• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

No excuse for not testing for explosives

ElMondoHummus said:
Someone wake me when he brings a firm argument. So far, "thermite" was his only real shot; everything else has been an attempt to refute the Twin Towers narrative via incorrect trivia.

When he can actually address the state of the steel in NCSTAR 1-3C, then we'll start having a real conversation.
Click to expand...

No. We will start having a conversation when Dommy presents a comprehensive and internally consistent hypothesis that involves explosives.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Did you forget about dr. Neils Harrit?
Click to expand...

facepalmsmiley.gif


R.Mackey said:
Dr. Harrit is not independent. He's listed as a principal author.

Let's just add "independent" and "confirmation" to the growing list of simple words you do not understand.
Click to expand...

QFT.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
It's funny how you conveniently leave out the other two, particularly Flight 93 which reportedly landed in such soft land that the majority of the 95% of the aircraft that was reportedly recovered was said to have been found underground. Guess those titanium and reinforced steel data recorders were much more delicate than the dna that was reportedly recovered.
Click to expand...
So you're positioning yourself as some kind of 9/11 "scholar" and you're not even familiar with the basics? Both recorders were found from each of Flights 93 and 77. The voice recorder for 77 was damaged and unusable, but we got the info from the other three boxes. Sheesh!

dommyboysinjapan said:
NIST is a US government funded organization. They are all honest people I am sure but none of them want to pursue other legitimate theories if it puts their jobs at risk. No-one wants to lose their job.
Click to expand...
Most people who worked on the NIST engineering report were not NIST employees. They were outside experts.

16.5 said:
Dominic Shenher BA Sociology

FAIL BOAT
Click to expand...


FAIL2.jpg
 
Kent1,

It seems clear that this in fact applies to yourself in reverse. As shown by your posts you have clearly not looked at the counterpoints to your often repeated claims.
Click to expand...

I read a report by Bazant and a couple of other reports too that supported the traditional views about the building collapses. I did not find them convincing.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
The image of airplanes hitting the towers itself may not have incited enough outrage and international support to go to war. The reality is that people would have seen it on the news channels and said "my, how awful" and forgotten about it the next day. The image of those two towers cascading down was played over and over again by the media. This image was adequate to incite enough hatred to motivate congress, and some international support to launch wars of agression against two sovereign nations that had not attacked any other country or threatened to do so.
Click to expand...


"Let's go to war with Iraq."
-"But, Iraq hasn't really done anything. The people won't go for it."
"Easily fixed. We'll stage a false attack against our own country."
-"So, we'll claim Iraq attacked us?"
"Oh, no. We'll claim it was mostly Saudis and nobody from Iraq."
-"So, we're going to war with Saudi Arabia, too?"
"No, they're our best friends."
-"Then, how do we use Saudis without blaming Saubi Arabia."
"We say that they're a fringe group of fundamentalists."
-"And those are the kind of fundamentalists they have in Iraq?"
"Not at all! In fact, when those fundamentalists sought help from Iraq, Saddam Hussein turned them down flat. He may be the only person who hates fundamintalist Muslims more than we do."
-"Then how is this going to convince anyone to go to war with Iraq."
"Because we'll tell them to."
-"And why would they believe us?"
"Because it's on TV."
-"Not yet."
 
Oystein said:
No. We will start having a conversation when Dommy presents a comprehensive and internally consistent hypothesis that involves explosives.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the same thing if you think about it. This is why:
  1. Like I said, Bazant's work demonstrates that regardless of how the structural compromise occurs, once it's underway, it goes all the way to completion. Period.
  2. The initiating failures started in the impact/fire zones.
  3. Steel was recovered from those zones in the main towers. None of those pieces show any signs of being affected by either explosives or thermite.
Ergo, the collapse started without any assistance and would have completed to the ground. Therefore, to present a reasonable alternative argument, a competing thesis must:
  1. Either refute Bazant and demonstrate that the collapse wouldn't have completed, thus requiring explosives to continue and rendering irrelevant the steel recovered from the collapse initiation zone
  2. Or, accept Bazant's conclusions, acknowledge that the steel from the collapse initiation zone was unaffected by explosives/incendiaries, and then explain why explosives would have been needed given that the collapse would've proceeded to completion anyway.
  3. Or, show that the recovered steel was in fact affected by explosives.
In any case, the explanation involves the recovered steel rather intimately. He has to confront that in the course of making an argument stand. Otherwise, NCSTAR 1-3C in conjunction with Bazant's work refutes any and every intentional demolitions proposal that's out there.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
I read a report by Bazant and a couple of other reports too that supported the traditional views about the building collapses. I did not find them convincing.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you find them convincing is your problem. From this thread, the things that you do find convincing are quite mad.
 
Dommyboysinjapan,

Now that you have learned to use the quote button, please leave the name and link to the original post in the quote.

Thank you for your consideration.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Kent1,



I read a report by Bazant and a couple of other reports too that supported the traditional views about the building collapses. I did not find them convincing.
Click to expand...

Mere assertion. Bazant's work is peer reviewed, accepted by the engineering community, and actually stands as the basis of further work. The fact that you do not find it convincing is insufficient, you must state why you believe it to be so. Otherwise, you fail to refute it.
 
Why fly planes into the most complex CD ever created? You run a risk of the planes making the explosives ineffective in the process. That's stupid. It's like doing a celebratory break dance around your newly erected house of cards.

And why wait? Fire isn't good for explosives either. The longer you wait for the fire to spread again the greater the risk the explosives become useless.

Let me guess, you don't know you're JAQ.
 
Oystein said:
There is no such thing as a "quiet explosive" that could conceivably used to crack steel.

Explosives create shockwaves, and it is the shockwave that both severs the steel beam AND creates the sound - the power of the explosive is directly correlated with the decibel level. If your explosion is quiet, it will not break your steel.
Click to expand...

Is this right?

I always understood that cutter charges used the explosive element for 2 reasons:

1- to turn the copper liner into a hot (6000F, IIRC ) plasma
2- to direct that plasma onto the target

Not saying that a simple explosive couldn't work.... but damn, it would have to be frickin' huge. IIRC, NIST estimated a charge of 7 lbs of RDX for a hypothetical charge at 7, which would result in 130-140 dB. I'd take wild stab and say that through simple explosive "weight" with no copper plasma, etc, you'd be looking at what, 10-20x the charge? And 140-145 dB?
 
R.Mackey

Honest question for you: Are you even aware of the lies you're telling?
Click to expand...

I posted a link that showed a list of people with varying degrees of demolition experience that clearly disagree with your conspiracy theory. OK, so how is that a lie?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Kent1,



I read a report by Bazant and a couple of other reports too that supported the traditional views about the building collapses. I did not find them convincing.
Click to expand...

I doubt you understood them.
You've read some "traditional views" reports then the conspiracy websites that attack those reports.
I would suggest debunking websites which counter the claims from the CT websites.
I would suggest:
http://911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/
http://www.debunking911.com/

Then use the search function here at this site.

Give it some time. It's clear you're new to this.

Think of your top questions then see if those claims haven't already been addressed many times over. I guarantee they have been addressed many times.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom