Split Thread NIST did not utilize the scientific method?

[ozeco41]

ozeco: Don't bet on it. Okay, I won't. I may or may not know where you might be coming from. But I am sure it is either from here or from there or from neither. I think I've covered my bases...

I was responding to "...Of course ozeco agreeing with me proves not a thing." and the not too subtle hint was that if I agreed with you you were probably right. False modesty prevents me explicitly stating the next step.

Then this one is of much more significance than you probably realise:

ozeco: Actually I didn't move the goal posts. I put in a brand new set.
I WAS claiming Free fall proves CD. But, in my conclusion I did say, 'I GIVE UP. I was not able to prove CD based on free fall.'

Significant for two reasons viz:
A) You claim "it" was an inside job without specifying what "it" was thereby implying "The events of 9/11"; BUT
B) You also say " I was not able to prove CD based on free fall." THEREFORE you cannot claim all of 9/11 events were an inside job..therefore....

...and I've left you a loop hole there.

The bigger issue is that the truth movement "spokespersons" almost universally rely on false generalisations - false global claims using poor definitions and ambiguity. e.g. "The NIST reports are wrong" - well the NIST reports said that the WTC Towers collapsed on 9/11 and I don't think that is wrong. So the "NIST is wrong' global claim is falsified...strictly that means than any truther claim that does not specify which bits of NIST are allegedly wrong is falsified. There wouldn't be much discussion if we played by the rules. And I haven't even commented on your crazy attempt to reverse the burden of proof. Many debunkers let truthers get away with falsehoods and trickery at these basic levels. I rarely do.

When I present what I am proposing, should I start a new thread?

Don't ask - do it.

LSSBB wanted to do that some time ago. I did PM him and asked what he thought? Have not heard back.

He has already made his opinion clear several times. I was happy to go along with your focus whilst ever it included "free fall -NE- demolition" in its scope. It no longer does.

 

[ozeco41]

Not to change the subject -- I am working on my new proof -- but back to the thermite/thermate thing for a minute. I should have changed my thermite/thermate reference to "nano-thermite." The truther side actually talks about "nano-thermite."

It matters not. The logic is still arse about.

Truthers try "thermXte>>(proves)>>CD" Reality is "No CD THEREFORE thermXte is irrelevant."

(Search my posts for "100 tonne stockpile" to see how many times I have made that bleedingly obvious point. (Leave "stockpile" out of the search term I probably didn't use it every time.)

The difference thermXte to "nano-thermXte is speed of release of energy. Releasing the energy faster does not increase the total amount of available energy even though the speed may reach explosive levels at the micro scale. So nano-thermXte cannot do what truthers want to claim at the scale of WTC collapse.

PLUS THE KILLER There was no CD so even if, true truther style, you want to use arse about logic starting from the anomaly you still have the barrier of "Prove CD" to overcome. Proving that gunpowder could damage the House of Parliament does not prove that gunpowder did damage etc etc. Pretty basic logic.

Failure of debunkers to prove you wrong on a minor part of an incomplete claim DOES NOT MEAN that your claim is correct.

So save yourself the wasted effort with thermXte and derivatives. First prove CD THEN we will listen to where n.thermXte was used in the CD.

There is not just a difference, there is a very big difference. It might change some opinions that thermite/thermate would not do what was required.

It won't change anything until you realise that you are new to this game and most of us both understand what is wrong with the implied false claims AND we have seen it many times.

I found this very interesting and I think you will to. I just found this:..

..so your next step is to understand where it could but in fact does not fit into WTC 9/11

AND

for you d.w to comprehend that we have heard it (the truther distorted half truths version) many times before.

WIKI: Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. Because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far greater.[2]
MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[4] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nanoenergetic materials.[5]
A thermobaric weapon is a type of explosive that utilizes oxygen from the surrounding air to generate an intense, high-temperature explosion, and in practice the blast wave such a weapon produces is typically significantly longer in duration than a conventional condensed explosive. The fuel-air bomb is one of the most well-known types of thermobaric weapon.
Most conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxidizer premix (gunpowder, for example, contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer), whereas thermobaric weapons are almost 100% fuel, so thermobaric weapons are significantly more energetic than conventional condensed explosives of equal weight. Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude, and in adverse weather. They do however cause considerably more destruction when used inside confined environments such as tunnels, caves, and bunkers - partly due to the sustained blast wave, and partly by consuming the available oxygen inside that confined space.

