I will abandon CD hypothesis if...

[Jonnyclueless]

But Sizzler, there is evidence and physicl evidence of everything NIST has found and nothing for Thermite. it could be that alien nano bugs were placed in the building and secreted an acid that caused the collapse too right? Can we say that's just as legitimate because the steel isn't around to disprove that? Can you tell us why we should not look into alien nano bugs?

Better yet, if they were looking into a theory of thermite, what exactly would they do and how would they test it?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Fine, if that were the only argument against thermite. There are plenty of reasons to discard any thermite hypothesis, though, before the need to examine a single piece of steel arises. The whole thermite idea stemmed from Steven Jones's emotional need to fabricate an explanation for the absence of explosions in a collapse he had already decided was caused by devices planted inside the buildings. Nobody has yet articulated a coherent hypothesis for how thermite might have been used, and Jones' later work has become increasingly either self-contradictory or marginal to the point of irrelevance. On the other hand, NIST has produced models of the collapse of WTC7 which agree with physical laws and engineering details of the building. For plausibility, the two hypotheses are not in the same league; indeed, thermite has yet to reach the stage of a physically plausible hypothesis.

Dave

 

[TheRedWorm]

I'm still of the mind that if you can't offer a plausible hypothesis as to how it happened, why should anyone entertain the notion that it happened?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Sorry Dave, but I have to correct you. Thermite is not a hypothesis, it's speculation. Perhaps if they could get it to the point of a hypothesis, then maybe they wouldn't have so much trouble with investigating it or getting NIST to investigate it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This is my point only.

People say, "Thermite could not have been involved because there is no evidence on the steel"

Truthers say, "What steel? There isn't any to test."

Then in the same breathe....

Truthers say, "There is no physical steel evidence that heat expansion caused floor collapses."

People say, "What steel? There isn't any to test."

Both hypotheses should be evaluated by the same method, that being the scientific.

Thus for both hypotheses, a lack of steel evidence should not disqualify either one, THERE IS NO STEEL EVIDENCE LEFT TO EVALUATE, for any hypothesis.

That is just it Sizzler, we have photographic evidence of the steel and no sign of any explosive or thermite cutter, if a thermite oxygen cutter were used, as Dr. Jone suggested, then there would have been tons of visual evidence of it's usage.

There are serious physical problems that can not be ignored or hand waved away, the evidence of explosives would have been visible, the evidence of Monroe effect of cutter charges would have been visual, the evidence for thermite oxygen cutting would have also been visual.
Yet in all the collapse, in all the pictures and videos there is not one single piece of visual evidence to point to for any working conspiracy theory.

Your asking me to believe in an impossibility, with all do Respect to our Dave Rogers, I believe the use of an energy form against the steel that left no record of its usage visually by deformation of said steel, violates Newton Law, that states for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If force is used to deform-cut the steel, that force would have been recorded on the electron structure of the steel itself as physical damage to it.

The steel will almost always resist deformation and distortion, and will show how the a form of energy was applied to it by deformations in it's outer structure.

We should never have needed even look at micro spheres if the CTer ideas had any validity we would have noticed right away with our own eyes.

 

[Sizzler]

But Sizzler, there is evidence and physicl evidence of everything NIST has found and nothing for Thermite. it could be that alien nano bugs were placed in the building and secreted an acid that caused the collapse too right? Can we say that's just as legitimate because the steel isn't around to disprove that? Can you tell us why we should not look into alien nano bugs?

Better yet, if they were looking into a theory of thermite, what exactly would they do and how would they test it?

There is no steel to test. Therefore they didn't test for explosives/thermite or heat expansion.

Any absence of evidence on steel cannot disqualify any one hypothesis, NISTs included, BECAUSE THERE IS NO STEEL.

That is my point.

 

[Sizzler]

Fine, if that were the only argument against thermite. There are plenty of reasons to discard any thermite hypothesis, though, before the need to examine a single piece of steel arises. The whole thermite idea stemmed from Steven Jones's emotional need to fabricate an explanation for the absence of explosions in a collapse he had already decided was caused by devices planted inside the buildings. Nobody has yet articulated a coherent hypothesis for how thermite might have been used, and Jones' later work has become increasingly either self-contradictory or marginal to the point of irrelevance. On the other hand, NIST has produced models of the collapse of WTC7 which agree with physical laws and engineering details of the building. For plausibility, the two hypotheses are not in the same league; indeed, thermite has yet to reach the stage of a physically plausible hypothesis.

Dave

Thanks for agreeing with me on my single point.

I agree with much of your points in this post.

 

[Sizzler]

That is just it Sizzler, we have photographic evidence of the steel and no sign of any explosive or thermite cutter, if a thermite oxygen cutter were used, as Dr. Jone suggested, then there would have been tons of visual evidence of it's usage.

There are serious physical problems that can not be ignored or hand waved away, the evidence of explosives would have been visible, the evidence of Monroe effect of cutter charges would have been visual, the evidence for thermite oxygen cutting would have also been visual.
Yet in all the collapse, in all the pictures and videos there is not one single piece of visual evidence to point to for any working conspiracy theory.

Your asking me to believe in an impossibility, with all do Respect to our Dave Rogers, I believe the use of an energy form against the steel that left no record of its usage visually by deformation of said steel, violates Newton Law, that states for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If force is used to deform-cut the steel, that force would have been recorded on the electron structure of the steel itself as physical damage to it.

The steel will almost always resist deformation and distortion, and will show how the a form of energy was applied to it by deformations in it's outer structure.

We should never have needed even look at micro spheres if the CTer ideas had any validity we would have noticed right away with our own eyes.

We have photos yes. Some claim photo evidence shows no thermite use and others claim it shows thermite use. I don't think it is as cut and dry as you lead on. In your opinion, there is no evidence, but others disagree, and point out photo evidence that they think exists.

Please point me to a study, which includes a method, that looks for photo evidence of thermite use and finds none.

If there isn't one, you are just telling me your opinion based on what you saw. Others disagree.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

There is no steel to test. Therefore they didn't test for explosives/thermite or heat expansion.

Any absence of evidence on steel cannot disqualify any one hypothesis, NISTs included, BECAUSE THERE IS NO STEEL.

That is my point.

And therefore you have no thermite hypothesis to begin with. let alone having nothing to possibly test to even conclude it was a possibility.

You do understand that there is no thermite hypothesis right? It's speculation. Again, they also didn't test for magic elves. Does that make them irresponsible? Does that prove it could have been magic elves? Do you see where we're going here? Maybe if you could get thermite to the point of a hypothesis it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

There is no photo evidence of thermite period. Show me one study that looks for photo evidence of magic elves. There are some people say that photos show magic elves and some people they say they don't. I don't think it's as cut an dry as you lead on.

 

[Drs_Res]

But you forget that there were demolitions experts at the site for clean up, and these people would have seen any evidence of demolition. Those signs would be unmistakable to them.

None of these people came forward during or after clean up to state that they saw this evidence, and none have protested the findings of the reports.

The only photo evidence of therm*te that the truthers use are cuts on the columns from the clean up operation, and it's always the same one cropped photo. You have been here long enough to see this happen more than once.

 

[Sizzler]

There is no photo evidence of thermite period. Show me one study that looks for photo evidence of magic elves. There are some people say that photos show magic elves and some people they say they don't. I don't think it's as cut an dry as you lead on.

Link to majic elves claim please.

If you don't have one, grow up please

 

[Sizzler]

But you forget that there were demolitions experts at the site for clean up, and these people would have seen any evidence of demolition. Those signs would be unmistakable to them.

None of these people came forward during or after clean up to state that they saw this evidence, and none have protested the findings of the reports.

The only photo evidence of therm*te that the truthers use are cuts on the columns from the clean up operation, and it's always the same one cropped photo. You have been here long enough to see this happen more than once.

You have a point. It is hard to reconcile that demolition crews picked the stuff up and no one did or does claim to have found demolition material.

It doesn't strengthen CD hyothesis, but it certainly doesn't disqualify it.

Likewise, engineers examined steel and didn't make a single whisper about temperature expansion as possible collapse cause. Actually they likened it more to a melting object depicted in ART WORK.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Did you get what problem #2 is about or not?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

First, I believe that we all have intuition and it works everyday to help form certain beliefs. It isn't the only factor that plays into our decision making but perhaps in certain situations it could be the dominant one.

I think for things we have never seen before, intuition plays into decision making heavily. And certainly our intuition is shaped by our biases created by past experiences and such (but this is beside the point).

For example, when I saw the WTC towers fall, my intuition told me that the conspirators had known and planned for that to happen. Perhaps it was the cause and effect relationship between the crashes and collapses, but maybe not. Intuition is hard to pin point and for the purpose of this thread, not important.

On the other hand, our intuition can be and often is proven wrong. We usually accept we were initially wrong when given enough evidence. I did not assume "inside job", but instead thought Osama knew exactly how to cause the towers to collapse (ie, speed, place, timing, etc). When the the official story came out I accepted it at face value because it came from MS outlets and scientists. I accepted that my intuition was wrong.

However, 6 years later I saw new things that others called "evidence". My intuition returned except this time the conspirators and methods had changed. I have since been evaluating such "evidence" but have not been able to accept that my intuition is once again wrong. The official story has not thus far been strong enough, and the truther evidence hasn't been weak enough.

I accept that no hard evidence of CD exists, yet I still intuitively side with it and have allowed myself to do so because of the circumstantial evidence that surrounds the event.

I'm late to the thread, haven't read the whole thing, and am not an expert on 9/11. But I think the following point is still valid.

What I don't get is this: your intuition was wrong. You accept that, and have no problem with it. Then, when intuition strikes again, you can't believe it could be wrong again?

I would think that the fact that you were wrong about your intuition before would bolster the possibility that it is wrong again, not minimize it. Think of it as a (very small) statistical sample. With a sample of 1, your intuition was wrong 100% of the time. Why should this skew the chances in favor of intuition the next time?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sorry Dave, but I have to correct you. Thermite is not a hypothesis, it's speculation. Perhaps if they could get it to the point of a hypothesis, then maybe they wouldn't have so much trouble with investigating it or getting NIST to investigate it.

That's pretty much what I was saying. Using the word "hypothesis" to describe what the truth movement has said about thermite deforms the meaning of the word well past the point of collapse initiation.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

We have photos yes. Some claim photo evidence shows no thermite use and others claim it shows thermite use. I don't think it is as cut and dry as you lead on. In your opinion, there is no evidence, but others disagree, and point out photo evidence that they think exists.

Please point me to a study, which includes a method, that looks for photo evidence of thermite use and finds none.

If there isn't one, you are just telling me your opinion based on what you saw. Others disagree.

Sizzler most people who point to photos of evidence of thermite use have never used thermite, or understand the principals and practice of thermite induced oxygen cutting which is Dr Jones main theory by his own admission!

Please point me to some one else who has built a working thermite initiated oxygen cutter and actually tested Dr. Joneses insane ideas?

IF the PH DIP had tested his own Ideas then he would know why they are so flawed, I mean gee it's not rocket science. IT is just thermite induced oxygen cutting, and in all oxygen cutting you have to work with Gravity not against it.

So were basically left with a PHD Physicist, who does not understand that molten iron oxide flows downward, Were basically left with a physicist who does not understand Gravity and its effects on Liquid flowing mass.

The only reason that I can think of for Dr. Jones not building such a simple device as a thermite induced oxygen cutter as he promised to do at burning man, is he has never read anything by Sir Issac Newton, He has never read Principia.

