is this enough

polishpaddy

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761

I just read this awhile ago. Is this enough evidence to suggest explosives were used or not?
Anyone?

meglome

polishpaddy wrote: »

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761

I just read this awhile ago. Is this enough evidence to suggest explosives were used or not?
Anyone?

Termite isn't an explosive.

Huge buildings full of all sorts of materials.

And I see lot's of edited quotes below this story, which on CT sites usually mean the context has been changed in some way.

polishpaddy

Didn't spot that fair play. Ah so it's for cutting metal just seen it now.If they found this stuff in the dust,which they obviously have. Actual physical evidence for a change.. I don't think you would find this in any building like your saying. What use would it be ?

meglome

polishpaddy wrote: »

Didn't spot that fair play. Ah so it's for cutting metal just seen it now.If they found this stuff in the dust,which they obviously have. Actual physical evidence for a change.. I don't think you would find this in any building like your saying. What use would it be ?

Look I'm no expert but I have seen how termite works and I've yet to see anyone showing it being used in practice for taking down a huge building. If it's so possible to do then show us it working on some test steel even. Huge buildings destroyed by incredible forces who knows what they might find in the wreckage.

Red Sleeping Beauty

I don't know if there'll ever be enough evidence .

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

Look I'm no expert but I have seen how termite works and I've yet to see anyone showing it being used in practice for taking down a huge building. If it's so possible to do then show us it working on some test steel even. Huge buildings destroyed by incredible forces who knows what they might find in the wreckage.

It's an amazing coincidence that one of the main points viz-a-vis the collapse of the towers from 2 airplane strikes was that the massive still core should have remained intact, and that subsequently evidence of thermite - a steel cutting material was found.

Amazing coincidence.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

It's an amazing coincidence that one of the main points viz-a-vis the collapse of the towers from 2 airplane strikes was that the massive still core should have remained intact, and that subsequently evidence of thermite - a steel cutting material was found.

Amazing coincidence.

The central steel columns were supposed to damaged. But let's leave that aside and take one thing at a time here. Show me the actual experiment which proved how thermite can be used to take down a building in this way. If it's so possible for thermite to have done this then it should be easy to repeat the process. Given the number of claims of thermite usage you'd think this would be the first step, right?

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

The central steel columns were supposed to damaged. But let's leave that aside and take one thing at a time here. Show me the actual experiment which proved how thermite can be used to take down a building in this way. If it's so possible for thermite to have done this then it should be easy to repeat the process. Given the number of claims of thermite usage you'd think this would be the first step, right?

Nobody has ever done an experiment to take down a building with thermite - to my knowledge anyway. I haven't even googled. The fact that there were no attempts to experiment with thermite and building demolitions means nothing however, since conventional explosives work just fine for building demolition. However, it could quite easily have melted through steel support columns.

wiki wrote:

Thermite reactions have many uses. Thermite is not an explosive but instead operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures. Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal or weld metal components together by melting a very thin film where the components meet.

Thermite may be used for repair by the welding in-place of thick steel sections such as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location. It can also be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment. However, defects such as slag inclusions and holes are often present in such welded junctions and great care is needed to operate the process successfully.

Also of note:

wiki wrote:

Small streams of molten iron released in the reaction can travel considerable distances and may melt through metal containers, igniting their contents

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

Nobody has ever done an experiment to take down a building with thermite - to my knowledge anyway. I haven't even googled. The fact that there were no attempts to experiment with thermite and building demolitions means nothing however, since conventional explosives work just fine for building demolition. However, it could quite easily have melted through steel support columns.

See I look at it this way. If the 'truth' movement want people like me to believe the buildings were taken down with thermite then the first step would be for them to show it could be done. I think it's very unlikely given the nature of thermite. Them saying it won't cut it so step one should be to prove it could happen. I have to ask after seven years why haven't they done this?

Conventional explosives would need to have cables running all over the building which in full building is near enough impossible.

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

See I look at it this way. If the 'truth' movement want people like me to believe the buildings were taken down with thermite then the first step would be for them to show it could be done. I think it's very unlikely given the nature of thermite. Them saying it won't cut it so step one should be to prove it could happen. I have to ask after seven years why haven't they done this?

But I've just shown you that it's used to cut railway tracks. Believe me, if I had some thermite or thermate and a huge steel beam, I'd try to capture the experiment on my mobile phone or something. I mean, are you saying that thermite or thermate cannot melt through steel? Are you saying that it could not have cut through the steel beams of the towers?

meglome wrote:

Conventional explosives would need to have cables running all over the building which in full building is near enough impossible.

Yes, but my point is that nobody has ever (to my knowledge) carried out an experiment to demolish a building using thermite, because conventional explosives used in building demolition work fine. There's simply no need to use thermite - unless you want metal melted quiety.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

It's an amazing coincidence that one of the main points viz-a-vis the collapse of the towers from 2 airplane strikes was that the massive still core should have remained intact, and that subsequently evidence of thermite - a steel cutting material was found.

Amazing coincidence.

Firstly the actual "body" that published this piece is a reputable scientific journal, it's a "you pay, we publish" it's a mockery of the concept of peer review.

2ndly you need to ignore the fact there are other plausible explanations for the samples. Not least of which is that at least one of the samples was taken from the loft of a truther, who's partner happened to a sculptor who specialised in metal work. Not to mention that these iron fragments could be caused by cutting tools or torches used by clean up crews, in the aftermath.

In short the chain of the evidence used to support this nonsense is sketchy at best.

Furthermore thermite is never used in buidling demolition. You stick a lump of thermite to a a piece of metal and it falls off, it burns vertically, not horizontally. In order to utilize thermite to cut steel beams, it would involve using a unique demolition model, unknown to any major civilian demolition expert. It would require cutting the internal core columns, a job that would require access to the columns, a major construction job, that managed to be carried out in complete secret.

Also the thermite would have had utilised timed or remote charges to magnesium type fuses, that are capable of being let off at the same instance. Oh and that they would have had to survive the crash, and subsequent, fires.

And finally and most obviously, the majority of the support of the buildings structure came from the external supports.

So aside from those plethora of reasons, and such other jems (Steven Jones the papers main author's work has be criticised by civil engineering department of the university he was made retire from, oh and his only published paper before hand was a treatise on whether Jesus visited the Incas)*



*all of the above (all 8 paragraphs) has been covered at length on this forum already and is freely available using the search function.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

But I've just shown you that it's used to cut railway tracks. Believe me, if I had some thermite or thermate and a huge steel beam, I'd try to capture the experiment on my mobile phone or something. I mean, are you saying that thermite or thermate cannot melt through steel? Are you saying that it could not have cut through the steel beams of the towers?

No but like you said You can lay thermite on a railway track, because it burns vertically. Slap a chunk of thermite on the side of a horizontal steel beam and it will just fall off.

This point has been made several times over the years Kernel. You keep avoiding it.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Firstly the actual "body" that published this piece is a reputable scientific journal, it's a "you pay, we publish" it's a mockery of the concept of peer review.

As I've already pointed out here, peer-review is far from infallible. When you say it's a reputable scientific journal then surely you are praising the source?

Diogenes wrote: »

2ndly you need to ignore the fact there are other plausible explanations for the samples. Not least of which is that at least one of the samples was taken from the loft of a truther, who's partner happened to a sculptor who specialised in metal work. Not to mention that these iron fragments could be caused by cutting tools or torches used by clean up crews, in the aftermath.

Now now Diogenes, forgive me for saying, that's a bit of a far out conspiracy theory there. Do you have any evidence to enforce this claim? Do cutting torches cause the same chemical residue on the steel? It would seem unlikely that torches could be confused for thermite or thermate.

Diogenes wrote: »

Furthermore thermite is never used in buidling demolition. You stick a lump of thermite to a a piece of metal and it falls off, it burns vertically, not horizontally. In order to utilize thermite to cut steel beams, it would involve using a unique demolition model, unknown to any major civilian demolition expert. It would require cutting the internal core columns, a job that would require access to the columns, a major construction job, that managed to be carried out in complete secret.

Yes, there's a problem with using the thermite to cut horizontally, I'll have to look into that one for you. I don't see a problem with getting access to the steel core, there was access through elevator shafts as far as I'm aware. It wouldn't be a major construction job and could have easily been done.

Diogenes wrote: »

Also the thermite would have had utilised timed or remote charges to magnesium type fuses, that are capable of being let off at the same instance. Oh and that they would have had to survive the crash, and subsequent, fires.

Magnesium fuses could be used, yes, or anything that creates a high enough temperature to start the reaction. They would also easily have survived the crash, since they would have been in the core of the building, and may not have needed to have been on all floors. If I cut the support beams for the bottom 25% of the tower, I'm sure the rest would collapse quite fast - almost freefall in fact.

Diogenes wrote: »

And finally and most obviously, the majority of the support of the buildings structure came from the external supports.

Link?

Diogenes wrote: »

So aside from those plethora of reasons, and such other jems (Steven Jones the papers main author's work has be criticised by civil engineering department of the university he was made retire from, oh and his only published paper before hand was a treatise on whether Jesus visited the Incas)*

Fascinating. Did he find that Jesus did in fact visit the Incas?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

As I've already pointed out here, peer-review is far from infallible. When you say it's a reputable scientific journal then surely you are praising the source?

So, not infallible means always wrong?

Kernel wrote: »

Now now Diogenes, forgive me for saying, that's a bit of a far out conspiracy theory there. Do you have any evidence to enforce this claim? Do cutting torches cause the same chemical residue on the steel? It would seem unlikely that torches could be confused for thermite or thermate.

Funny how you don't support your claims but still ask for evidence.

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, there's a problem with using the thermite to cut horizontally, I'll have to look into that one for you. I don't see a problem with getting access to the steel core, there was access through elevator shafts as far as I'm aware. It wouldn't be a major construction job and could have easily been done.

And how exactly would they do that without anyone noticing? Is there evidence of thermite being use on the supports accessible through the elevator shafts?

Kernel wrote: »

Magnesium fuses could be used, yes, or anything that creates a high enough temperature to start the reaction. They would also easily have survived the crash, since they would have been in the core of the building, and may not have needed to have been on all floors. If I cut the support beams for the bottom 25% of the tower, I'm sure the rest would collapse quite fast - almost freefall in fact.

So why did they have to use thermite and fly a plane into it as well?

Kernel wrote: »

Fascinating. Did he find that Jesus did in fact visit the Incas?

Does it seem likely he did? Is it more likely to you because it's against the consensus?

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

As I've already pointed out here, peer-review is far from infallible. When you say it's a reputable scientific journal then surely you are praising the source?

Sorry typo there should be a "not" inbetween the word "it's" and "a", it should read "not a reputable scientific journal".

I''ll give you a clue, a reputable scientific journal doesn't require you to pay them to publish your article. The Journal, Jones paper appears in does. I also believe Jones was entitled to pick the reviewers. Something again isn't acceptable in a proper journal. Put simply it's like renting the ground, and paying for the referee, and wondering why the other side don't think it's a fair match.

Now now Diogenes, forgive me for saying, that's a bit of a far out conspiracy theory there. Do you have any evidence to enforce this claim? Do cutting torches cause the same chemical residue on the steel? It would seem unlikely that torches could be confused for thermite or thermate.

It's been discussed at length already on this forum.

Yes, there's a problem with using the thermite to cut horizontally, I'll have to look into that one for you

Please do. I wait with baited breath.

. I don't see a problem with getting access to the steel core, there was access through elevator shafts as far as I'm aware. It wouldn't be a major construction job and could have easily been done.

You'll be able to provide building schematics to support this claim?

Magnesium fuses could be used, yes, or anything that creates a high enough temperature to start the reaction.

And the system to remote detonate them?

They would also easily have survived the crash, since they would have been in the core of the building, and may not have needed to have been on all floors. If I cut the support beams for the bottom 25% of the tower, I'm sure the rest would collapse quite fast - almost freefall in fact.

Except the facts that the build collapse started at the point of impact, did you miss that fact?

Link?

Are you sodding new to this?

The egg-crate construction made a redundant structure (i.e., if one or two columns were lost, the loads would shift into adjacent columns and the building would remain standing). Prior to the World Trade Center most tall buildings contained huge columns on 5 m centers and contained massive amounts of masonry carrying some of the structural load. The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#ref1

Fascinating. Did he find that Jesus did in fact visit the Incas?

Read for Yourself Dr Steven Jones Brigham Young University.

This is the guy who's supposedly the physicist leader of the truth movement.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

So, not infallible means always wrong?

No, of course not. Check out www.dictionary.com to find the meaning of words, it's great. They have a word of the day email feature which I like.

King Mob wrote: »

Funny how you don't support your claims but still ask for evidence.

Which claims have I not supported?

King Mob wrote: »

And how exactly would they do that without anyone noticing? Is there evidence of thermite being use on the supports accessible through the elevator shafts?

I'm not sure if there is any evidence. The point is, it would not have been difficult to do. It's not like going to the moon to lay thermite, you see?

King Mob wrote: »

So why did they have to use thermite and fly a plane into it as well?

To create a spectacular display. To stir up public support for a war against unknown enemies. Plus, it would have looked odd if the twin towers just collapsed one day.

King Mob wrote: »

Does it seem likely he did? Is it more likely to you because it's against the consensus?

Ah, you're suggesting that I'm more likely to believe something if it's against the consensus. Clever that.

diogenes wrote:

I''ll give you a clue, a reputable scientific journal doesn't require you to pay them to publish your article. The Journal, Jones paper appears in does. I also believe Jones was entitled to pick the reviewers. Something again isn't acceptable in a proper journal.

Fair enough, it sounds like a dodgy journal. I'll need some proof of those claims before I dismiss the journal though.

diogenes wrote:

It's been discussed at length already on this forum.

Where? I don't remember that...

diogenes wrote:

You'll be able to provide building schematics to support this claim?

Will this do you? http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

diogenes wrote:

And the system to remote detonate them?

Well, remote detonators have been around for a long time. What's the issue with detonators?

diogenes wrote:

Except the facts that the build collapse started at the point of impact, did you miss that fact?

If it's fact then you can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt? Link?

diogenes wrote:

Are you sodding new to this?

Diogenes, you know I'm not new to this. No need to get aggressive. Thanks for the link, but I cant see any proof there that your claim of the external supports providing most support in the structure?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

No, of course not. Check out www.dictionary.com to find the meaning of words, it's great. They have a word of the day email feature which I like.

So then you agree the peer review works most of the time?

So why would "peer review isn't infallible" be a relevant argument?

Kernel wrote: »

Which claims have I not supported?

Kernel wrote: »

that subsequently evidence of thermite - a steel cutting material was found.

That one?

