OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

Chodorov said:
Did you not see it? Let us go over it again. A scientific argument is like a pyramid, in that at the pinnacle you have a conclusion that is built on many networked assumptions. Some of these assumptions are implicit and ought to be made explicit. Some were explicit from the start. But all reasoning that goes into the conclusion at the top of the debate pyramid, is dependent on assumptions and arguments lower down. Introducing a flat out lie into the debate pyramid means that the entirety of the debate will be perverted from then on in. This is why I ruthlessly excise lies from the argument. And you must find a way, to learn a way, to begin to do the same.
Click to expand...

No.

You called Oystein a liar.

Prove it.
 
Chodorov said:
Thats not what is happening. They refuse to believe the reality of it based on one thing only. WORKING BACKWARDS FROM THE FAITH-BASED CONCLUSION. So their evasive behavior is irrelevant to this question. As I've pointed out there is one internet and one internet only. It is at all of our fingertips, and if any of you are not interested in the evidence this is a matter for you. But you ought exempt yourself from the argument. Since you aren't part of the argument. You are only attempting to skew the argument to your faith-based position.

All of you have seen molten iron dripping out of the world trade centre. All of you and without exception have seen this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but how would I know that I have seen molten iron dripping out of the WTC? You seem to have some deep insight here that has let you divine a fact that isn't apparent to most of the people that are participating in this thread.

One guy on the internet claims there was a bank of batteries for a large uninterpretable power supply and that what we see flowing out of a WTC window in one of the videos might be fluid from them. Some doubters (of the CD theory) claim that the fluid might be melted aluminum from one of the airplanes.

But without your guidance how are we to know that we have seen melted iron flowing out of the WTC and that what the other people on the internet have suggested is false? You seem to have come to a very strong conclusion about this and surely that must be based on some pretty solid evidence. Do you have deep insider knowledge that you are being forced to suppress? Could you give us a clue as to who is forcing you to keep your evidence secret?

ETA: I didn't see your request to stop calling them skeptics before I made this post. I have changed the word skeptic to doubter in the above as a result.
 
Last edited:
Dragon37 said:
There was molten metal falling from the south tower but if it was iron I haven't heard.
Click to expand...

Well thats good. You are thinking. But the thinking stopped when you went with the childish baby-talk afterward. Now what do you think that metal was? You don't know do you? Well thats good. You are not pretending to know something you don't. So how do you suppose you would determine what metal that was? Or how do you suppose you would eliminate a metal that it definitely wasn't?

Which metals are relevant to the opposing views of the problem? I happen to know what the metal is. But supposing you had a transformation, and really did in fact want to look at the evidence ...... how do you think you would find out what metal that was?

By the way I mention here only two opposing hypotheses for brevity. But no scientific process is particularly healthy unless you are developing and ranking three or more hypotheses in parallel.

The scientific method involves designing experiments which compare and develop different hypotheses in parallel. So supposing you were developing both the arabs-alone fairy-tale, and the shadow-government hypothesis? How would you use that molten metal FACT (yes children there really is such a thing) to either lift up one of these hypotheses, pull the other one lower, or both at the same time?
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
Perhaps, but how would I know that I have seen molten iron dripping out of the WTC?
Click to expand...



How indeed? This is a question I put to you. If you had looked at the evidence, you would have seen how this was done, eliminating most alternatives, or at least most important alternatives vis or vis competing hypotheses ....

So how would you do it? How would YOU do it? See if you can figure it out yourself prior to looking at the answer.
 
Chodorov said:
Its just ridiculous. What are you waiting for? There is no compelling logical inference in any of that screed.
Click to expand...

Truthers have yet to show, after 9+ years, that it's physically possible to do what they claim was done. I'd expect no less from you than handwaves because that's all that you have. You cannot show how your own theories were accomplished, even on a theoretical level, and still meet the three simple requirements of them as I outlined above that must be done in order for your theories to even have a chance of working.

Go ahead. Be the first one to show us how it could have been done keeping in mind the limitations that your own theories place upon themselves. I won't be holding my breath waiting though...
 
Chodorov said:
How indeed? This is a question I put to you. If you had looked at the evidence, you would have seen how this was done, eliminating most alternatives, or at least most important alternatives vis or vis competing hypotheses ....

So how would you do it? How would YOU do it? See if you can figure it out yourself prior to looking at the answer.
Click to expand...


See that's the problem. I looked and came to the conclusion that at least on this issue the doubters of the CD hypothesis are on firm ground. I may have been tricked by the various claims that they have put forth like:
1. No evidence of melting on any of the steel structure (prior to evidence of melting caused by cutting torches during the demolition)
2. No credible evidence of melted iron puddles recovered from the site.
3. No photographic evidence that to my untrained eye couldn't be aluminum or fluid from a large battery pile or any other material that melts at a temperature significantly less than steel.
4. Melted steel would be a different color than the material seen flowing from the WTC window because it would be so much hotter.
5. The extreme difficulty of installing sufficient quantities of anything in the WTC that would be able to melt steel and be part of a controlled demolition.
6. The difficulty of getting some unknown substance to withstand a daunting fire before it was ignited at some time after the crash.

So now the only path available for the enlightenment of potentially deluded individuals like myself is assistance from somebody like you that has a deep understanding of these issues and that provides evidence that will disabuse us of our potentially unfounded notions.

As an aside you didn't answer my question about whether somebody was forcing you to suppress the evidence of your claims. Is that a significant problem for you? Perhaps whatever the entity is that is forcing you to suppress this evidence is so powerful that you just can't respond.
 
Measureable how? In a grainy YouTube video? What is the precision of the measurements you are making?
 
JamesB said:
Measureable how? In a grainy YouTube video? What is the precision of the measurements you are making?
Click to expand...

