Message from a Truther

[FineWine]

Can you give an example ?

Uh, how about a few you've run away from?

Water cutting steel;

Human hands breaking bricks.

 

[bill smith]

Earth to Bill: Mackey devoted one entire part of his three-part lecture to the physics of the plane crashes. Will you ever watch it?

Remember, Bill, a fluffy bird can damage a titanium fan blade. Morgan Reynolds is hiding under his bed and Fetzer is nuts.

Do you have a link to that particular episode ?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Uh, how about a few you've run away from?

Maybe he needs visuals.... (any bets pn whether or not he'll be able to comprehend?)

Water cutting steel;

Human hands breaking bricks.

Or perhaps he should look up a few catastrophic cases of wind harmonics:


Or perhaps what happens when part of the insulation is knocked off damaging the heat shield on a space shuttle:

 

[FineWine]

Do you have a link to that particular episode ?

I don't remember which one of the three shows it was. I think it was the last one. Look for the thread devoted to these shows.

 

[TruthersLie]

Griz.

He has already run away from 5 videos showing the no plane crap is just that...

run and hid, then tried to hand wave them away.

poor widdle billy boy... getting picked on for his lies and delusions.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

That's a lot more likely than ol' Wile making a cartoon cut-out in 33 14'' steel box columns when you think about it.

A bullet is not a good analogy. That is a dense lump of of a heavy metal. A plane is 100-some tons of mostly light thin aluminium spread out all over the place with the only really dense parts being the two six-ton engines and parts of the landing gear.

Please tell me which equation for the transfer of energy involves the density of either of the materials involved.

And while you mull that over...

"A tornado can drive a straw through a telephone pole."
FACT: The forces inside a tornado are incredible, and still poorly understood. But they are certainly strong enough to turn otherwise harmless items into deadly missiles.

Source

 

[tfk]

Tom, don't you get the impression that Bill Smith is a crazy old Jew-hater? I could be wrong--maybe he's another angry, uneducated kid--but I sense someone whose head has ossified, whose brain overflows with unexamined prejudices, who simply has lost whatever ability he once had to process new information.

.
Well, well, well.

From the speed and insistence of Billy's reply, it would appear that Billy doesn't relish the thought of my sharing what I know about him.

I gave up trying to figure Bill out a long time ago. Who cares... He clearly doesn't really believe the nonsense that he spouts. He simply enjoys the illusion of significance. He like standing up & saying 2+2=34, and watching the math teachers go into a frenzy. When they catch on to that game & stop responding, he'll move on to "you math teachers are all fakes & frauds". You know, typical 12 year old fantasies.

The only mildly interesting aspect of his character is that he is completely unconcerned with his character's public humiliation. Who knows why. Who cares.

My guess: A kid, mid 20s, with a financial investment in moving 9/11 merchandise.

I'll happily share with you the things that I know. It's a fair bunch.

I'll cc Billy on all of it, of course. Which will give Billy an opportunity to address anything that he wants. Wouldn't want to be considered a gossip, now...

Tom

 

[tfk]

Actually I have measured it. So has T.. There is no deceleration of the plane.

.
What the hell are you doing, bringing my initial into your lunacy.

You couldn't measure it if your life depended on it.

If you wish to lie about your own nonsense, be my guest. But do NOT, EVER, claim to speak for me on ANY issue.

Now, I'd be happy to have you either provide a link to ANYPLACE that I ever said that plane didn't slow down, or issue a formal retraction of that blatant lie.

T

 

[alienentity]

For some reason mrcoddy doesn't want to engage anyone on the forum directly, but he did send another message indicating that he's reading the thread.

'Yes I am an engineer, regardless of the childish attempts to say otherwise on the forum.

There is a 'debunk' for everything the truth movement has... this much is obvious. But these 'debunks' are not scientifically possible.

The molten metal for example... the best the debunkers have is "Underground fires made from office materials"

Just take a moment to ask yourself if that's physically possible.. and again please THINK about it...

The office materals were blown into powder with the rest of the building. There were no in-tact desks, carpets etc etc to burn. They were powdered aong wit the rest of the buildiong.

Do you honestly believe that such tiny fragmemnts of flammable material could somehow join together under tonnes & tonnes of concrete dust (and remember that dust is widely used as a fire extinguisher), with very little oxygen... and burn hot enough for over a month... enougfh to make & maintain metal in a MOLTEN state?

The fires in the WTC were extinguished as soon as destruction ('collapse') initiated. The fact that you believe that all of these flammable materials somehow magically gathered under tonnes of fine dust... ignited themselves & burned in such a way that it created pools of molten metal... is really pure fantasy.

Post this on JREF if you like... allow morons to do your thinking for you... to say "He's not an engineer" or "He's an Idiot" or whatever... but please actually THINK about what you are claiming.... that a 'collapse' somehow turned 100s of tonnes of metal into liquid... how?


Please sir, please use your OWN brain & stop being influenced by others.'