Dear, Dave Rogers, Could you give the good Dr. Jones a lesson on the way gravity works, so that he can finally build a device and test his own insane theories, so others do not have to be bother by such foolish ideas please?

Sizzler, the two options I see on Dr. Jones, are
1, he lacks Knowledge and understanding of basic chemistry and physics, and that prevents him from testing his own Ideas because he is incapable of building such a simple device.
2, he is totally unwilling to do simple experiments that test his own ideas because he knows if the Ideas are put to the test he will look like a fool.

Testing these micro samples only allows him to stay in the game a little longer, it does not prove anything of use to anyone, and is a total waist of time.

PS. I have also contacted NIST and informed them of how thermite induced oxygen cutting works.

I have problems with the NIST report on World Trade Center 7, however I intend to draft a letter later to NIST explaining them the main problem I have with the report, is involving the sulfidication issues, it show a high CO level was present, as that enhances the formation of Sulfides from SO2 and sulfides actively attack steel.

The computer simulation is somewhat unrealistic, it does not match the visual evidence, I have been doing some work combining the NIST version of events with a subsonic over pressure event involving the ignition of CO
and C, as the triggering mechanism such could have occur and gone totally un noticed in the collapse.

However I must point out that the steel would have to have been heat weakened and would have experienced some thermal expansion as all heat weakened steel does.

However I believe that CO triggering the collapse of an already weakened structure more closely resembles the video evidence than just thermal expansion alone.

 

[Mince]

I will abandon CD hypothesis if...

Wait a minute dude. If you're so readily willing to abandon a controlled demolition hypothesis, why even make the hypothesis in the first place. To make such a bold hypothesis, you must have some pretty reliable evidence. If you have some pretty reliable evidence, you wouldn't be so ready to abandon your hypothesis.

However, that you do claim you will abandon your hypothesis based on the reaction of others tells me both that your hypothesis was very weak and that you're only relying on the opinion of others to make the hypothesis.

And to be frank, it wasn't a hypothesis anyway. True scientific hypotheses are based on an extensive and comprehensive understanding of the event/phenomenon which you're observing and is only derived after extensive, relevant field study. You've never left your keyboard to investigate the collapse of WTC 7 and your "hypothesis" is based on Google searches.

 

[Sizzler]

Wait a minute dude. If you're so readily willing to abandon a controlled demolition hypothesis, why even make the hypothesis in the first place. To make such a bold hypothesis, you must have some pretty reliable evidence. If you have some pretty reliable evidence, you wouldn't be so ready to abandon your hypothesis.

However, that you do claim you will abandon your hypothesis based on the reaction of others tells me both that your hypothesis was very weak and that you're only relying on the opinion of others to make the hypothesis.

And to be frank, it wasn't a hypothesis anyway. True scientific hypotheses are based on an extensive and comprehensive understanding of the event/phenomenon which you're observing and is only derived after extensive, relevant field study. You've never left your keyboard to investigate the collapse of WTC 7 and your "hypothesis" is based on Google searches.

I accept your post as truthful and logical. Check out a few posts down from OP. I explain my reasoning, or lack thereof. I admit it isn't logical/rational/etc.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I accept your post as truthful and logical. Check out a few posts down from OP. I explain my reasoning, or lack thereof. I admit it isn't logical/rational/etc.

My personal recommendation would be to read up on publicly available papers on architectural and engineering topics, not saying you should learn it like a religion but I think it'll benefit you just to look into the subjects on your free time when you're board.

I've been taking architecture courses since my high school years (which is not so long ago) so I've kind of learned the subject as I went and I used what I learned to understand the dynamics of the collapses. For me NIST served more as a confirmation of my observations, it gave me the ability to look at what they collected for analyzation, so I could determined if what I saw was consistent with the material I read. If you want and if I have time perhaps I can scan and PDF some excerpts from some of my text books, if you'd like to read in on specific subjects. I'm pretty sure that there's not much on my books that you won't find here but nevertheless...