Wow!

 

[david.watts]

Nano-thermite follow-up: Given that thermite or -mate does not sustain heat for long -- I will assume nano-thermite is no different, I don't know -- that would not be a cause of the high surface temps after the collapses. I agree.

But since just about everything in the collapses ended up underneath -- parking garages, basement, etc. (jaydee did point out that there was not much basement below WTC7) would that not include the molten steel created from the nano-thermite -- granted, if it was used? And given the many steel columns that would have had to have been 'cut' --no doubt in multiple places -- there would have been a lot of very hot molten steel in the piles along with everything else. So even though the heat from the nano-thermite would be short-lived, the heat from the very hot molten steel would not be. So even with your explanations (which seemed almost reasonable to me) for the very high temps -- paper, office furniture, gasoline, etc., burning and being insulated by the stuff covering it, that would not rule out molten steel also creating heat. And if that were the case (molten steel from the nano-thermite reactions being in the pile) that would make it very reasonable that the high temperatures lasted as long as they did.

(Note, this was not my idea. I saw the idea somewhere else.)

 

[DGM]

Wow!

I can only guess that was for his poor understanding of what he quoted.

 

[ozeco41]

I can only guess that was for his poor understanding of what he quoted.

The presumptions that:
A) We hadn't seen the half truth quote mined stuff before;
B) that we are so ignorant of basics that we needed it pointed out to us;
C) That we would be silly enough to fall for the false claims both explicit and implied; AND
D) ...all the
E) ..others that you can
F) ...no doubt think of....

 

[beachnut]

Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials

per kg, or in size? Wiki, science for people who make up lies.

Wiki woo. This is not true. It is amazing how idiots from 911 truth edit wiki. Paper beats super nono thermite. Jet fuel beats super nano thermite. Cookies too.

 

[ozeco41]

per kg, or in size? Wiki, science for people who make up lies.

Wiki woo. This is not true. It is amazing how idiots from 911 truth edit wiki. Paper beats super nono thermite. Jet fuel beats super nano thermite. Cookies too.

Hence my comment about "total energy"

Remember some years back the first claims that thermXte had been painted on columns.

Didn't need the maths to know that the total amount of energy stored in ANY compound applied as paint could not cut steel.

And thermXte is a low specific energy material as many have already pointed out.

IIRC no one has made the obvious comparison:

If a 1mm layer of painted on thermXte could cut steel why not wrap the steel in 2mm of paper instead of the thermXte and make triply sure?

 

[pgimeno]

pgimeno: That's not my conclusion. My conclusion is that therefore, there was no "removal", but rather, a failure under load, which is expected to be simultaneous or nearly simultaneous for any scenario where such a failure occurs. See vid.

I see it. I got it. I think. (Have not checked the link yet.)

Let me quote from the link for you:

But let me elaborate on why it matters that it fell faster. The typical truther claim is that the columns ceased to oppose resistance all at once, in order for the building (actually, the façade only) to fall in free fall. The underlying assumption is that there is no force pushing down other than the weight of the building, and therefore the opposing resistance must be zero for the acceleration to match gravity.

However, the fact that the building exceeded the acceleration of gravity proves unequivocally that there is a force pushing down other than the weight of the building, therefore destroying the no-other-force assumption. That means that the opposing resistance is unknown and not necessarily zero, and the no-resistance claim is invalidated.

pgimeno: Will you now admit it's your burden to prove that anything other than 19 terrorists was the direct cause of 9/11?
No. The null hypothesis is "inside job."

That's nothing but wishful thinking. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who fails so blatantly with the most basic premises. Good luck with your faith.

 

[Robrob]

So even though the heat from the nano-thermite would be short-lived, the heat from the very hot molten steel would not be.

Wrong. Without a heat source the edges of the hypothetical cuts (the only heated part of the steel) would cool in a matter of hours. Or are you laboring under the assumption magic thermite turns entire girders into liquid puddles?

And if that were the case (molten steel from the nano-thermite reactions being in the pile) that would make it very reasonable that the high temperatures lasted as long as they did.

