Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[SpringHallConvert]

Incorrect. I know it for a fact.

Correction: You think you know for a fact.

 

[NoahFence]

Correction: You think you know for a fact.

Prove I don't.

 

[The Almond]

Yes pretty much so.

And you don't see any problem with that argument at all?

Not actually saying "C4" as a brand was use, but some explosive.

Then why did you mention C4 as satisfying the requirements of your hypothesis?

And the combustion of such explosive requires that a) it be combustible and b) come in contact with the fire. Now if some other explosive was used that does not burn readily, but doesn't explode in a common fire then it wouldn't be consumed.

Do enlighten me. What explosive has these magical properties? What explosive ordinance can be exposed to fire without combustion and explosion. What primer cord, detonation timers and trigger mechanisms will survive a fire for several hours and remain perfectly operational?

More so if the explosive is enclosed in casing it would not burn either, nor would it explode due to the heat.

So now we're encasing all of the primer cord and all of the explosives in enough insulation to protect it from the fire. Yep, that's making this whole situation sooooo much more plausible.

Thus we arrive to a situation in which enough explosive could remain to do the job.

So, by speculating what, in your mind, represents a possible solution to some of the problems, and by determining some of the properties of the material required to do what you hypothesize, you believe you have proved your point. Really? Is this all that 9/11 Trutherism is?

Let me break it down for you: On 9/11, something happened. It wasn't a hypothetical terrorist attack. Those weren't imaginary people on those airplanes. The were people jumping from the twin towers to escape the fire, plummeting to certain death, and those people weren't computer simulations. Engaging in the type of sophistry you're displaying here is, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, deplorable.

Don't bother to lecture us on what could have happened. Don't waste our time with meaningless speculation and hypothetical posturing. If you've got something, show it. Step up to the plate and be the first Truther to ever present a plausible, evidence based hypothesis that accounts for all of the available observations and occurrences on 9/11. It's been 11 years, and not a single person has stepped up to the plate. The Truth movement has proven itself time and again to be a loose collection of charlatans and idiots whose only real benefit to society is to keep morons busy enough and prevent them from shoving toothpicks into their eyes. If you're one of the charlatans, please hold some conferences or lectures or something. There are far too many idiots running around, and I've got stuff to do.

 

[Java Man]

And you don't see any problem with that argument at all?

No, as you clearly don't see any problem with your position unable to disprove the presence of explosives. That coupled with the strangely fast collapse speed of tower 1 and 2 makes your position of no foul play quite hard to defend.

Truthers here see quite a vertical collapse at a high speed. That looks like CD. They speculate about explosive devices. Microspheres are found which support that theory, and sorry, but your claim that it can come from other things does not exclude explosives as a source. It just adds yet another source. And on top of that you add your condescending attitude which provides zero image benefit to you or your position.

 

[Java Man]

And don't think no one notices you avoiding posts like this one, either, Starbuck.

I know, but as I stated before the debunker tactic here is to smother someone's position with a load of bifurcations and unsubstantiated claims. Thus steering the discussion all over the place.

 

[grandmastershek]

See what I mean by you guys being your own worst challenge. With statements like that you undermine your own arguments. It is clear to all of us now that those "loud" explosives were not really needed and your "hush-a-boom" theory collapses.

By totally dodging the majority of what I posted undermines my own arguments? Wow...gold medal material for the mental gymnastics.

I know, but as I stated before the debunker tactic here is to smother someone's position with a load of bifurcations and unsubstantiated claims. Thus steering the discussion all over the place.

Or dodging inconvenient realities is a simple way to protect your precious beliefs.

as you clearly don't see any problem with your position unable to disprove the presence of explosives.

Probably because it hasn't been demonstrated & because based on the paradigm truthers present its unfalsifiable.

 

[NoahFence]

I know, but as I stated before the debunker tactic here is to smother someone's position with a load of bifurcations and unsubstantiated claims. Thus steering the discussion all over the place.

OK, then take the reigns on this discussion and respond to the post in question. We're all ears.

 

[beachnut]

I know, but as I stated before the debunker tactic here is to smother someone's position with a load of bifurcations and unsubstantiated claims. Thus steering the discussion all over the place.

The super truther method of proving their point, do nothing. You got no practical knowledge of physics, chemistry, or 911. This is all you can do, nothing. You have managed to do nothing. 911 truth is delusional nonsense, you have failed to provide sources, and since your only goal is to make weak insults, you are finished, but you will post more posts filled with no support for your position which you can' define, past weak insults to JREF posters. You are better than most 911 truth false information pushers, and the best in your own mind, keep up the good work, you have a long way to go to beat your brothers in delusions.

Next time you come to a chemistry related thread, try some chemistry. Jones failed to back in thermite, and you have no chance of making a scientific post in the near or far future to support your fuzzy 911 truth nonsense.

 

[Java Man]

OK, then take the reigns on this discussion and respond to the post in question. We're all ears.

Quite a contradictory statement there. I have taken the reigns on this discussion and I'm answering the posts a I see fit. If I respond to the post in question as per your demand I would be receding control of this discussion.

 

[grandmastershek]

I have taken the reigns on this discussion and I'm answering the posts a I see fit.

AKA- Dodging anything inconvenient.

 

[beachnut]

AKA- Dodging anything inconvenient.