Kernel wrote: »

I'm not sure if there is any evidence. The point is, it would not have been difficult to do. It's not like going to the moon to lay thermite, you see?

But it would be a falsifiable statement wouldn't it? Those are kinda important to scientific method.

Kernel wrote: »

To create a spectacular display. To stir up public support for a war against unknown enemies. Plus, it would have looked odd if the twin towers just collapsed one day.

Or they could just fly a plane into the building?

Kernel wrote: »

Ah, you're suggesting that I'm more likely to believe something if it's against the consensus. Clever that.

Yes that is what I'm suggesting.

Kernel wrote: »

Fair enough, it sounds like a dodgy journal. I'll need some proof of those claims before I dismiss the journal though.

So you'd dismiss journals that go against you beliefs but the ones that do agree with you need proof before you'd dismiss them?

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

So then you agree the peer review works most of the time?

Yes, I would.

King Mob wrote: »

So why would "peer review isn't infallible" be a relevant argument?

Who is arguing? I simply made a point that peer-reviewed articles are not infallible.

King Mob wrote: »

That one?

See post #1 of this thread.

King Mob wrote: »

Or they could just fly a plane into the building?

Yes, they did that, but see a plane couldn't bring down the twin towers and WTC7. I don't believe the pancake theory as being caused by burning jet fuel. In fact I find that ridiculous.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes that is what I'm suggesting.

Perhaps you should attack the post and not the poster.

King Mob wrote: »

So you'd dismiss journals that go against you beliefs but the ones that do agree with you need proof before you'd dismiss them?

No, of course not. How do you arrive at that assumption?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, I would.

Who is arguing? I simply made a point that peer-reviewed articles are not infallible.

Then you'd also agree that it is the best way to determine the scientific value and veracity of papers and thus any scientific claim?

Kernel wrote: »

See post #1 of this thread.

And could there be other explanations?
For instance that thermite could have been form the construction or the sample could have been contaminated during the rescue and clean up operation. which has been brought up by Diogenes.

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, they did that, but see a plane couldn't bring down the twin towers and WTC7. I don't believe the pancake theory as being caused by burning jet fuel. In fact I find that ridiculous.

And how do you know a plane couldn't bring down the towers?
What exactly about the pancake theory as being caused by burning jet fuel is ridiculous?
Or is it just a pure argument from incredulity?

Kernel wrote: »

Perhaps you should attack the post and not the poster.

Good advice.

Kernel wrote: »

No, of course not. Check out www.dictionary.com to find the meaning of words, it's great. They have a word of the day email feature which I like.

Kernel wrote: »

No, of course not. How do you arrive at that assumption?

NIST report? Do you reject it because you can identify relevant scientific errors or because it is government sponsored?

Here the thing, the argument you're presenting isn't based solely on observable evidence. You have a preconceived notion about the government and you're trying to fit any evidence you get into this belief. The evidence you present is shaky at best and you rely on arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, arguments from authority and on a lot of assumed premises.
This is true for the entire 911 conspiracy theory.

Mahatma coat

Great link there to the plans of the WTC


Just to jump in for a sec, although Thermite does not cut Horizontaly, there are photos of Acute Diagonal cuts on some of the beams.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Just to jump in for a sec, although Thermite does not cut Horizontaly, there are photos of Acute Diagonal cuts on some of the beams.

Since we can't be sure when the picture was taken exactly, but after the clean-up had started they are likely to be acetylene torch cuts. But when the experiment is run that shows those cuts could have been made with thermite I'll rethink my view.

Nick_oliveri

meglome wrote: »

Since we can't be sure when the picture was taken exactly, but after the clean-up had started they are likely to be acetylene torch cuts. But when the experiment is run that shows those cuts could have been made with thermite I'll rethink my view.

Fair play meglome.

I think at this stage, 8 years after, that this dust could have been contaminated by other sources... Its too little too late. Way too late.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Just to jump in for a sec, although Thermite does not cut Horizontaly, there are photos of Acute Diagonal cuts on some of the beams.

Any such photo which can be reliably dated is dated after the rescue operations began.

One of hte first thing the rescue operations did was cut some beams out of the way.

One guess what type of cut they left....

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

The fact that there were no attempts to experiment with thermite and building demolitions means nothing however, since conventional explosives work just fine for building demolition.

That logic works if you can establish that thermite would be readily interchangeable for conventional explosives for this type of work.

That would require showing how thermite could not only perform the necessary cuts, but could also be controlled to perform synchronised cuts over numerous columns.

One reason that explosives are so successfu is their explosive nature. In terms of elapsed time, they go from inert, to having completed their cutting job in close-to-zero time. If you trigger multiple explosives to begin at the same time, the speed at which they operate means that their effects all occur more-or-less sumultaneously.

Thermite, on the other hand, acts far more slowly. It doesn't cut through a beam in alost-zero time...which is why its virtually impossible to use it to make horizontal cuts, or even diagonal cuts. Even if you could do that, you'd have the problem that as the melting continued, the support for the building would gradually be reduced at a rate slow enough that gravity would also come into play. Torque or shear would come seriously into effect, which would make it virtually impossible to control the collapse.

This is an important point. Explosives act fast enough that they can offer a degree of control. Even then, there are practical limits, which is why none of the tallest buildings which have been (openly) demolished have been brought down with explosives...they were too high to control the collapse safely.

Also...from the blog the OP linked to:

When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C

Proponents of the thermite argument have argued for years that conventional fire could not get hot enough. Stories of molten steel, pictures of molten something, the entire argument about the frame weakening through fire....it was all unacceptable because it required temperatures too high to have occurred in a regular fire.

Now a blog comes along offering temperatures below those of the office fire....and its hailed as good evidence, if not proof.

Does this mean that those supporting this evidence no longer support the argument that the conventional fires could not have burned hot enough to cause the effects? If so, then thermite is no longer needed. If not, then this "evidence" cannot support your position.

bonkey

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I think at this stage, 8 years after, that this dust could have been contaminated by other sources... Its too little too late. Way too late.

To be honest, I don't think its a question as to whether or not the sample was contaminated or not.

Until we can show that there is a credible reason to believe that thermite could have been used, then the discovery of what might be traces of thermite is irrelevant.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

To create a spectacular display. To stir up public support for a war against unknown enemies. Plus, it would have looked odd if the twin towers just collapsed one day.

You mean collapsed after jetliners filled with fuel and flying at high speed crashed into them, did you miss that bit? Jesus.

Fair enough, it sounds like a dodgy journal. I'll need some proof of those claims before I dismiss the journal though.

here

betham wrote:

PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below:

Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is $600.

Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is $800.

Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini-Review article is $600.

Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is $900.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm

And

REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees. Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution.
All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.


http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm

It's a vanity publisher.

Where? I don't remember that...

On the megamerge thread.

Will this do you? http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Thats a link to entire building schematics, remember you said that the elevators had access to the core. SHOW ME THAT SPECIFIC BIT.

Well, remote detonators have been around for a long time. What's the issue with detonators?

See bonkey's point below.

If it's fact then you can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt? Link?

Gritted teeth. You're really reaching here Kernel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4
WTC 1 Collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0
WTC 2 Collapse

BOTH START AT THE IMPACT ZONE.

Diogenes, you know I'm not new to this. No need to get aggressive. Thanks for the link, but I cant see any proof there that your claim of the external supports providing most support in the structure?