Wrong. Thermal energy has to be continually added to the liquid steel to keep it liquid. Otherwise it will soon reach room temp. This is all basic physics. A good example might be when camping, heating rocks and placing them in your tent to keep warm. The rocks cool and you have to place them back into the fire (outside your tent) to heat them up again. The rocks don't make the fire, they don't cause the heat, they just transfer the thermal energy. An office fire softens the girders, they sag and the building collapses.

(Note, this was not my idea. I saw the idea somewhere else.)

Honest of you to admit it.

 

[david.watts]

ozeco, I understand what you say -- no CD therefore no thermite of any kind. First, I had not known of the significant difference between thermite and nano-thermite. I looked it up and found out what I considered to be a very big difference. I posted it in case some of you were not aware. Maybe ALL of you are aware and, if so, I apologize for bringing it up.

Also, every reference I have seen by me and by you talks of thermite/-mate without the "nano". And it seems that there is a fairly wide opinion (maybe not here, I don't know) that thermite would not be able to do the job and was therefore not worth talking about. And that is probably the case. But maybe "nano" could do the job. So since there has been much discussion about "thermite," I thought it appropriate to "correct" the record so to speak of the 'much discussion' and change out "thermite" for the "nano" version.

That is all I was doing.

And again, I understand " no CD means no thermite of any kind".

(note: I just glanced at some of the responses and it looks like what I posted is not taken very seriously or has been debunked. I did not know that it might have been debunked.)

 

[ozeco41]

ozeco, I understand what you say -- no CD therefore no thermite of any kind.

Not quite. No CD == No thermXte used in CD. The point I have made repeatedly being "It wouldn't matter is there was 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte at Ground Zero .. it wasn't used". (Oops - wasn't used in CD )

I'm in the minority anyway - most debunkers are happy to accept the reversed argument and the reversed burden of roof. AND arguing up from the detailed unexplained anomaly rather than starting from known facts. Without all of those 9/11 discussions would not happen.

And it seems that there is a fairly wide opinion (maybe not here, I don't know) that thermite would not be able to do the job and was therefore not worth talking about. And that is probably the case. But maybe "nano" could do the job.

The key issue is "total available energy" and to understand it needs a reasonable grasp of the physics/thermodynamics linking energy <>temperature<>heat<> and (a few others)

 

[DGM]

ozeco, I understand what you say -- no CD therefore no thermite of any kind. First, I had not known of the significant difference between thermite and nano-thermite. I looked it up and found out what I considered to be a very big difference. I posted it in case some of you were not aware. Maybe ALL of you are aware and, if so, I apologize for bringing it up.

Also, every reference I have seen by me and by you talks of thermite/-mate without the "nano". And it seems that there is a fairly wide opinion (maybe not here, I don't know) that thermite would not be able to do the job and was therefore not worth talking about. And that is probably the case. But maybe "nano" could do the job. So since there has been much discussion about "thermite," I thought it appropriate to "correct" the record so to speak of the 'much discussion' and change out "thermite" for the "nano" version.

That is all I was doing.

And again, I understand " no CD means no thermite of any kind".

(note: I just glanced at some of the responses and it looks like what I posted is not taken very seriously or has been debunked. Of course I did not know that it might have been debunked.)

"Nano" is added to the "truther" lie because no one was buying that thermite would work. "Nano" made it magic.

Steven Jones even says it could only be used as a "match". A thin layer would only burn the paint off and do nothing to the steel.

 

[Robrob]

ozeco, I understand what you say -- no CD therefore no thermite of any kind. First, I had not known of the significant difference between thermite and nano-thermite. I looked it up and found out what I considered to be a very big difference. I posted it in case some of you were not aware. Maybe ALL of you are aware and, if so, I apologize for bringing it up.

How long have you been making claims about this subject and you didn't know the difference?

Also, every reference I have seen by me and by you talks of thermite/-mate without the "nano". And it seems that there is a fairly wide opinion (maybe not here, I don't know) that thermite would not be able to do the job and was therefore not worth talking about. And that is probably the case. But maybe "nano" could do the job. So since there has been much discussion about "thermite," I thought it appropriate to "correct" the record so to speak of the 'much discussion' and change out "thermite" for the "nano" version.

Just having admitted you were wrong about thermite then global replacing it with "nano" so you can reuse the exact same debunked theory? You think that's good science, seriously?

