thing down my throat. I'll stay with what is more likely and has more evidence to support it, thank you very much. But you stay true to yourself. Everybody needs to feel special in some way.

NIST btw, after accurately stating that freefall is categorically impossible in any supported structure went on to change their final report and admit that freefall did occur at WTC7- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA Freefall = explosives.

You will need to provide a link where the NIST stated that "freefall is categorically impossible in any supported structure". From what I can see, the preliminary report didn't mention freefall, then they revised their opinion when more evidence came to light (it's what real skeptics do. They don't do what you do and ignore evidence that is contrary to their position) they modified their theory.

Nobody whom I know and who is qualified to make the judgment has any substantial issue with the ultimate conclusions of the NIST report. Some random guy on the interwebz isn't going to change that.

And, Unless you can illustrate what kind of "explosives" can account for these effects, your speculation is noted and rejected. You aren't required to know every single detail, but you are required to show that what you describe is possible before you start going all willy nilly declaring it to be the "truth".

 

[NoahFence]

WTC1&2 were turned into this in 15 second each after burning for just 56 & 102 mins.

Anything else of note happen to them? Anything at all?

powdered concrete and building contents covered the Island from 'river to river'

Doesn't take a whole lot to make concrete powder.....

and the 47 story wtc7 into this in 6 or 7 seconds:

That's just a flat-out lie and you know it.

going in the months before 9/11 and, (I read at ae911truth.org)

There's your problem right there. Richard Gage is a known liar and a cheat. He and his organization are snake oil salesmen for the terminally stupid.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Show me explosives that can propel steel around and we can see how powerful they need to be.

Show me explosives that can instantly remove 8 stories of a building.

You can't, because your "explosives" only exist in science fiction. Even if 911 was inside job and even if the WTC was brought down by something other than impact and fire damage, you'd still be wrong about damn near everything back to front.

So what did instantly remove 8 stories of the building?

What did cause the freefall acknowledged by NIST?

 

[NoahFence]

So what did instantly remove 8 stories of the building?

What did cause the freefall acknowledged by NIST?

Unicorns.