Split Thread NIST did not utilize the scientific method?

[david.watts]

What are you talking about? 47 floors of office space collapsed, the fuel is paper, etc, which all has more heat energy than thermite which burns out in seconds or minutes, and more than explosives which burn out in parts of a second. Kind of makes 911 truth look silly.

Cars? Is there a car park under WTC 7? The building collapsed on fire, and until the stuff was cleaned up, fires would burn until the fuel was gone. Thermite last seconds and was not found, explosive burn up in less than a second and were not found. No evidence for explosives, thermite or nukes. Lots of evidence of office stuff. BINGO

How about the explosives evidence, can you use the 16 for your evidence of explosives? Yes, no, or you don't do answers? Just woo?http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html'

WTC 7 was below where 7 stood after it collapsed. What fires were below 7? Do you have photos? Diagrams? Stories?

beachnut: "the fuel is paper, etc, which all has more heat energy than thermite which burns out in seconds or minutes"

I will believe you if you can cite a source which corroborates that "paper etc" has more heat energy than thermite. How about thermate, any difference? And why use thermite for anything if you can get hotter heat and longer duration using paper, etc.?

 

[beachnut]

beachnut: "the fuel is paper, etc, which all has more heat energy than thermite which burns out in seconds or minutes"

I will believe you if you can cite a source which corroborates that "paper etc" has more heat energy than thermite. How about thermate, any difference? And why use thermite for anything if you can get hotter heat and longer duration using paper, etc.?

You come to a 911 debate and you don't know why we use gasoline instead of thermite/TNT to drive our cars? Or fuel oil or coal to heat our houses, vs thermite? lol

You come to a skeptic forum and expect to debate fantasy you bring, and you forget to bring reality, science, physics, numbers, math, and energy in stuff.

You look it up. You can't do simple questions, like, are the 16 witnesses to explosions part of your evidence for explosives, or not? You came to class unprepared.

Did the dog eat your stuff? Rain? Burned up in a fire? Where is your knowledge? You spread lies based on failed claims, and have no idea the fires burning from office contents before the collapse were greater in heat than 2,700 TONS of thermite, and you have no way to check my math.

Paper beats thermite, wood, plastic a bunch, oil a lot, gasoline a bunch, and thus, you come to debate woo, and you bring woo.

Got physics? Knowledge? Why do you think you can BS your way to CD?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
TNT is close to thermite -

To destroy the WTC, I would use chocolate chip cookies and get big guys with big hammers, cookies have much more energy than TNT.
Gasoline is very good for energy, and batteries suck. (batteries are great for short periods - like toy helos.)

 

[BrianH]

Paper beats thermite, wood, plastic a bunch, oil a lot, gasoline a bunch

However, scissors beat paper. Ergo, CD.

 

[DGM]

The question regarded WTC7. Do you believe that there was in fact "lots of fuel" below where WTC7 stood?

Everything below the roof ended up in the pile. You don't think that's a lot of fuel?

 

[beachnut]

However, scissors beat paper. Ergo, CD.

That is much more concise than the 911 truth "logical" sequence to woo. Where do I send the beer.

 

[LSSBB]

All, I asked for a thread split, FYI. Thread is way off track.

 

[Loss Leader]

What is the explanation for the very high temperatures at ground zero, including beneath WTC7, that lasted for a very long time?

Friction.

 

[beachnut]

All, I asked for a thread split, FYI. Thread is way off track.

I know 911 truth can tie all of this stuff to free-fall, they tie everything but evidence to CD, so everything can be linked to free-fall. Give it time.

 

[Animal]

What is the explanation for the very high temperatures at ground zero, including beneath WTC7, that lasted for a very long time?

Wasn't that long of a time......this is a long time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Same principles by the way......fuel source, heat, and oxygen.

 

[tsig]

Spanx, Quick answer: "SHOCK AND AWE!" It etched/tattooed the spectacularly horrific picture, or should I say "movie," into every persons mind AND psyche ... worldwide. It provided the "blank check"

Suppose the planes hit the towers at 3 in the morning and there was no video. No video of the absolutely mesmerizing crashing of the large US airline airplanes carrying helpless passengers and crew into the those GRAND, MAJESTIC, TWIN ICONS of AMERICA!! No video of those utterly spectacular(!!) and ghastly(!!) collapses of those icons of America with so many helpless people inside!!

With the video, they forever altered, etched, tattooed the psyche of humanity. Hearing about it on the radio just wouldn't cut it.

It is easy to see what they have done since and how easy it was for them to do it. Almost everybody: "Its the devil himself is in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan. Get Osama! Send troops, weapons, whatever you need, spend as much as you'd like!"

WMDs! "Mushroom clouds! Attack Iraq! Send troops, weapons, whatever you need, spend as much as you'd like! What(?), no WMDs? That's okay! They deserved it!"

I tried to make this as dramatic as I could to try to clearly point out that 9/11 was designed to be as dramatic as possible for the reasons above.

I see all attempts at rational discussion has ended and you've gone into political rant mode.