(note: I just glanced at some of the responses and it looks like what I posted is not taken very seriously or has been debunked. Of course I did not know that it might have been debunked.)

You've presented well debunked myths and claimed them as fact. You've been told they were false and provided with evidence confirming this. Now it's our fault you didn't know what you were talking about?

 

[jaydeehess]

Thermite is the powdered metal plus an oxidizer that when ignited releases heat very quickly.
Thermate, iirc, refers to the addition of a stabilizer that allows for more complete burn, but which also slows the burn and results in lower temperatures.

Nano thermite refers to more finely ground constituents which decreases burn time while allowing for more optimal burn. It would result in less unburned residue.

So, slower and less hot, or hotter but faster burn.
How does any of that fit with timed collapse followed by long term high heat output?

 

[jaydeehess]

tsig: Were planes involved? If CD who placed the explosive? When? How? Where are all the conspirators?

That is my point. I (we) do not have to explain any of that. No explanation is required from our side.

First, if we were able to prove -- a single one of the so many things that the official story absolutely requires for it to be true, e.g., prove any one of the collapses being a CD, to be false, the official story crumbles. But lets say we have proved not a single thing -- and we have not at least to JREF's satisfaction -- we can still explain, but maybe not absolutely prove 100%, that 9/11 was an inside job/false flag event. But I think we can prove it to a level above, and I think well above, 99.999%. And if I am able to do that, you can still say that it is "possible" I/we are wrong. I give you that.

(note: I have not actually put everything together yet so I hope I don't have to eat my words, but I am very confident (99.99%) in what I am saying.)

With ressoning like that it illustrates that the truther scenario, far from being the null hypothesis, is more a nil hypothesis.

I am reminded of the creationist argument that creation is a betyer explanation because once there is a god you don't have to explain anything because god can do anything.

 

[jaydeehess]

Using nanothermitic material for an explosive DOES NOT reduce the sound pressure! ANY explosive producing a pressure wave capable of severing a large steel column MUST by definition be loud.
It will be brighter, it will be hotter, it will have a longer period of high pressure, all of which are great if you need to destroy soft targets
Such as electronic equipment or personnel, or unhardened surface structures. Almost useless in severing thick steel though.

 

[ozeco41]

... I am reminded of the creationist argument that creation is a betyer explanation because once there is a god you don't have to explain anything because god can do anything.

Actually the truther argument is weaker...

...unlike the cretinists the truthers don't have God on their side.

 

[jaydeehess]

Thermate releases approx 800 kilojoules of energy per gram. Anyone know what the energy release from burning paper is?

I also see my characterization of thermate was off. It burns hotter than thermite. In fact a thermate grenade can burn a small diameter hole in a one inch plate steel in approx eight seconds. A little slow for controlled demolitions.

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually the truther argument is weaker...

...unlike the cretinists the truthers don't have God on their side.

Some might raise Gage to semi-deity status though.

 

[GlennB]

Also, every reference I have seen by me and by you talks of thermite/-mate without the "nano". And it seems that there is a fairly wide opinion (maybe not here, I don't know) that thermite would not be able to do the job and was therefore not worth talking about. And that is probably the case. But maybe "nano" could do the job. So since there has been much discussion about "thermite," I thought it appropriate to "correct" the record so to speak of the 'much discussion' and change out "thermite" for the "nano" version.

That is all I was doing.

And again, I understand " no CD means no thermite of any kind".

(note: I just glanced at some of the responses and it looks like what I posted is not taken very seriously or has been debunked. I did not know that it might have been debunked.)

My bolding.

A couple of points -

1. You've repeated a lot of old 9/11 "Truth" stuff here and backed off when it was debunked, as it has been countless times before. Maybe you could put the debunk keyword into Google searches and get information that way? e.g. "Nanothermite 9/11 debunk". It's somehow more satisfying to learn through one's own efforts rather than having simple facts thrown in your face time and again, which is embarrassing after a while.

2. Please learn how to use the quote function. If you want to quote a poster just click the "quote" button. You can edit down their post if appropriate.

If you want multiple quotes that's also easy - click the "" button on as many separate posts as you like then finally click "quote" on the final post of interest and you'll find all those posts embedded and lined up for your responses. Just add your own comments after each one to make it clear who you're responding to.