Once more wrote:

The egg-crate construction made a redundant structure (i.e., if one or two columns were lost, the loads would shift into adjacent columns and the building would remain standing). Prior to the World Trade Center most tall buildings contained huge columns on 5 m centers and contained massive amounts of masonry carrying some of the structural load. The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.

Do you need to told what the word perimeter means now? :rolleyes:

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Then you'd also agree that it is the best way to determine the scientific value and veracity of papers and thus any scientific claim?

Yes. But if you reread my post, you'll see that I simply made the statement that peer-review articles are not infallible, as I've recently proven.

King Mob wrote: »

And could there be other explanations?
For instance that thermite could have been form the construction or the sample could have been contaminated during the rescue and clean up operation. which has been brought up by Diogenes.

There could be other explanations. But using Occums Razor, I'd say that thermite being present on support beams under the circumstances of 911 (the structure of the buildings/beams, the burning jet fuel, the pancake theory, the near free-fall rate of collapse into the path of most resistance) then it is more likely that the thermite would have been used to cut the steel beams. Construction does not involve the use of thermite that I am aware of, and contamination in such a specific manner is also very unlikely.

King Mob wrote: »

And how do you know a plane couldn't bring down the towers?
What exactly about the pancake theory as being caused by burning jet fuel is ridiculous?
Or is it just a pure argument from incredulity?

No, I've watched many documentaries, read many articles on the structure of the twin towers. The pancake theory is just a theory may I remind you, and although it's the most plausible of the official stories (I use that word deliberately) I simply don't believe that a structure that was constructed in the manner that the twin towers were could have steel beams weakened and buckled by 2 plane strikes and burning jet fuel - particularly when we see from the explosions that most of the fuel burned outside the towers on impact. Throw in witness testimony from primary witnesses of explosions in the basement just before the plane strikes, convenient training exercises of the USAF ordered by Rumsfeld... and the massive insurance policy taken out by the owner of the buildings... Nah, you're stretching credulity by believing the NIST story that there was no government involvement.

King Mob wrote: »

Good advice.

That wasn't me attacking you, you asked what I meant by the word infallible, I told you were to look for it's meaning.

King Mob wrote: »

NIST report? Do you reject it because you can identify relevant scientific errors or because it is government sponsored?

Both. And also because the evidence from 911 was shipped off to China to be melted down pronto. 911 was an inside job, that's my conclusion, from the available evidence and circumstances surrounding the event, and subsequent related events. PNAC - there's one government sponsored document I believe.

King Mob wrote: »

Here the thing, the argument you're presenting isn't based solely on observable evidence. You have a preconceived notion about the government and you're trying to fit any evidence you get into this belief.

My argument is not based solely on observable evidence. Correct. That's because I'm not a robot, and I can use circumstantial evidence and witness testimony to form my judgement. It's how the justice system works in this country, after all. There is also the probability that in a well planned operation by the US government, utilising the most advanced and well funded intelligence agencies in the world, along with the most complex systems of compartmentalisation and modus opperandi, there is very little observable evidence likely to be presented.

King Mob wrote: »

The evidence you present is shaky at best and you rely on arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, arguments from authority and on a lot of assumed premises.
This is true for the entire 911 conspiracy theory.

Well, I disagree. But it's easy to say such things in order to attempt to discredit the position of another. Here, I'll try it: The evidence you present is shaky at best and you rely on arguments which have been shown to be unlikely explanations with regard to the presence of thermite, arguments from ignorance and an entrenched position, arguments from authority and on a lot of assumed premises.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

That logic works if you can establish that thermite would be readily interchangeable for conventional explosives for this type of work.

That would require showing how thermite could not only perform the necessary cuts, but could also be controlled to perform synchronised cuts over numerous columns.

Agreed, and I have already stated this as a problem when replying to Diogenes. Something I have to look more into, but I will.

bonkey wrote: »

Thermite, on the other hand, acts far more slowly. It doesn't cut through a beam in alost-zero time...which is why its virtually impossible to use it to make horizontal cuts, or even diagonal cuts. Even if you could do that, you'd have the problem that as the melting continued, the support for the building would gradually be reduced at a rate slow enough that gravity would also come into play. Torque or shear would come seriously into effect, which would make it virtually impossible to control the collapse.

Isn't the rate of the chemical reaction measurable? If so, then with careful planning, measurements and deployment at strategic points could carry out a controllable collapse. Or would a thermite reaction be unpredictable based on amount of chemical composition? I'm assuming that the steal beams are all of the same size and composition. Assuming that thermite wasn't used in the operation, we are still left with the testimony of witnesses as to the massive explosion in the basement. The explosive 'squibs' may have been caused by pancake theory (great theory that can cover so much... only other large structures never had a pancake collapse due to a fire), or may have been caused by the use of explosives. Again, witness testimony describes the popping noises all the way down. How do you explain the collapse of the building into the path of most resistance at near free-fall velocity?

bonkey wrote: »

Proponents of the thermite argument have argued for years that conventional fire could not get hot enough. Stories of molten steel, pictures of molten something, the entire argument about the frame weakening through fire....it was all unacceptable because it required temperatures too high to have occurred in a regular fire.

Now a blog comes along offering temperatures below those of the office fire....and its hailed as good evidence, if not proof.

Does this mean that those supporting this evidence no longer support the argument that the conventional fires could not have burned hot enough to cause the effects? If so, then thermite is no longer needed. If not, then this "evidence" cannot support your position.

No, the temperature required to melt steel is a scientific fact, which nobody should dispute.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

You mean collapsed after jetliners filled with fuel and flying at high speed crashed into them, did you miss that bit? Jesus.

Did you miss the context of the conversation Diogenes? The question was asked as to why bother to crash a jetliner into the buildings at all, to which I replied. :rolleyes:

Diogenes wrote: »

It's a vanity publisher.

It's a dodgy journal, I accept that due to the evidence provided.

Diogenes wrote: »

On the megamerge thread.

Whereabouts, I can't find it?

Diogenes wrote: »

Thats a link to entire building schematics, remember you said that the elevators had access to the core. SHOW ME THAT SPECIFIC BIT.

You asked me for the schematics? How can I show you the specific bit on them? My computer skills aren't that leet. If you read the webpage they specify that the elevator shafts were located in the core.

Diogenes wrote: »

See bonkey's point below.

Bonkeys point was different I believe. You seem to think it would be a problem to use magnesium detonators, or any detonator that could generate a sufficiently high temperature?

Diogenes wrote: »

Gritted teeth. You're really reaching here Kernel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4
WTC 1 Collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0
WTC 2 Collapse

BOTH START AT THE IMPACT ZONE.

You can't tell anything of the sort from those videos. The cameras aren't even close to the towers.

Diogenes wrote: »

Do you need to told what the word perimeter means now? :rolleyes:

No thanks, I understand what the word perimeter means. The quote you rolled out says that if one of two of the support columns failed, the outer columns would support the load. Nowhere does it say that the majority of the support for the towers was from the outer/perimeter columns.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Yes. But if you reread my post, you'll see that I simply made the statement that peer-review articles are not infallible, as I've recently proven.

And it's still better than wild unquestioned speculation. And has a tendency to weed out fakers. Not perfect but works most of the time.

Kernel wrote: »

There could be other explanations. But using Occums Razor, I'd say that thermite being present on support beams under the circumstances of 911 (the structure of the buildings/beams, the burning jet fuel, the pancake theory, the near free-fall rate of collapse into the path of most resistance) then it is more likely that the thermite would have been used to cut the steel beams. Construction does not involve the use of thermite that I am aware of, and contamination in such a specific manner is also very unlikely.