Asking a troll from the failed 911 truth movement to do science is not going to happen. Java Man does not do science, he is a troll with real bad logic, logic that only works with his fellow paranoid conspiracy theorist, dumbed down anti-science people. A step back to the middle ages, 911 truth, using opinions to guide their lives to crazy claims.

Java Man has no idea where iron spheres come from, and Java Man don't care; he's got the truth in him, like his fellow failed movement members.

Where do you get this stuff??? Explosive did not have to eject steel. Much less so for "hundreds of feet". They just needed to cut it.

Add structural engineering and physics to Java Man don't do. Image if you had taken the hard stuff in college, you would not be making up truther logic and failing to post on topic in a thread about stuff you have no knowledge on. Some times the hard road is the best with regards to education, and you would not be stuck believing liars and nuts.

 

[NoahFence]

Quite a contradictory statement there. I have taken the reigns on this discussion and I'm answering the posts a I see fit. If I respond to the post in question as per your demand I would be receding control of this discussion.

In other words, if it makes you think, the post goes unanswered.

 

[000063]

I know, but as I stated before the debunker tactic here is to smother someone's position with a load of bifurcations and unsubstantiated claims. Thus steering the discussion all over the place.

Come off it. Don't try to pretend you were ignoring a sidetrack. I asked you a direct question about your position ("Okay, so are you claiming the initiating charges were at or around the crash sites? "), pointed out the flaws if it was what you seemed, to me, to be saying, and you ignored the entire post.

The charges could not be at or anywhere close to the crash sites, since there would be a good chance that they would be knocked out of the building or destroyed or damaged by the mindboggling kinetic impact or the fires. And since they could not have have been anywhere close to the impacts, and the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 both started at the impact zone, then that means any charges which were there were way, way down, and would only be useful for speeding up the collapse, which would make them useless if the place would come down on its own. It also means, by definition, they were not the cause of the collapse. And since they can't have been the cause of the collapse, why were charges set in 7?

That's why you didn't answer. Because you couldn't. Because you don't understand and can't admit it.

Like I said; you're small-time. You messed up, went out on a limb, heard it go crack, and now are desperately scrabbling back toward the trunk, babbling about debunkers' unbacked assertions even when the assertions are specifically backed. Ironic that you mentioned the C4 thing and then debunkers had to confirm it for you.

Oh, and now you're ignoring #2059, along with your numerous quote mines.

 

[000063]

No, as you clearly don't see any problem with your position unable to disprove the presence of explosives. That coupled with the strangely fast collapse speed of tower 1 and 2 makes your position of no foul play quite hard to defend.

Considering that I have pointed out the evidence actively contradicting the claim of an explosion consistent with explosives, you are wrong.

What are you defining as "strangely fa-"

Truthers here see quite a vertical collapse at a high speed. That looks like CD.

So it's just an opinion, no objective evidence. Got it.

They speculate about explosive devices. Microspheres are found which support that theory, and sorry, but your claim that it can come from other things does not exclude explosives as a source. It just adds yet another source. And on top of that you add your condescending attitude which provides zero image benefit to you or your position.

Microspheres are cited as evidence of thermite alone, not explosives. Not explosives with thermite components. Stop conflating the two. It's like saying a strawberry milkshake should have green leaves on top because a strawberry does.

Chris7 has claimed, repeatedly, that it could only be thermite. I also note that you do not directly admit other things than "explosives" could've caused the spheres.

 

[Sunstealer]

.....I'm answering the posts a I see fit.

So you aren't partaking in a discussion then are you? You are simply ignoring all the questions that show what a nonsense your position is.

You simply don't have the courage of your convictions to answer the hard questions honestly. Tell us, why should we entertain you if you are going to ignore questions? What is your point? Why are you even here?

 

[Java Man]

By totally dodging the majority of what I posted undermines my own arguments? Wow...gold medal material for the mental gymnastics.

Totally dodging?? I responded to your post about the hundred foot projection of pieces calling you out on your exaggeration and you called it "cherry picking". Care to answer where you got that a charge made to cut through a beam should have to project that beam hundreds of feet to get the job done?

 

[000063]

Quite a contradictory statement there. I have taken the reigns on this discussion and I'm answering the posts a I see fit. If I respond to the post in question as per your demand I would be receding control of this discussion.

Thank you for admitting you're selectively responding to posts.

 

[000063]

Totally dodging?? I responded to your post about the hundred foot projection of pieces calling you out on your exaggeration and you called it "cherry picking". Care to answer where you got that a charge made to cut through a beam should have to project that beam hundreds of feet to get the job done?

That claim is made by many Truthers, not debunkers. If you are not one of those truthers, then it's not very relevant.

I'm starting to see why you ran away for a year.

 

[Java Man]

Chris7 has claimed, repeatedly, that it could only be thermite. I also note that you do not directly admit other things than "explosives" could've caused the spheres.

So you agree with Chris7 and believe that only thermite could produce microspheres or do you believe that explosives could produce such microspheres too?

 

[Sunstealer]

So you agree with Chris7 and believe that only thermite could produce microspheres or do you believe that explosives could produce such microspheres too?

False dichotomy.

Loads of processes produce iron microspheres. If you had bothered to do any research on the subject you would know this.

Iron microspheres are in the very room you are sitting in at the moment.