 

[~enigma~]

For some reason mrcoddy doesn't want to engage anyone on the forum directly, but he did send another message indicating that he's reading the thread.

Aw...the less than human baby is afraid of big ole Jref.

 

[alienentity]

I'm enjoying family time this weekend, but I will respond directly to one obvious error in mrcoddy's message. That would be:

'The molten metal for example... the best the debunkers have is "Underground fires made from office materials'

This is a transparent strawman argument, as nobody I know thinks that the fires were fueled purely by office materials. I've never seen a debunker use that particular argument.

In any case, AFAIK, you had acres of hydrocarbon-based carpet, various flammable fuels in generator tanks located throughout building 7, gasoline from car tanks.

So I think this particular claim is falsified.

Here's another claim he makes which I think is clearly false:

'The fires in the WTC were extinguished as soon as destruction ('collapse') initiated.'

This is demonstrable nonsense. In fact, as soon as the collapses finished, there were burning materials all over the place, igniting many vehicles on the roads, starting massive fires in WTC buildings (incl. building 7, of course). Further, the rubble piles themselves were emitting large quantities of smoke from various fires buried within.

The claim by mrcoddy is false, it's not a serious point. Another logical inconsistency with his reasoning is that, on the one hand while there were vast sources of organic flammables throughout the rubble, he cannot accept they could have been concentrated enough to burn AT ALL! He denies ANY burning of this material.
But then he insists that another material, thermite, as the source of the fires. Thermite, even if you allow for it's presence, would have existed in much smaller quantities than other flammable materials and would also have been scattered by the violence of the collapses. But, strangely, due to the magical qualities ascribed to it by truthers, thermite would have somehow magically remained intact and ready to burn in large quantities. (of course, if the fires were actually out, nothing would have ignited the thermite........oops!)

The logical contradictions are there to see. I doubt whether most truthers are able to comprehend them however.

One final point: regarding the WTC dust, and the 'thermite chips' allegedly contained within. I can't remember the exact percentage of the chips by weight in the dust (which was mostly insulation, gypsum, glass fragments and so on) but I think it was something like .1%.

It would be interesting to see whether this dust is flammable with or without the chips. If it is not, then the chips wouldn't make any difference, they're such a tiny percentage of it's composition. Then, it would be the dust itself which was the main material to burn.

Anyway, there are a number of other unproven and unsubstantiated assumptions about thermite made by truthers, which undermine the strength of any conclusions based on them. One of the strongest countering pieces of evidence is the lack of evidence of temperatures sufficient to melt steel, which would be easily spotted if thermite was actually present.
However, the famous eutectic erosion documented by FEMA actually proves the opposite, that temps never rose in those cases above 1000C. Not hot enough for thermite or thermate, sorry!

And on and on it goes.

 

[~enigma~]

I'm enjoying family time this weekend, but I will respond directly to one obvious error in mrcoddy's message. That would be:

'The molten metal for example... the best the debunkers have is "Underground fires made from office materials'

This is a transparent strawman argument, as nobody I know thinks that the fires were fueled purely by office materials. I've never seen a debunker use that particular argument.

In any case, AFAIK, you had acres of hydrocarbon-based carpet, various flammable fuels in generator tanks located throughout building 7, gasoline from car tanks.

So I think this particular claim is falsified.

Here's another claim he makes which I think is clearly false:

'The fires in the WTC were extinguished as soon as destruction ('collapse') initiated.'

This is demonstrable nonsense. In fact, as soon as the collapses finished, there were burning materials all over the place, igniting many vehicles on the roads, starting massive fires in WTC buildings (incl. building 7, of course). Further, the rubble piles themselves were emitting large quantities of smoke from various fires buried within.

The claim by mrcoddy is false, it's not a serious point. Another logical inconsistency with his reasoning is that, on the one hand while there were vast sources of organic flammables throughout the rubble, he cannot accept they could have been concentrated enough to burn AT ALL! He denies ANY burning of this material.
But then he insists that another material, thermite, as the source of the fires. Thermite, even if you allow for it's presence, would have existed in much smaller quantities than other flammable materials and would also have been scattered by the violence of the collapses. But, strangely, due to the magical qualities ascribed to it by truthers, thermite would have somehow magically remained intact and ready to burn in large quantities. (of course, if the fires were actually out, nothing would have ignited the thermite........oops!)

The logical contradictions are there to see. I doubt whether most truthers are able to comprehend them however.

One final point: regarding the WTC dust, and the 'thermite chips' allegedly contained within. I can't remember the exact percentage of the chips by weight in the dust (which was mostly insulation, gypsum, glass fragments and so on) but I think it was something like .1%.

It would be interesting to see whether this dust is flammable with or without the chips. If it is not, then the chips wouldn't make any difference, they're such a tiny percentage of it's composition. Then, it would be the dust itself which was the main material to burn.