Don't you think terrorists would want their act to be as dramatic as possible.

 

[Richard the G]

All, I asked for a thread split, FYI. Thread is way off track.

yes I think this thread should be A conversation with David Watts a committed truther

hE should be committed shouldn't he!

 

[tsig]

Thanks David, I think I have got it, building 7 was an insurance job and the towers were to start a war.

It all makes perfect sense now.

I can see how terrorists wouldn't be clever enough to work any of that out.

The evil potentate in charge even went on TV and rubbed our noses in it.

 

[tsig]

The change is size, use of bold and underline, and caps do not help in your arguments any, david.watts...

They do help the rest of us in judging his posts. The larger the font the less the content.

 

[tsig]

You understand physics. Many people here understand physics at a very high level. "Understanding physics at a very high level" is not required here. "Basic" physics will do the trick, as you say. That is what I was trying to say in my post. One of Newton's laws of motion is what you are saying when talking about objects "A" and "B." But while your "A" / "B" example applies well to the North tower, it does not apply so well to the South Tower.
Does it? (BTW, I am on your side, no zigzagging. Unless of course, some zigzagging external force is in play.)

Newton law for the "A" / "B" example:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.


North Tower. (I think I understand what was occurring, but I may not state it correctly. Even so, I would think you will understand what I am trying to say. I will give it a shot.) The large block at the top started tilting significantly to the side from the onset of the collapse. Therefore both the acceleration vector and the force vector were not pointing straight down nor were they pointing 90 degrees to the side. They were pointing somewhere in between.

So did the force vector really have a large enough downward component to plow seemingly easy straight down through the entire building? As the top of the building should have continued tilting, the force vector downward would increase with the acceleration of the top of the building, but would it not also move off to the side and not point directly down through the building?


Another Newton law of motion:
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

My "continue tilting" phrase would be based on this law.

(Let me know if I'm all screwed up. But just on this response. I already know most of you think I'm screwed up on everything else I've said.)

It did continue tilting, it just couldn't tilt very far before it hit the ground.

 

[tsig]

Mudcat: I agree. But did you read my entire reply (#765) above?

I ended it with:
"I tried to make this as dramatic as I could to try to clearly point out that 9/11 was designed to be as dramatic as possible for the reasons above."

I know none of you believe "inside job." But for the sake of argument, what if I am correct: "Inside job." Again, this is just for the sake of argument. Would not what I said and how I said it be a perfect way to get a "blank check?"

The implication of your argument is that if terrorists did it it would be as inconspicuous as possible.

"Go kill yourself for Allah, but don't make too big a splash".

 

[tsig]

beachnut: "the fuel is paper, etc, which all has more heat energy than thermite which burns out in seconds or minutes"

I will believe you if you can cite a source which corroborates that "paper etc" has more heat energy than thermite. How about thermate, any difference? And why use thermite for anything if you can get hotter heat and longer duration using paper, etc.?

Thermite and thermate got together in a special way and produced little nano thermite which then grew into super nano thermite capable of both exploding and burning for months, it burns with a brilliant, bright invisible flame and can be silent and produce building shattering kabooms.

It also walks dogs.

It's all things to all truthers.

 

[tsig]

I know 911 truth can tie all of this stuff to free-fall, they tie everything but evidence to CD, so everything can be linked to free-fall. Give it time.

Well the whole planet is in free fall around the sun in a limited hang out sort of way.

 

[NoahFence]

NoahFence: So now you're convinced there was no controlled demolition at the WTC site, the Pentagon and you're prepared to acknowledge Shanksville?
A simple yes or no please.


I have never beaten my wife but I did stop beating her the day after 9/11.

Pretty much what I expected.

Something's missing from your discussions. I think I may have found it.

 

[NoahFence]

This is an honest post. Honest replies only please.

I'll take your word for it.

I asked this question previously. Nobody attempted to give me an answer.

Do you simply accept it as not unusual or do you agree that it deserves an explanation?

I don't find it unusual in the least, nor do I think it requires an explanation.

My question:

What is the explanation for the very high temperatures at ground zero, including beneath WTC7, that lasted for a very long time?

I do not know how this has been dealt with previously here at JREF. I am simply curious.

Thank you.

Unfortunately for people like you, the answer is very simple.
Underneath 220 acres of flammable office materials we had stores, we had parking, we had cars - hundreds of 'em:



That's the best info I could find in less than 20 seconds of searching on the web. By my lowest estimate, I'd say we had on the order of a thousand cars underneath the WTC (I'm more than willing to be shown otherwise.) All these cars had fuel in them, no?

Getting water in there to fight that fire was next to impossible. The fire will not go out until it has exhausted its fuel, or a source of oxygen is removed. In some fires, this takes a few moments. In others, it could take weeks. Months.

Even years.

There was nothing unusual or remarkable about the fires underneath the WTC. They were as hot as expected and burned as long as expected.

To people who live in reality.

 

[MileHighMadness]

http://imgur.com/RL1P1Bs

I blame Darth Vader...