Well how do you think? And more to the point, how do you imagine that you have any relevance to this argument if you cannot figure out how to test the proposition scientifically?

Do you hear anything when you see that video? No?
What is the evidence that is available?
 
Chodorov,
My suspicion for awhile has been that you are not what you represent yourself to be. I suspect that you do not believe your claims to be true and that you are just experimenting with techniques for creating long internet threads by constantly repeating the same unsubstantiated claims without the production of any evidence.

I do not know that my suspicion is correct and it is conceivable that you believe your claims but choose not to share the reason for your beliefs, but it is hard to come up with plausible reasons for this. Perhaps you are not comfortable with your ability to defend the evidence, perhaps you aren't comfortable with the quality of evidence that has lead you to your beliefs.

Frankly, I have gone as far on trying to figure out the answer to this as I can without your help. Perhaps you could offer some suggestions on how we might judge the sincerity of somebody such as yourself that professes true belief in an unlikely proposition without offering any evidence. Perhaps you might make a private pact to at some point in the future return to this thread and describe the truth behind your posts.

Right now, given that you are just repeating the same claims, without providing any analytical or evidential support for them my best guess is that you don't believe your claims and have some other intent behind your posts.

I think there is some contrast between your posts and tempesta29's. Tempesta29 has offered analysis and evidence to support his views. It is true that most of us in this thread disagree with his analysis and do not find the evidence that he has proffered to be supportive of this claims but he at least seems to be acting like somebody who believes what he claims. I don't think you are.
 
tempesta29 said:
We can't estimate the magnitude of the discrepancy with any degree of certainty because we don't know what happened to the core structure. All we have been told is that the core was so badly weakened that it propagated collapse.
Click to expand...

So you claim there must be a measurable decrease in resistance, but you have no idea of the magnitude of that decrease.

tempesta29 said:
In essence, this question, "how do you know it would be measurable," is both a cop out and an attempt to have it both ways. The damage was so great, so crippling that it brought these massive, over-engineered buildings to piles of rubble, but the damage was not so great that it would produce a measurable discrepancy in resistance compared to undamaged structure.
Click to expand...

Firstly, you're fantasising when you say the buildings were over-engineered. Secondly, the initiation zone was at the top of the crash zone, so it had suffered more damage - due to the fire - than the lower part of the crash zone; we know this because the collapse initiated where it did. So we know that the lower part of the damaged section was not sufficiently damaged to initiate collapse.

tempesta29 said:
Keep hiding behind that if you like.
Click to expand...

I'm not hiding. I've shown you calculations. You're the one running away from offering anything quantitaive.

tempesta29 said:
Nonsense. The measurements indicate there is no discrepancy in resistance.
Click to expand...

And here's the other side of your argument from ignorance. Every measurement has error bars, and it's fundamental science that a measurement can't detect differences smaller than its error bars. What is the error on the measurement of acceleration? Answer: You don't have a clue.

So you don't know how big a change would have to be to be measured, and you don't know how big the change should have been, but you continue to pretend that you know that one number you don't know is bigger than another number that you don't know.

At the moment, the numbers are:
Change in acceleration = roughly 1%.
Detection limit = hard to say, but single point error bars are close to 100%.
(And, yes, I mean 100%. Some of those points show the acceleration going negative. Work it out for yourself from the dataset, if you know how to.)

Unless you can come up with better numbers than these - showing your working, like you've now been forced to admit I did - then you lose. Any expected change in acceleration is two orders of magnitude below the detection limit.

Dave
 
tempesta29 said:
But you aren't increasing mass necessarily. In fact, mass, in this instance is probably decreasing.
Click to expand...

That's certainly incorrect if you include the upper block and the floors directly below it. Even though a certain percentage of mass is being ejected, the total mass which is falling increases as new floors are crushed.
That happened very quickly, even within the first couple of seconds.

Unless you are attempting to argue that the entire mass of the crushed floors is somehow being ejected, then you'd have to show evidence to support that claim..
 
Chodorov said:
Well thats good. You are thinking. But the thinking stopped when you went with the childish baby-talk afterward. Now what do you think that metal was? You don't know do you? Well thats good. You are not pretending to know something you don't. So how do you suppose you would determine what metal that was? Or how do you suppose you would eliminate a metal that it definitely wasn't?

Which metals are relevant to the opposing views of the problem? I happen to know what the metal is. But supposing you had a transformation, and really did in fact want to look at the evidence ...... how do you think you would find out what metal that was?

By the way I mention here only two opposing hypotheses for brevity. But no scientific process is particularly healthy unless you are developing and ranking three or more hypotheses in parallel.

The scientific method involves designing experiments which compare and develop different hypotheses in parallel. So supposing you were developing both the arabs-alone fairy-tale, and the shadow-government hypothesis? How would you use that molten metal FACT (yes children there really is such a thing) to either lift up one of these hypotheses, pull the other one lower, or both at the same time?
Click to expand...

LOL! So obviously you have no clue what that molten material was either. You ASSUME, since you provide no other evidence than the video, that it is iron/steel. From there you conclude and eliminate all other arguments, evidence and testimony. You can blather on all you like about scientific method but until you actually show what tests you did on that molten substance and those test are independently repeated then all you are doing is wasting words.

You only have one hypothesis with no supporting replicable scientific evidence. You can't even live up to your own 'scientific' banter. Like all other toothers you debunk yourself the more you type.
 
The simulation proves that the molten metal dripping from the building is not melted plane. Since the plane was blasted into little pieces of gear, too small to pool. We need convergent evidence. We don't have the temperatures for the metal to melt. But even if we did we couldn't get that plane metal to pool.

But you always want three-way convergence or better. So how do we make sure the dripping metal, that everyone has seen ..... How do we know that this is not aluminium?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom