Sept 11
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
All you really need to read is the 3rd or 4th post in on that thread where it basically says: "okay, we're all in agreement that there was no demolition. The only question that remains is why was our analysis so much more thorough than the commission's report."
Sure the second half of that statement might set Rick's pants on fire, but hopefully it will end this useless speculating on HOW the buildings collapsed.
By the way, I opened up the Jones paper. He's an archeologist, you realize? I also couldn't get through the abstract and intro with a straight face. I've never read an academic paper that was written so poorly and out of line with accepted standards of academic writing. I didn't read any further.
Thank you for the lack of effort. I will invest at least as much effort here:
And in summary, Ohio is perfectly comfortable ridiculing a paper he hasn't even read.
Holy Effing Crap.
The very fact that you could lend even the slightest bit of credibility to a paper like that is simply amazing. Please tell me you're joking.
The abstract by itself is enough for me to dismiss the paper. Further comments like this:
...is just utterly uproarious. He's like a little kid. Nyaah nyaah, if you don't have an answer for everything you may as well have no answers at all!
Does nobody read critically anymore? Anyone with a "Doctor" in front of his name is lent automatic credibility for any subject he's writing about? Did you bother to read up on what actual fields this guy is an expert in? Here's a hint: it's not demolition. The guy's a friggin' archeologist and partical physicist. My expertise in networking doesn't mean I should start writing server software, even if they do both involve computers
You're welcome. If I felt like my effort would affect any change, I might do more. However, wasting it on an audience of one and an audience who's mind is fixed is not my cup o' tea. Neither of us has anything to learn here, so why continue?
When an article is effectively written in crayon with backwards Rs, then yes, I have no problem ridiculing it based on the first two paragraphs.And in summary, Ohio is perfectly comfortable ridiculing a paper he hasn't even read.
Man oh man. I have to get back to work. ohio, if you want a laugh, you really should scan through the paper. It's pretty funny stuff.
OMG! Thirmite creates molten iron! There was molten iron at the burn site! That means the only possible explanation is that there must have been thirmite used at the site!
Gee, I don't know, maybe the huge f**king amount of pressure and heat built up from a large explosion and thousands of tons of material collapsing could cause a problem? I'm not a materials engineer though
(emphasis his)
OMG! Thirmite creates molten iron! There was molten iron at the burn site! That means the only possible explanation is that there must have been thirmite used at the site!
Gee, I don't know, maybe the huge f**king amount of pressure and heat built up from a large explosion and thousands of tons of material collapsing could cause a problem? I'm not a materials engineer though
To be fair, Ohio, those science-y types arguing are, in fact, arguing in at least a substantial part about whether the building collapsed from some kind of inside job. (In typical form, many vs. one or two die-hards who refuse to understand and continue to prevaricate and divert when challenged.)
I seem to recall this presented as a POSSIBLE explanation, not the only explanation.
Since you find it so entertaining, please continue the refutation of the paper on the basis of its claims (but leave out the part about the crayons though).
I would enjoy reading a refutation of all 13 points presented in the paper. Perhaps it will help the truthers see the light and lead to a more perfect understanding of the world. Ridding the world of this insanity is certainly a worthwhile goal.
Thanks, but I have things like work and school and persuits of my own that are far more interesting than writing up a step-by-step dismissal of a paper whose first three or four pages didn't even bring up a good point worth reading, let alone one worth refuting.
I'll leave the dissection of poorly written papers to people with more spare time than I. Some critical reading and research of your own should be dismissal enough, you don't need me to spoon feed it to you.
I'll leave the dissection of poorly written papers to people with more spare time than I. Some critical reading and research of your own should be dismissal enough, you don't need me to spoon feed it to you.
Therefore the official story contains lies. It's that simple folks.
I am. And both scenarios are possible. However the whole Thermite thing is a straw man. WTC7 alone is enough to discredit the official story without needing to speculate about unknown unknowns. Can we stick to something that might actually be resolvable?Gee, I don't know, maybe the huge f**king amount of pressure and heat built up from a large explosion and thousands of tons of material collapsing could cause a problem? I'm not a materials engineer though
I was. We were resolving the fact that the paper was a piece of s**t
The only thing that drew me to contribute to this conversation was the published paper that I started reading. Other than laughing about the sheer ineptitude of a particle physicist's ability to publish a scientifically valid paper, I'm just reading here. WTC 7 was evacuated, it really doesn't keep me up at nights thinking about who might have brought it down, and I really don't buy (nor have seen evidence for) the theory that the government brought down the other WTC buildings.
OK, Think a little longer then. Think what it means that it could have been brought down on the day. Is your building rigged right now? Why not? The Govt. might need to demolish it at short notice...
Haven't read it but the spidey-crap-sense is tingling.I was. We were resolving the fact that the paper was a piece of s**t
Uh, dude, he was joking when he said "certainly no question that builkding 7 was a controlled demolition"
your spidey-crap-sense may be working, but your sarcasm-meter is all kfukced.
It is difficult to challenge the voice of reason, but since we have already established that reasonableness does not a proof make...
Dr. Jones paper addresses WTC7. It presents hypotheses and shows the results of some experiments. In general, it makes a call for further experimentation based on the hypotheses presented.
Apparently this is not what a scientific paper should do.
oster_oops: sorry, my bad.BV, Do you like this paper better?
http://www.physics911.net/thermite
It is the [Grimmer, 2004] citation from your quote. It too is far from conclusive, but according to Grimmer's calculations, a reasonable amount of thermite could have caused the molten steel.
This is the part of Dr. Jones paper that I find so compelling, and if BV had read only to the bottom of the page he would have seen it. Would you gentlemen be so kind as to take time out of your busy lives to explain where this section is incorrect? The emphasis is mine.
Thanks.
EDIT: FWIW, my mind is not made up on this matter.
Correlation != causation.RenegadeRick said:
The trouble is that neither of these take into account the whole picture This was not just a collapsing building and not just some random fire. I don't know if the collapse + explosion + fires are enough to cause the molten steel but I have certainly not read anything that actually accounts for the whole scenario. The collapse of thousands of tons of debris is a huge amount of potential energy turned kinetic, adding to an already extremely hot fire burning in an enclosed space that was partially collapsed by the initial impact and explosion, all turning into a highly insulated, extremely pressurized pile of rubble.
Here are some more thoughts from that PhysOrg link:
Post suggests even kerosene can melt steel under pressure, and possible buildup of other flammable materials.
Discussion of the problems with thermite
Someone with something to say about Dr. Jones
There are 10 occurrences of ! in Dr. Jones' paper. 7 are his, and the rest are quotes from others.
You are right, Ohio. His use of ! clearly makes the hypotheses presented simply untenable.
Here is another (short) paper that backs up Jones' hypothesis on why the molten metal could not be aluminum http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf. It doesn't have a single exclamation point in it.
Absolutely true.
There was molten metal dripping from the building prior to collapse. This is documented in Jones' paper and in the NIST report. The moltenwhat paper above claims that this cannot be aluminum and must be iron.
Thanks for these links.
The first suggests the ability, but does not prove it.
The second suggests that tons of thermite would have been needed and makes some flawed assumptions about where it would need to be and the necessity of melting entire columns. The linked video shows thermite in use and it looks just like the molten metal in the other videos and photos. Again, correlation != causation, but molten aluminum just does not behave like this.
The third talks about lack of credibility, but it is mere speculation, I saw NO disproof of any of the hypotheses presented. Chainsaw's post about black body radiation is completely unsubstantiated. Google could not come up with any documents containing anything about Dr. Jones ever discussing the subject.
No I did not read the entire thread.
So you would content it was NOT a controlled demo?
If there was a controlled detonation in BLDG 7 (which I don’t believe), what would be the reason to choose BLDG 7, and not another, larger, more prominent target? What was so special about it? Is it where they were storing the Roswell Aliens?
Actually, in all seriousness, why #7?
Actually, in all seriousness, why #7?
I don't know, but others have theorised that it was demolished as it was the command and control centre for all the 9/11 operations. There were a lot of government offices in there including a disaster management centre and a FBI office.
*sigh*
Sigh all you want bro. NIST said they didn't know why it fell down. FEMA said it was because of damage to one side of the building. Can you seriously look at those videos and be like 'OK then'.
It sure is difficult. Building 7 seems to be the Achilles' Heel of the official story especially since it wasn't even included in the Commission's report.
Please allow me one more attack upon the official story. It has to do with the speedy ID of the 19 hijackers. Their identities and photos were on TV within hours of the event. The primary debunkers in the matter, Popular Mechanics, stated that the hijackers were identified by DNA analysis (scroll down to 2nd box on the page). This is an amazing claim, since I have a family member that was at WTC1 who was identified through DNA analysis. It took months for the identification to occur and it was done by matching a bone fragment to a DNA sample taken from his toothbrush. Pray tell where did they get the DNA samples of the hijackers? Did they turn in their toothbrushes to federal government before they committed the attacks?
We can nitpick the evidence apart, identify discrepancies, inconsistencies, and outrageous lies from the official story, and it matters not if the truth is ever really uncovered, because regardless, NOTHING will be done about it. The government clearly does not care about the will of the people, and they will continue to underwrite this resulting war.
There does seem to be one thing that those really smart guys on that "other" site, and us really dumb guys on this site can agree on. A thorough, independent, and COMPETENT investigation into the matters of 9-11, has not occurred.
I fear it never will.
Ummm...their apartments? Their cars? Possessions/clothes identified as theirs by acquaintances?
Within hours of the attacks? Come on now.
They KNEW Jeff was there, because he was at work, and yet it took months to positively identify him as a victim. As of a year ago only about 60% of victims had been positively identified. But 100% of the hijackers were identified within hours? It just doesn't seem REASONABLE.
They KNEW Atta and his gang were on the plane b/c they had video of them going through security in Portland ME and knew their connecting flight was one of those that hit the WTC. IIRC, the US had been looking for these guys previous to 9/11 (due to reports from flight schools/intellegence etc) but couldn't find them. Maybe you've uncovered a flaw in Popular Mechanics debunking
Right, why would it be easier to identify several known terrorists who had gone through airport security at known airports and known times THAT day, than it would be to figure out who exactly of 8 million NYers and a couple million visitors was in a public office building that day?
Yup, thats why they racially profile
May I remind you that they then 'confirmed' their identities with DNA (despite the issues presented above - being in a burning, pulverised plane for one) and then it turned out that several of the people they positively ID'd were still alive. Nice.
No, I've been on your ass for sure, but what you say, do, and stand for, has been something I've been speaking up against quite alot on this forum. Don't take my critisisms personal in a sense that I'm on you because you're "fresh meat" or something similar.
Presenting evidence is an advantageous thing to do if one wants to proove his point (and we all know that it can be quite time consuming), but I think there are some things that can be said by using logic alone.
If you consider my views to be Euro-centric, as opposed to your US Americano-centric views, it means that I consider the EU's policies and claims on other nations natural resources to be of greater importance than the interests of that specific nation and its people that is being targeted by the EU. That couldn't be more wrong.
You have rephrased your self and instead of calling me anti-American now you say that I have a "hostile view towards American foreign policy" which is more correct, but still wrong as you percieve my stance as hostile to the US instead of viewing it as careing (or friendly if that is a better expression) for those countries and their inhabitants that are being affected by those policies.
How can any countrys, or group of countries, foreign policies be of greater importance than the interests of the inhabitants of that nation/nations being targeted by those? Putting your own interests above another person/persons just because you practicly can (the right of way of the strong) is a fundamental part of fascist ideology.
Therefore that act being commited by a nation makes it a fascist act, and that is no matter what colour of paper/flag you wrap it in.
I hope that you agree with me that we should judge one another by our actions and not how we look, and therefore judge a countries actions by what it actually does and not what it says/claims that it's doing.
If you stab a person with a knife while you're wearing a priests suite and saying that you're healing or saviouring him, you're still a killer, right?
In a previous post I gave the explanation of how the world was ruled pre and after WWII, saying that the US has taken over the role of the UK as the worlds colonial ruler. What I find strange is that all of you US Americans know the importance your fight and liberation from the Brittish had so that you could live and grow as good as you possibly could, but now you're somehow unable to mirror your own actions and you get offended when people are against them?!!
See your self here? You sir, are a stinikin red coat (spoken with humorous voice but still true). You think I'm hostile and anti-American. If this was the 18th century I would be rooting for Davy Crocket all the way because he was fighting against a colonial and oppressive power. Out of the same reason I'm pro Iraqi resistance today.
It will be interesting, just hope you got me that what I reacted on whas your ambiguity on the "presenting evidence matter". I'm at home allright, but that don't mean I have all the time in the world eather. That's why I like documentaries, because the facts have been collected and the essence is presented and digested over an acceptable time.
Theoreticly you could be right on this one, Clinton and the Bush's are part of the same "gang" that's unofficialy called the Bilderberg Group (and that's why Hillary is going to take it).
I find that logical as we have to look at 9/11 as a whole as it all was one event. The obvious dodginess in a few things bring about questions on some of the other not so obvious things.
I really think one should look upon 9/11 with the eyes of a detective who's investigating a scene. What are those looking for? I know one thing is motive. Maybe Manimal who is a PC (if I'm not mistaken) can help us by asking (if he doesn't already know) how a detective works?
WTC 1, 2 and 7 had the same owner (Silverstein?) that purchased them just a few months before 9/11. From that time and onwards there were a lot of reports of people "running around" in the buildings at night.
Yeh, just like the Oklahoma building did after a few of its collumns were put out.
Looks like it just collapsed to me.
Good god, this is still being debated? I think the towers collapsed because planes flew into them, personally.
which plane hit WTC 7?