Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

Well it is still going on...

By the way, a year ago you were working on a draft for some 9/11 theory. Has it come to fruition yet?

Well it's going to take a while. My initial draft had to be scrapped given the good evidence you've brought forward and we've discussed in previous posts.

That was in march 2011.

I had first asked you to provide at least an abstract on 25 sep 2010. Four days, 160 posts and uncounted evasions by you later, you finally agreed to start writing down your hypothesis and even said
An abstract, that's a great though. I think I can come up with that in a day's time. Do you want a trailer too?

And then...

...days pass...

...nothing happens...

4 months later:
Oh it's got everything to do with the intellectual dishonesty of truthers. That's why I dropped classic truther theories and replaced them with debunker arguments. Now the theory is more solid, based on the official report and above all actually supported by debunkers.


I am confused now. Do you have anything of substance to add to these discussions, Java Man? Or are you back at mile 0 in your endeavours about 9/11?
 
Yet when the WTC7 collapse is challenged on the basis that no other steel structure has collapsed due to fire alone it is disregarded. So "common observation" is valid with iron-rich spheres, but not so with steel buildings.

You owe us a goal post.

Please put it back into the iron-rich microspheres field.
 
Yet when the WTC7 collapse is challenged on the basis that no other steel structure has collapsed due to fire alone it is disregarded. So "common observation" is valid with iron-rich spheres, but not so with steel buildings.

The Kader Toy Factory was a steel structure that collapsed due to fire alone.

The factory was poorly designed and built. Fire exits drawn in the building plans were not in fact constructed, and the existing external doors were locked. Furthermore, the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed when heated by the flames.
At about 4 PM on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers, located in the upper floors, were instructed to keep working wherein because they were told the fire was said to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burned very fast.

Workers in the first building who tried to escape found the ground floor exit doors locked, and the stairwells soon collapsed. Many workers jumped from the second-, third-, and fourth-floor windows in order to escape the flames, resulting in severe injuries or death. Local security guards attempted unsuccessfully to put out the flames, and a call was made at 4:21 PM to the local Nakhon Pathom fire department.

Firefighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40 PM, to find Building One nearly ready to collapse. The fire spread extremely quickly because of the presence of the combustible plastics and fabrics, and reportedly it took less than an hour (only 53 minutes) for Building One to collapse from the time the local police called the fire brigade until 5:14 PM. [2]

Fire alarms in Buildings Two and Three had sounded and all the workers from these buildings were able to escape, but the flames spread to these buildings as well. However, the fire brigades from Nakhon Pathom and neighboring Bangkok were able to put out these fires before these buildings were destroyed.

Of course, java man will simply move the Goalposts. Cue "No high-rise steel structure has collapsed due to fire alone." in 3,2,1...

Basic problem with this goalpost move:
if a four-story steel structure can collapse due to fire alone...
... then so can a high rise steel structure! It's OBVIOUS!!!
 
Well it is still going on due to the forum rule design. Which some would say is inherently flawed. Because it tends to distract the "truther" (on whom the burden of proof lands) from following his argument. This is done by cleverly making him have to present proof for arguments which are not his or hers.

Basically put the "truther" has to defend:

B given A, typically "this occurred because we see: such and such"

The "sceptics" then simply come and say:

Not B given C, typically "but it could have been some other like ....", thus leading a an appalling amount of "Not B given C" statements. These statements are automatically taken for true given that the burden does not land on the "sceptics". Yet it doesn't end there, the "truther" is then made to disprove "Not B given C" or what would be equivalent prove "Not C given B", but that's not the "truther's" statement. His original statement is "B given A" and that is to which he is bound to provide proof. But the threads usually get tied up around "Not B given C".
Utter hogwash despite your effort to make it look as complicated as you do.

The situation is quite simple. If someone has a claim to make it is up to them to make the claim and to support it.

Sure the truthers have a harder time but that is for an equally simple reason. They are, more often than not, putting forward claims which are false.

No amount of trying to make it look complicated by pseudo logic terminology "Not C given B" Or "B given A" etc changes the simple reality. False claims are hard to defend.

And, yes, the debunkers get it relatively easy. The weight of the evidence is on their "side".
 
Yet when the WTC7 collapse is challenged on the basis that no other steel structure has collapsed due to fire alone it is disregarded. So "common observation" is valid with iron-rich spheres, but not so with steel buildings.
And...dodge!

Dragging out the "first time in history" canard again? There was an extensive study about how 7 collapsed specifically because it was so unlikely, and the lessons learned since have been integrated into several buildings.

If an apparently healthy 20-something man collapses in the middle of a clear day, and dies, you get an autopsy done. You don't say he was shot by a sniper despite the lack of a bullet hole in his chest.

The funny thing is that many truthers will claim WTC 1, 2, and 7 were all the first time in history a building collapsed "due to fire".
 
I am confused now. Do you have anything of substance to add to these discussions, Java Man? Or are you back at mile 0 in your endeavours about 9/11?

Yes, but it is important to first undermine your counterargument mechanism. Which consists basically to bury it (my draft) in a pile of "Not B given C" statements. And at that I've been quite successful as shown in the molten metal discussion we had. In which it was claimed by your camp that it was molten metal that slid down the floor panels etc etc etc. The discussion went on and on about the length and temperatures and what not. Me always presenting "B given A" statements and your camp giving "Not B given C". Conveniently crafted "B given A" statements can promptly lead your camp to provide "Not B given C" statements that in turn undermine your own camp's argument. As in the discussion your camp was made to argue that the floor panels at the site of the incident (flowing metal) were parallel to the wall and not perpendicular. Thus unable to create a "slide" from the core of the tower to the outer wall, that allows the "molten metal" you claimed to flow out. Effectively leading to the invalidation of your own prior arguments. Ergo, your "Not B given C" statements can be countered by your own team if sufficient "B given A" are provided in an appropriately crafted manner. Thus the draft need be presented not as a formal document (which can be buried as aforementioned) , but as a succession of "B given A" statements that help undermine the rule that allows the sceptics here to propose any counter theory without burden of proof by using the rule itself against the sceptics.
 
Java Man,

it should worry you that, one and a half years after you presented a "complete" theory which, in your mind, was "the most solid", when in fact that theory consisted only of the vague "somehow thermite and perhaps, but maybe not, explosives, could have maybe somehow played a role, but I have not the slightest clue how", and a full year after you admitted that you had to revoke even this pathetically flimsy non-theory because you could not defend one bit of it, you come here, effectively saying that you still have no theory.

We "debunkers" DO have a theory. It explains 98% of everything observed on 9/11. You latch onto the 2% that we don't know yet, and perhaps don't need to know (that glowing flow - why is that even relevant? For what?), and declare yourself the winner.
Your own theory on the other hand explains nothing at all. 0% of the observed facts. Why? Because you have no theory at all! You can't even explain your one pet observation without running into trouble, yet you protest that we latch onto the 100% of facts that you fail to explain!

Why is that so, Java Man?
 
We "debunkers" DO have a theory. It explains 98% of everything observed on 9/11.

Yet it fails to hold its ground when presented with well crafted "B given A" statements. If you had a theory it wouldn't come into contradiction with itself by your own team's statements!
 
Yet it fails to hold its ground when presented with well crafted "B given A" statements. If you had a theory it wouldn't come into contradiction with itself by your own team's statements!

Bla bla bla.

Which B, which A? Make a claim! (Last time we asked you to state clearly what you believe, and start your statement at the beginning, with A, we waited one and a half years. We are still waiting today. So I will not respond to you if your next post does not make a specific claim that refutes or explains anything, with evidence)
 
Last edited:
Yet when the WTC7 collapse is challenged on the basis that no other steel structure has collapsed due to fire alone it is disregarded. So "common observation" is valid with iron-rich spheres, but not so with steel buildings.

What?

There was no thermite used on 911 to destroy the WTC complex. Means the iron-rich spheres, mean nothing. It might be confirmation Fe is a common element, iron-rich sphere occur in many processes, and can be sourced from many processes. Like diesel engines, etc. etc.

Cool to make up a debate on logic, and avoid the truth, no thermite. Cool. Debate on! Winning a logic debate will not make 911 truth claims real. Thermite remains one of the dumbest 911 truth claims. Can you tie the iron spheres found to thermite? Where is your 911 what happened narrative?
 
Yet it fails to hold its ground when presented with well crafted "B given A" statements. If you had a theory it wouldn't come into contradiction with itself by your own team's statements!

Problem is, jm, that your "well crafted" "B given A" statements all fall apart upon even a glimmer of examination.

Example, if "A" is "No steel structures ever collapsed because of fire alone," and "B" is "The Twin Towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition," then "B given A" does not hold true, because premise A is false. (See above)

Likewise, if the (more on topic for this thread) claim "A" is "Only Thermite is hot enough to melt iron, forming microspheres in dust," and "B" is "The Twin Towers were destroyed by a controlled thermitic demolition," then "B given A" again does not hold true, because premise A is again false.

 
The Kader Toy Factory was a steel structure that collapsed due to fire alone.



Of course, java man will simply move the Goalposts. Cue "No high-rise steel structure has collapsed due to fire alone." in 3,2,1...

Basic problem with this goalpost move:
if a four-story steel structure can collapse due to fire alone...
... then so can a high rise steel structure! It's OBVIOUS!!!

McCormick Place collapsed after it burned in the 60's. 100% steel I believe.

Here's how the truthy people dismiss that example.
 
McCormick Place collapsed after it burned in the 60's. 100% steel I believe.

Here's how the truthy people dismiss that example.
I have never seen a truther acknowledge that steel suffers a reduction in Young's Modulus (stiffness) and Yield Point/UTS (strength) even when shown numerous amounts of well accepted data (graphs) from peer reviewed papers.

I have also never seen a truther acknowledge that creep (deformation below yield point due to increased temperature) is also affected by an increase in temperature and must also be considered in a failure (due to an increase in temperature).

To do so weakens (pun intended) their position.
 
False claims are hard to defend.

And, yes, the debunkers get it relatively easy. The weight of the evidence is on their "side".

False claims are hard to defend indeed, but easy to present. Which is what debunkers here most commonly do. They have it relatively easy until the evidence on their "side" is countered by evidence also on their "side" and that is when all hell breaks loose.

Countering a truther's position as wrong as it may be certainly makes you a debunker, but it does not make you correct. A debunkers claim can be just as false as a truther's and he can only get away with it because he doesn't have to back it up.
 
Java Man,

it should worry you that, one and a half years after you presented a "complete" theory which, in your mind, was "the most solid", when in fact that theory consisted only of the vague "somehow thermite and perhaps, but maybe not, explosives, could have maybe somehow played a role, but I have not the slightest clue how", and a full year after you admitted that you had to revoke even this pathetically flimsy non-theory because you could not defend one bit of it, you come here, effectively saying that you still have no theory.

What really worries me, aside from your horrible run on sentence there, is that it took you only 5 minutes to quote me from an event a year and a half ago.
 
Bedunker logic relies on equating varying failures of a few steel roof beams with the destruction of three steel-framed skyscrapers in as much, or less, time. And then they say we're moving the goalposts!

I shouldn't be shocked or amazed that this is still being peddled by 9/11 bedunkers. But I am. :D Wow.
 
Problem is, jm, that your "well crafted" "B given A" statements all fall apart upon even a glimmer of examination.

Example, if "A" is "No steel structures ever collapsed because of fire alone," and "B" is "The Twin Towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition," then "B given A" does not hold true, because premise A is false. (See above)

Likewise, if the (more on topic for this thread) claim "A" is "Only Thermite is hot enough to melt iron, forming microspheres in dust," and "B" is "The Twin Towers were destroyed by a controlled thermitic demolition," then "B given A" again does not hold true, because premise A is again false.


911 truth failure to learn, and gain knowledge; willful ignorance, they are proud to repeat idiotic nonsense and accept lies as truth.

911 truth knowledge of physics and structural engineering summarized -
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6263596&postcount=621

911 truth chemistry - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7118048&postcount=1134
 
Last edited:
Bedunker logic relies on equating varying failures of a few steel roof beams with the destruction of three steel-framed skyscrapers in as much, or less, time. And then they say we're moving the goalposts!

I shouldn't be shocked or amazed that this is still being peddled by 9/11 bedunkers. But I am. :D Wow.

Ergo lies again...

Despite the fire-fighters' efforts, Building One collapsed completely at approximately 5:14 p.m...[followed within 1 hour by 2 & 3](Kader Toy)

Watch those goalposts everyone!
 
What really worries me, aside from your horrible run on sentence there, is that it took you only 5 minutes to quote me from an event a year and a half ago.
Do you have the slightest idea how many ways there are to make notes and bookmarks for yourself? I have literally dozens on Google Bookmarks right now.

I also like how you don't actually address the content of the post.
And...dodge!

Dragging out the "first time in history" canard again? There was an extensive study about how 7 collapsed specifically because it was so unlikely, and the lessons learned since have been integrated into several buildings.

If an apparently healthy 20-something man collapses in the middle of a clear day, and dies, you get an autopsy done. You don't say he was shot by a sniper despite the lack of a bullet hole in his chest.

The funny thing is that many truthers will claim WTC 1, 2, and 7 were all the first time in history a building collapsed "due to fire".

Bedunker logic relies on equating varying failures of a few steel roof beams with the destruction of three steel-framed skyscrapers in as much, or less, time. And then they say we're moving the goalposts!

I shouldn't be shocked or amazed that this is still being peddled by 9/11 bedunkers. But I am. :D Wow.
Says the guy who has repeatedly compared 9/11 to Oklahoma City but dodged every request to explain why a supposedly larger and more powerful amount of explosives did less damage than McVeigh's truck bomb and produced absolutely no barotrauma.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8035437#post8035437
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7691377&postcount=283

Of course, you are still moving the goalposts; Truthers say no steel buildings have collapsed due to fire. Then when shown a building that collapsed, they say it doesn't count because it's "only" the roof and not a skyscraper. Of course, if it doesn't count because it's not a skyscraper, then why does the claim refer to steel framed "buildings" specifically? Was it wrong or imprecise? And how many 110-story skyscrapers were hit by airplanes?

WTC 7 doesn't actually support the CD theories unless it can be proven or indicated that WTC 1 and 2 were CD'd. And even then, you have to address the question of when the 7 explosives were planted; before the debris impact, which means They knew exactly where the debris would hit, which is physically impossible? Or after the impact, which would be several orders of magnitude faster than the biggest building ever CD'd, plus having to contend with fire, plus sneaking tons of explosives into the most recorded crime scene in history, which would be physically impossible?

And why haven't you responded directly to anyone's actual posts on the fire? Because you don't want to be spanked again? You do realize scoffing at things and people is not an actual argument, right? You're not going to answer this post in any substantial manner either, and wouldn't even if I wasn't on ignore.

#000063bookmark
 
Last edited:
False claims are hard to defend indeed, but easy to present. Which is what debunkers here most commonly do. They have it relatively easy until the evidence on their "side" is countered by evidence also on their "side" and that is when all hell breaks loose.

Countering a truther's position as wrong as it may be certainly makes you a debunker, but it does not make you correct. A debunkers claim can be just as false as a truther's and he can only get away with it because he doesn't have to back it up.

False claims are hard to defend indeed, but easy to present. Which is what truthers here most commonly do. They have it relatively easy until the evidence on their "side" is countered by evidence also on their "side" and that is when all hell breaks loose.

Countering a debunker's position as wrong as it may be certainly makes you a debunker, but it does not make you correct. A truther's claim can be just as false as a debunker's and he can only get away with it because he doesn't have to back it up.​

Oh, wow, it says basically the exact same thing.

SpringHallConvert has been making claims without evidence for the past few days now. And yet he sees fit to decry every bit of evidence counter to his position as supplied by "the government", based on the fact that it disagrees with him. He does not, notably, apply said standards to Truther claims, and I caught him using government sources himself recently. You might want to have a word with him.
 

Back
Top Bottom