Anyway, there are a number of other unproven and unsubstantiated assumptions about thermite made by truthers, which undermine the strength of any conclusions based on them. One of the strongest countering pieces of evidence is the lack of evidence of temperatures sufficient to melt steel, which would be easily spotted if thermite was actually present.
However, the famous eutectic erosion documented by FEMA actually proves the opposite, that temps never rose in those cases above 1000C. Not hot enough for thermite or thermate, sorry!

And on and on it goes.

[truther rant]The thermite scattered during the collapse but considering we are talking NYC, most of the cars were rusted and there apparently was a cheese factory underneath the WTC that provided the aluminum (yes it is in cheese...look it up you sheeple) so there was thermite in the rubble pile.
[/truther rant]

 

[Grizzly Bear]

For some reason mrcoddy doesn't want to engage anyone on the forum directly, but he did send another message indicating that he's reading the thread.

If he doesn't want to start speaking for himself here, then that's his decision, however speaking to him via proxy seems rather pointless. I take his claim of being an engineer at face value, but his claims are bonkers... and I'm already spending time on my own response to the 29 engineers from AE911 paper which addresses most of the crap this guy's peddling, and repeating this material to incompetents in brief isn't going to get anything through his noggin.

If he wants to claim that thermite is responsible for molten steel months following the collapse, he's responsible for demonstrating how the incendiaries remained in just the right mixture to allow for the reaction after having a damn skyscraper collapse all on top of it when ordinary office materials got ground to powder from the force of a 200,000 ton masher, and how the reaction lasted for 8 months. He'll have a jolly time, I'm sure.... considering thermite burns quite rapidly... remember the 2000 pounds of it myth busters used to try and cut a car in half... it got expended in less than an hour and it failed to cut the car completely

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Landfill fires are pretty common and can burn underground for months. Coal seam fires can burn underground for years. Powdered debris means nothing, look up grain elevator explosions or flour bombs. The simple fact of the matter is that underground fires happen on a regular basis. The thermal temps at ground zero were measured at up to 1300 degrees f, this is an undisputed fact despite your incredulity about it. This is enough to melt aluminum and lead. These two materials were present in abundance in and on the towers.

The dust that you mention as a fire extinguishing agent is applied directly to the base of the fire and not sprayed about willy nilly in the general direction of the fire. Any gap in the coverage means that the fire will still burn.

The debris also acted as an insulating blanket. Holding in the heat is how you raise temperatures higher than what the fuel being burned can do all by itself. How hot do you think an incinerator designed to burn human waste can get to? I've seen one such incinerator fueled by #2 fuel oil go from 1400f to over 2000f in mere minutes with the burners off, burning nothing but human waste during burn-out (shutting it down) more than once, and we were trying like hell to keep it from doing so (it was bad for the rake arms).

You might be an engineer but you don't seem to know a whole lot about the chemical reaction that we call fire.

 

[FineWine]

I don't remember which one of the three shows it was. I think it was the last one. Look for the thread devoted to these shows.

My guess was wrong. Ryan Mackey explained the physics of the planes' penetration of the buildings in the second show:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8184528465256118271

 

[bill smith]

My guess was wrong. Ryan Mackey explained the physics of the planes' penetration of the buildings in the second show:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8184528465256118271

hanks.I've watched the first half or so so far. I will watch the rest thouugh. Fascinating stuff.

 

[TruthersLie]

AE and Griz.

No he certainly could be an engineer.
a sanitation engineer
a landscaping engineer

or maybe he is in higher company
an electrical engineer or
a software engineer.

You know... people who have NO qualifications, and NO understanding but hold on to the title of "engineer" in a death grip because they don't want to be called programmers/technicians.

IMHO.

I love the twoof strawmen he throws up (and they are easily PROVEN to be false).

so my bet is landscape engineer.

 

[JihadJane]

No, the funny part is when some internet nobodies whose postings have yet to indicate they know anything at all about anything presume to question the expertise of a real scientist, trained in things said posters couldn't even begin to comprehend in a million years. And after abundantly demonstrating their total ignorance and foolishness, instead of slinking off in utter humiliation as any self-respecting adult would do, remain so completely clueless that they actually make what they assume are clever remarks about it. Now that's funny!

It is common to be knowledgeable about one topic and ignorant about many others.

So what if the towers disintegrated because of impact and fire. Who does that let off the hook?

 

[tfk]

Actually I have measured it. So has T.. There is no deceleration of the plane.

.
What the hell are you doing, bringing my initial into your lunacy.

You couldn't measure it if your life depended on it.

If you wish to lie about your own nonsense, be my guest. But do NOT, EVER, claim to speak for me on ANY issue.

Now, I'd be happy to have you either provide a link to ANYPLACE that I ever said that plane didn't slow down, or issue a formal retraction of that blatant lie.

T

Bill,

Please retract your lie immediately.

Tom

 

[bill smith]

Bill,

Please retract your lie immediately.

Tom

Well it was on the topix forum. I'm sure you have extensive records of the posts involved. You could esily put up those posts and we can have another look. My recollection is that we were in broad agreement that the plane did not slow down when penetrating the massive steel barrier of WTC2.