Hold on now. Where are you getting thermite being present on the support beams exactly? The report link in the op use dust samples.
How do you know that thermite would lead to a near free-fall rate?
You also realise that only one sample was taken on site, after the event?
And that the other sample where obtained after the event? Weeks later in one case.
And if you want to bring Occams razor into it.....

Kernel wrote: »

No, I've watched many documentaries, read many articles on the structure of the twin towers. The pancake theory is just a theory may I remind you, and although it's the most plausible of the official stories (I use that word deliberately) I simply don't believe that a structure that was constructed in the manner that the twin towers were could have steel beams weakened and buckled by 2 plane strikes and burning jet fuel - particularly when we see from the explosions that most of the fuel burned outside the towers on impact.

So your incredulous that the crash and jet fuel could cause the collapse? Can you back this up? If you can't it's an argument from incredulity.

Kernel wrote: »

Throw in witness testimony from primary witnesses of explosions in the basement just before the plane strikes, convenient training exercises of the USAF ordered by Rumsfeld... and the massive insurance policy taken out by the owner of the buildings... Nah, you're stretching credulity by believing the NIST story that there was no government involvement.

So anecdotes with nothing to support them and is not consistent with thermite and a few red herrings for good measure? Classic CT logical fallacies.

Kernel wrote: »

That wasn't me attacking you, you asked what I meant by the word infallible, I told you were to look for it's meaning.

And no chance it was a rhetoric question?

Kernel wrote: »

Both. And also because the evidence from 911 was shipped off to China to be melted down pronto. 911 was an inside job, that's my conclusion, from the available evidence and circumstances surrounding the event, and subsequent related events. PNAC - there's one government sponsored document I believe.

Ok first, backing up that claim? second what has it to do with the NIST report exactly? Could you point out the scientific inaccuracies?

Kernel wrote: »

My argument is not based solely on observable evidence. Correct. That's because I'm not a robot, and I can use circumstantial evidence and witness testimony to form my judgement. It's how the justice system works in this country, after all.

And good scientific evidence trumps witness testimony and circumstanial evidence every time, even in courts.
You argued the peer review process isn't infallible and yet you rely on the testimony of panicking civilians unfamiliar with demolitions? Not strike you as odd?

Kernel wrote: »

There is also the probability that in a well planned operation by the US government, utilising the most advanced and well funded intelligence agencies in the world, along with the most complex systems of compartmentalisation and modus opperandi, there is very little observable evidence likely to be presented.

And yet they ****ed up Iraq.....oh and let it slip that they where torturing people....

Kernel wrote: »

Well, I disagree. But it's easy to say such things in order to attempt to discredit the position of another. Here, I'll try it: The evidence you present is shaky at best and you rely on arguments which have been shown to be unlikely explanations with regard to the presence of thermite, arguments from ignorance and an entrenched position, arguments from authority and on a lot of assumed premises.

The differences are 1. I'm technically not holding a position just asking questions about yours. 2. I can show where you have done this (a couple of times in your last post even), can you?

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Did you miss the context of the conversation Diogenes? The question was asked as to why bother to crash a jetliner into the buildings at all, to which I replied. :rolleyes:

Nonsense Kernel. Why would explosives be needed beyond the plane crashes.

It's a dodgy journal, I accept that due to the evidence provided.

Thank you.

Whereabouts, I can't find it?



You asked me for the schematics? How can I show you the specific bit on them? My computer skills aren't that leet. If you read the webpage they specify that the elevator shafts were located in the core.

Ahem, I'm linking to these two points.

This is utterly pathetic arguing Kernel. YOU CLAIMED THE CORE COLUMNS COULD BE ACCESSED FROM THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS. When challenged on this you linked to the building schematics, when I asked you to point out the specific parts of the schematics you claim you're incapable of doing this.

YOU keep asking people to provide proof of to support their assertions, and yet

A) You can't be bothered your arse to provide proof to support your claims.

And don't seem to able to use the e search function on this forum

No I didn't ask you for the schematics. I asked you for proof to support your claim that the elevator shafts provided direct access to the buldings core columns. You made the claim the onus is on you to support it.

You have a rather tiresome double standard at play here kernel.

Bonkeys point was different I believe. You seem to think it would be a problem to use magnesium detonators, or any detonator that could generate a sufficiently high temperature?

No Bonkey and myself have the same point (ish), a magnesium strip is the most common way of igniting thermite. It's kind of similar to a gunpowder fuse, in that it isn't an instantaneous reaction, unlike the electrical charge of demolition charge. Bonkey was talking about the problem with the actual thermite reaction, I was discussing the manner of setting off the charges.

I think that point went over your head.

You can't tell anything of the sort from those videos. The cameras aren't even close to the towers.

Oh FFS, You claimed that you couldn't prove that the towers collapse started at the point of impact, ergo, a wideshot of the tower will give you a clear sign of where the collapse started.

In both towers the collapse starts at the point of impact. Unless you think the fires and billowing smoke at those floors where the collapse starts were caused by BBQs

No thanks, I understand what the word perimeter means. The quote you rolled out says that if one of two of the support columns failed, the outer columns would support the load. Nowhere does it say that the majority of the support for the towers was from the outer/perimeter columns.

No it doesn't. The link makes it quiet clear that that massive perimeter columns provide the major supports.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Nonsense Kernel. Why would explosives be needed beyond the plane crashes.

Speaking with someone who cannot admit when they make a mistake is rather trying of my patience. King Mob asked why use thermite and then fly a plane into the building. I pointed out that the plane would have to be done for show/effect. You took this up totally arseways and are now off on another tangent asking why explosives would be needed beyond the plane crashes. Good grief man. Read the thread!

Diogenes wrote:

This is utterly pathetic arguing Kernel. YOU CLAIMED THE CORE COLUMNS COULD BE ACCESSED FROM THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS. When challenged on this you linked to the building schematics, when I asked you to point out the specific parts of the schematics you claim you're incapable of doing this.

How do you suggest I take the part from the schematics showing the position of the elevator shaft in the core? Can't you see this for yourself? The website itself outlines the fact that the elevator shafts are located in the core. Why do you get so worked up Diogenes, I mean, there's no point in stooping to a level of calling my 'arguing' pathetic, when it's obvious to everyone that I'm standing by my assertations and am willing to indicate when I'm wrong.

Diogenes wrote:

YOU keep asking people to provide proof of to support their assertions, and yet

A) You can't be bothered your arse to provide proof to support your claims.

And don't seem to able to use the e search function on this forum

All I wanted was for you to show me where in the megamerge that torch cutting could be compared to thermite. Your link doesn't show that, because Diogenes, there is no such posting in the thread. Once again you have been shown to have made an unsubstantiated claim as being fact.

Diogenes wrote:

No I didn't ask you for the schematics. I asked you for proof to support your claim that the elevator shafts provided direct access to the buldings core columns. You made the claim the onus is on you to support it.

Original Request by Diogenes wrote:

You'll be able to provide building schematics to support this claim?

You asked for schematics, I gave you schematics, and a website that explicity outlines that the elevator shafts were located in the core. :rolleyes:

Diogenes wrote:

No Bonkey and myself have the same point (ish), a magnesium strip is the most common way of igniting thermite. It's kind of similar to a gunpowder fuse, in that it isn't an instantaneous reaction, unlike the electrical charge of demolition charge. Bonkey was talking about the problem with the actual thermite reaction, I was discussing the manner of setting off the charges.

I think that point went over your head.

You don't have the same point as Bonkey, although you are attempting to latch onto Bonkey's properly made point with regard to the timing of the thermite cutting the steel. You asked if a system to remote detonate them would be possible. Of course it would. You don't actually need to have some fella go up to each magnesium strip and light them you know. And again you are acting in a condescending manner by suggesting the point went over my head.

Diogenes wrote:

Oh FFS, You claimed that you couldn't prove that the towers collapse started at the point of impact, ergo, a wideshot of the tower will give you a clear sign of where the collapse started.

In both towers the collapse starts at the point of impact. Unless you think the fires and billowing smoke at those floors where the collapse starts were caused by BBQs

Calm down lad, calm down. You made an explicit statement that it was 'fact' that the collapse started at the point of impact. According to the charter I am entitled to ask for proof for this claim, unless it is an opinion. As proof you've given two youtube videos (which I find ironic and amusing, given your stance on youtube videos as proof) taken from miles away from the buildings which don't even show where the collapse started!

Diogenes wrote:

No it doesn't. The link makes it quiet clear that that massive perimeter columns provide the major supports.

The link you have given does not make that clear at all. See my previous post, the link states that if one or two support beams give way, then the outer beams can act as load bearers. One or two support beams Diogenes.

God, I swore I'd never get into one of these time-wasting roundabout conversations with you again...

the_dark_side

Just incase there is anyone out there on this forum that has'nt seen this footage... This is what convinced me that 9/11 was staged, and no amount of arguement or persuasion will EVER convince me otherwise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&feature=PlayList&p=3D30132C75A35683&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Speaking with someone who cannot admit when they make a mistake is rather trying of my patience. King Mob asked why use thermite and then fly a plane into the building. I pointed out that the plane would have to be done for show/effect. You took this up totally arseways and are now off on another tangent asking why explosives would be needed beyond the plane crashes. Good grief man. Read the thread!

You really think a fully laden jet plane is nothing more than a glorified firecracker?

How do you suggest I take the part from the schematics showing the position of the elevator shaft in the core? Can't you see this for yourself?

Yes thats exactly what I expect you to do. The building schematics are complicated documents. It's your claim. Asking me to trawl through the building schematics to prove/disapprove your claim is just lazy on your part.

It's your claim. You highlight the specific parts of the schematics that show the core is linked to the elevator shafts.

The website itself outlines the fact that the elevator shafts are located in the core. Why do you get so worked up Diogenes, I mean, there's no point in stooping to a level of calling my 'arguing' pathetic, when it's obvious to everyone that I'm standing by my assertations and am willing to indicate when I'm wrong.

In this instance you've asking me to prove you are right or wrong.

All I wanted was for you to show me where in the megamerge that torch cutting could be compared to thermite. Your link doesn't show that, because Diogenes, there is no such posting in the thread. Once again you have been shown to have made an unsubstantiated claim as being fact.

Yes it does. It explains two different explanations for the iron spheroids, and two different explanations for their existence in the WTC rubble.

Once again you're just being obtuse, or didn't read the link.

You asked for schematics, I gave you schematics, and a website that explicity outlines that the elevator shafts were located in the core. :rolleyes:

No you've pointed out a huge website, it's a bit like someone asking you to prove a specific point in Darwinism, and then being waved at the origin of the species. Or making a exact claim about a minor point of tort law and being waived at the four courts.

You for example asked for proof about my claims about Jones publisher, I didn't link to the main website of the publisher I highlighted the specific parts you asked for.

You don't seem able to provide the same courtesy.

You don't have the same point as Bonkey, although you are attempting to latch onto Bonkey's properly made point with regard to the timing of the thermite cutting the steel. You asked if a system to remote detonate them would be possible. Of course it would. You don't actually need to have some fella go up to each magnesium strip and light them you know. And again you are acting in a condescending manner by suggesting the point went over my head.

Then how do you propose you do it? What ignition method to do propose to set of the reaction. Magnesium can't be set off by an electrical charge. It ignites at a temperature of 600c. This is itself difficult.

Perhaps you could explain how it could be done. To remote detonate dozens magnesium charges?

Calm down lad, calm down. You made an explicit statement that it was 'fact' that the collapse started at the point of impact. According to the charter I am entitled to ask for proof for this claim, unless it is an opinion. As proof you've given two youtube videos (which I find ironic and amusing, given your stance on youtube videos as proof) taken from miles away from the buildings which don't even show where the collapse started!

I'm sorry what? Did you look at the video? Where exactly do you think the collapse starts if not at point of collapse?

I've given my argument, wheres your argument to dispute this.

The link you have given does not make that clear at all. See my previous post, the link states that if one or two support beams give way, then the outer beams can act as load bearers. One or two support beams Diogenes.

God, I swore I'd never get into one of these time-wasting roundabout conversations with you again...

Bless.

Diogenes

the_dark_side wrote: »

Just incase there is anyone out there on this forum that has'nt seen this footage... This is what convinced me that 9/11 was staged, and no amount of arguement or persuasion will EVER convince me otherwise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&feature=PlayList&p=3D30132C75A35683&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10

Well bless glad to see you've keeping an open mind.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

And it's still better than wild unquestioned speculation. And has a tendency to weed out fakers. Not perfect but works most of the time.

Yes, but since I never said that it wasn't, then the entire line of questioning was pointless, was it not?

King Mob wrote: »

Hold on now. Where are you getting thermite being present on the support beams exactly? The report link in the op use dust samples.

My mistake.

King Mob wrote: »

How do you know that thermite would lead to a near free-fall rate?
You also realise that only one sample was taken on site, after the event?
And that the other sample where obtained after the event? Weeks later in one case.
And if you want to bring Occams razor into it.....

Thermite could assist in a near free-fall rate, as could controlled demolition through conventional explosives. Either one is more believable than the pancake theory - which has never happened before in a building fire. As for the timing delay of the samples, since access was instantly restricted, and the evidence was shipped off to China for smelting, what else could be done?

King Mob wrote: »

So your incredulous that the crash and jet fuel could cause the collapse? Can you back this up? If you can't it's an argument from incredulity.

We'll refer back to the melting point of steel again here. Temperatures could not have been that high. most of the fuel is seen igniting outside the tower etc. etc.

King Mob wrote: »

So anecdotes with nothing to support them and is not consistent with thermite and a few red herrings for good measure? Classic CT logical fallacies.

Anecdote seems to be your new word to belittle a primary witness testimony. You do realise that it's an unsuitable word, since it's usual use if for the retelling of humourous tales? As to your red herrings, another term for that would be corroborative facts. Yes, facts.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok first, backing up that claim? second what has it to do with the NIST report exactly? Could you point out the scientific inaccuracies?

Ah, I see, you put the NIST report in as bait in order to draw me out, so what, I am to debate several of you people on all points here? :rolleyes: Haven't got the time to play. Read this for all the good it will do: http://www.prleap.com/pr/92756/

King Mob wrote: »

And good scientific evidence trumps witness testimony and circumstanial evidence every time, even in courts.

Yes, but when the evidence has been whitewashed, as in this case, we must use our minds to delve a little deeper using witness testimony and corroborative evidence.

King Mob wrote: »

You argued the peer review process isn't infallible and yet you rely on the testimony of panicking civilians unfamiliar with demolitions? Not strike you as odd?

Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable also, however you discounting that testimony is illogical and unfair.

King Mob wrote: »

And yet they ****ed up Iraq.....oh and let it slip that they where torturing people....

That twisted logic is of no value to us here. By the same logic I can say, Nixon was a lier, therefore all presidents are liers.

King Mob wrote: »

The differences are 1. I'm technically not holding a position just asking questions about yours.

You guys seldom hold a position, since it's easier to lurk here and shoot holes in other peoples theories. After all, by definition a theory is unproven, right?

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

You really think a fully laden jet plane is nothing more than a glorified firecracker?

You think they are flying nukes capable of destroying structures as impressive as the twin towers?

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes thats exactly what I expect you to do. The building schematics are complicated documents. It's your claim. Asking me to trawl through the building schematics to prove/disapprove your claim is just lazy on your part.

You asked for schematics, I've given you schematics. If you think I'm going to photoshop the schematics and trace out a route to the elevator shaft, then you're just being daft I'm afraid.

Diogenes wrote: »

No you've pointed out a huge website, it's a bit like someone asking you to prove a specific point in Darwinism, and then being waved at the origin of the species. Or making a exact claim about a minor point of tort law and being waived at the four courts.

No, the analogy is incorrect. If your four courts analogy was to be applicable, then I would have waved you in the direction of the internet, rather than to a specific website page. Sensationalism, another trait of the pseudo-skeptic.

Diogenes wrote: »

You for example asked for proof about my claims about Jones publisher, I didn't link to the main website of the publisher I highlighted the specific parts you asked for.

You don't seem able to provide the same courtesy.

It's a little easier to copy and paste than to manipulate building schematics, I'm sure you'll agree.

Diogenes wrote: »

I'm sorry what? Did you look at the video? Where exactly do you think the collapse starts if not at point of collapse?

I've given my argument, wheres your argument to dispute this.

You made the claim as fact and then put up two frankly rubbish youtube clips. If you are going to state this as fact rather than opinion then post up proof.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Thermite could assist in a near free-fall rate, as could controlled demolition through conventional explosives. Either one is more believable than the pancake theory

You do understand that the Pancake collapse hypothesis isn't the NISTs final conclusion. And that's already been discussed on this forum.

- which has never happened before in a building fire.

And how many collapses occured as the result of a direct impact of an airliner intentionally crashing into the building at high speed?

As for the timing delay of the samples, since access was instantly restricted,

No there was a massive rescue operation, first. Then there was the largest FBI investigation ever.

and the evidence was shipped off to China for smelting, what else could be done?

Since that didn't happen...

We'll refer back to the melting point of steel again here. Temperatures could not have been that high. most of the fuel is seen igniting outside the tower etc. etc.

Sigh, source, etc etc....

Anecdote seems to be your new word to belittle a primary witness testimony. You do realise that it's an unsuitable word, since it's usual use if for the retelling of humourous tales? As to your red herrings, another term for that would be corroborative facts. Yes, facts.

The claim about basement explosives comes from one man William Rodgriuez. He's changed his story dozens of times.

Gordon

meglome wrote: »

Look I'm no expert but I have seen how termite works

Termite infestation now huh?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, but since I never said that it wasn't, then the entire line of questioning was pointless, was it not?

But you where the one who brought up the point. Noone claimed or believes peer review is infallible.

Kernel wrote: »

Thermite could assist in a near free-fall rate, as could controlled demolition through conventional explosives. Either one is more believable than the pancake theory - which has never happened before in a building fire.

Or as it could due to structural collapse due to fire weaked and overloaded steel. It has never happened before in a building fire because the twin towers where unique in many ways. Also they were hit by a plane.
Can you provide an example of a similar building (in both size and design) that didn't collapse in similar circumstances? (Yes it's a rhetorical question.)

Kernel wrote: »

As for the timing delay of the samples, since access was instantly restricted, and the evidence was shipped off to China for smelting, what else could be done?

Well the samples collect for this paper where collected by people from dust that had blown into their window. The one sample that was collected was taken from the site. Stuff being shipped of to China has nothing to do with the samples.

Kernel wrote: »

We'll refer back to the melting point of steel again here. Temperatures could not have been that high. most of the fuel is seen igniting outside the tower etc. etc.

And I'm sure it's been explained to you ad nasuem, no one claims the steel melted, the claim is the fire cause the steel to weaken. At the tempurature jet fuel burns at it loses something like 50% of it strength.

Kernel wrote: »

Anecdote seems to be your new word to belittle a primary witness testimony. You do realise that it's an unsuitable word, since it's usual use if for the retelling of humourous tales?

It's also used to descibe evidence in the form of an anecdote.

Kernel wrote: »

As to your red herrings, another term for that would be corroborative facts. Yes, facts.

They are red herring because that have sweet spit all to do with how the towers collapsed.

Kernel wrote: »

Ah, I see, you put the NIST report in as bait in order to draw me out, so what, I am to debate several of you people on all points here? :rolleyes: Haven't got the time to play. Read this for all the good it will do: http://www.prleap.com/pr/92756/

Or you could just point out scientific inaccuracies that you claim are there.
Also argument from authority and a legal challenge is not a scientific criticism.
And directed energy weapons? Seriously?

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, but when the evidence has been whitewashed, as in this case, we must use our minds to delve a little deeper using witness testimony and corroborative evidence.

And how do you know it's been whitewashed and not that it's nonexistent?

Kernel wrote: »

Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable also, however you discounting that testimony is illogical and unfair.

I'm discounting it because it's notoriously unreliable.
And you should be questioning it too because the example you gave does not support the thermite idea.

Kernel wrote: »

That twisted logic is of no value to us here. By the same logic I can say, Nixon was a lier, therefore all presidents are liers.

No it means that all presidents are not always truthful.
You're claiming that the US pulled off the most elabourate scam ever, with absolutely no leaks or whistle blowers but then **** up Iraq and let it slip that they where use torture?

Kernel wrote: »

You guys seldom hold a position, since it's easier to lurk here and shoot holes in other peoples theories. After all, by definition a theory is unproven, right?

The difference between a credible theory and complete fiction is verifiable empirical evidence.

So the OP posted something that he believe is convincing. This has been shown to be from a shady journal and that the paper has some serious issues.
And then we just get the same debunked nonsense and logical fallacies on every other 9/11 thread.
So short answer: No, it;s not enough.

meglome

the_dark_side wrote: »

Just incase there is anyone out there on this forum that has'nt seen this footage... This is what convinced me that 9/11 was staged, and no amount of arguement or persuasion will EVER convince me otherwise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&feature=PlayList&p=3D30132C75A35683&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10

Or you could look up the reporter that's on screen on the web and you'll be able to hear her say that it was a mistake. The building had been making some not so good noises and the fire-fighters had pulled out and one of the news agencies jumped the gun. You can actually see the building behind the reporter on screen, worst conspiracy ever.

Using a confused story on a confused day to prove a conspiracy is ridiculous. If there was no confusion, now that would be a conspiracy.

meglome

Gordon wrote: »

Termite infestation now huh?

he he I spotted that and spelt it correctly in my later posts. Either that or I as right and it was giant termites.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Ah, I see, you put the NIST report in as bait in order to draw me out, so what, I am to debate several of you people on all points here? :rolleyes: Haven't got the time to play. Read this for all the good it will do: http://www.prleap.com/pr/92756/

You do understand that your two "professors" are Morgan Reynolds and Judy Woods, who believe that the planes that struck the towers were holograms, and the WTC 1&2 were destroyed by invisible star wars space beams?

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

Whats your point in raising them. You think they have a credible point here?

You made an explicit statement that it was 'fact' that the collapse started at the point of impact. According to the charter I am entitled to ask for proof for this claim, unless it is an opinion. As proof you've given two youtube videos (which I find ironic and amusing, given your stance on youtube videos as proof) taken from miles away from the buildings which don't even show where the collapse started!

Yes I did, in the hope that you would honestly admit that they clearly show the collapse starting at or above the impact zone.

Perhaps the University of Manchester report could help

WTC1 wrote:

10:01


* Flames came out of the south side of the west face of the 104th floor

10:18


* Jets of smoke ejected from the 92nd and 94th to 98th floors
* Fires raged on the south side of the 96th to 99th floors
* Floor sagging had increased. The sagging of the south side floors had caused the south perimeter columns bowing inward

10:23


* South perimeter columns had bowed inward as much as 1.4 m (55 in.)

10:28


* Transmission tower on top of WTC 1 started to move downward and laterally
* The entire section of the tower above the crashed zone began tilting as a rigid block toward the south
* The upper section of the tower collapsed onto the floors below
* Within 12 seconds, the whole WTC 1 collapsed

Also

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

The internal magazine of the US fire departments

And

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

They detail that the collapse started at or above the point of impact.

I'd point out the specific bits, but y'know your laziness is infectious.

You guys seldom hold a position, since it's easier to lurk here and shoot holes in other peoples theories. After all, by definition a theory is unproven, right?

You don't understand what the word theory means do you.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

You think they are flying nukes capable of destroying structures as impressive as the twin towers?

Exaggeration. They weren't flying nukes, but the force of the impact was the equivalent to several hundred tonnes of TNT, the force dislodging fireproofing around the steel supports.

You asked for schematics, I've given you schematics. If you think I'm going to photoshop the schematics and trace out a route to the elevator shaft, then you're just being daft I'm afraid.

So to be clear, you claimed the central core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts, you're just incapable or unable to prove this. Thank you.

No, the analogy is incorrect. If your four courts analogy was to be applicable, then I would have waved you in the direction of the internet, rather than to a specific website page. Sensationalism, another trait of the pseudo-skeptic.

You're the one who used lurid language calling the planes "flying nukes"

Jesus Kernel you don't get irony do you.

It's a little easier to copy and paste than to manipulate building schematics, I'm sure you'll agree.

I'm not asking you to manipulate them, I'm asking you to highlight the specific parts of the diagrams that support your claims. You don't seem capable of doing this.

You made the claim as fact and then put up two frankly rubbish youtube clips. If you are going to state this as fact rather than opinion then post up proof.

I've thrown some links in the above post as well. If you can't see that the collapse starts at or above the impact zones, well you can lead a horse to water, etc...

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Jesus Kernel you don't get irony do you.

I do get it, perfectly well Diogenes. It just so happens that the missus does most of the ironing. I can do trousers and stuff, but shirts never turn out well.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

I do get it, perfectly well Diogenes. It just so happens that the missus does most of the ironing. I can do trousers and stuff, but shirts never turn out well.

Thats the best you can do Kernel? Come back you've still left some toys that you threw out of your pram.

6th

Lads grow up or I'm gonna have to ask for ID (please not I will not store any of the info from your ID).

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Thats the best you can do Kernel? Come back you've still left some toys that you threw out of your pram.

I could do better, but you wont accept points and it would just take me ages to dance the merry dance with you yet again. My time is better spent elsewhere. At least on a website like ATS there are enough like minded intelligent people that I don't have to refute every point from 3-4 different posters. The likelihood is that other posters will save me the time by pointing out relevent information. Not so here, since the balance is so skewed.

I'll always engage in discussion with bonkey or meglome however, but it would be better if we could take one point at a time lads, I'm on me own here and still have to research the possibility of thermite causing horizontal cuts.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

I could do better, but you wont accept points and it would just take me ages to dance the merry dance with you yet again. My time is better spent elsewhere. At least on a website like ATS there are enough like minded intelligent people that I don't have to refute every point from 3-4 different posters. The likelihood is that other posters will save me the time by pointing out relevent information. Not so here, since the balance is so skewed.

I'll always engage in discussion with bonkey or meglome however, but it would be better if we could take one point at a time lads, I'm on me own here and still have to research the possibility of thermite causing horizontal cuts.

You've posted two link in the past two pages, and they were both at best perfunctory attempts to dismiss other peoples requests. Other posters myself included have , as you requested provided, links, researched their points, and pointed out specific arguments.

Meanwhile you get into a snit when someone posts something you deem unworthy. You're got a nasty line in double standards.

But I'll shut up. We'll wait for your "research" on horiztional thermite cuts. They'll we'll work through the other points.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Agreed, and I have already stated this as a problem when replying to Diogenes. Something I have to look more into, but I will.

I'm not sure we agree at all.

I'm saying that until this is done, there is no reason to consider thermite. You appear to not only be considering thermite, but strongly supporting it, whilst still admitting that the basic groundwork of its feasability remains undone.

Isn't the rate of the chemical reaction measurable? If so, then with careful planning, measurements and deployment at strategic points could carry out a controllable collapse.

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse.

Until you can show that factors such as torque and shear, or factors such as humidity, air-flow, pollution, humidity, imperfect mixtures of compounds, or anything else which could play a part is not going to cause the cuts to occur at different rates...and so on and so forth...then your "could" should be interpreted as "we can't prove it to be impossible", rather than "its likely".

Explosives are used for a number of reasons. One reason reason is that the speed of the chemical reaction allows the necessary precision. Another is the nature of ignition...you're not reliant on heat-transfer, which is itself massively problematic.

The substances used are, in short, used because they are not prone to the types of problems a slower reaction would cause.

Think about it...if we could control a chemical reaction to that level, we could also effectively saw through the supports at a controlled, synchronised rate. Do you think that would work?

Assuming that thermite wasn't used in the operation, we are still left with the testimony of witnesses as to the massive explosion in the basement.

That's a topic for a seperate thread. The OP wanted to discuss thermite. If you'd like to start another thread, offering a theory how an explosion could occur in the basement long before collapse, then cause failure later on at the point where the plane impacted...please do. I'll address that point when you make the argument as to how its possible.

The explosive 'squibs'
...
Again, witness testimony describes the popping noises all the way down.

So its not thermite? Fine. Would you like to start another thread to discuss the use of explosives in the collapses? If you do, offer a theory as to how the signature shock-waves that all demolition-based explosives were missing, and I'll deal with it. Remember...unlike a building prepped for demolition, WTC still had a hell of a lot of glass. Where's the exploding windows?

How do you explain the collapse of the building into the path of most resistance at near free-fall velocity?

Would you like to start a new thread on this? The OP wanted to discuss thermite....so lets stick to that here.

If you want to start a thread, please explan how gaining horizontal momentum from nowhere is a path of less resistance. Then I'll deal with a response.

No, the temperature required to melt steel is a scientific fact, which nobody should dispute.

So we're agreed that this residue is incapable of producing the necessary temperatures, and therefore is a red herring...that the "evidence" mentioned in the OP does not support the use of thermite as claimed?

Diogenes

Kernel wrote:

I'm on me own here and still have to research the possibility of thermite causing horizontal cuts.

Bump, curious to see how the research is panning out.