Results 300 to 312 of 396
10-11-2012, 11:31 AM #300
But it still doesn't fit the story for many reasons. For one, you folks have always concluded that explosions demonstrated the fact that they were used. So much for that.
I noticed that you switched to using the word "bombs" which brings up another point about explosions. A WWII bomb or similar, is meant to be both a concussive device and a shrapnel thrower, if you will. But modern explosive charges used in demos are shaped charges. The explosion sound is quite different. Sort of muffled. Because the idea of shaped charges (even thermite ones) is to focus the "explosion" in one single direction (or the reaction, in the case of thermite).
I'm not even certain as to exactly why you folks are so focused on thermite? What difference would it have made if regular charges were used, for example? They would have been far more powerful.
I doubt whatever caused the explosions were explosive devices. I also doubt that layman (myself included) could have actually identified the muffled sound of a shaped charge exploding especially amidst all of the chaos. Like I said, even buckling metal makes quite a pop. Not only that, but it fits logically. One would assume buckling metal in the moment before collapse, yes?
The other thing is that the technology for thermite devices was not up to the task at that time. You and Liberty could have read all about it, but didn't. As a matter of fact, we are just now getting there. I believe that there is now a prototype, but it is not widely available in the field, as it were, as yet.
Again, one could have already read these things. But according to you folks, I am supposed to post bullet-point refutations while you don't even need to read my stuff.
How does that work in the art of debate?
Last edited by scrogdog; 10-11-2012 at 11:55 AM."Social networking" is an oxymoron.
10-11-2012, 12:44 PM #301Regular Guest
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Long Beach, CA
Seem like a lot of leads that were never fully investigated.
10-11-2012, 01:03 PM #302
However, for every strange thing you can mention, I can mention another thing that drives us in another direction.
For example, earlier Coolwhip suggested that the science was suspect because the scientists themselves were in the pocket of the US government. Which is an absurd claim since scientific papers are reviewed by the scientific community world wide, not just specific ones. That's one of the things that I like about science. How could foreign scientists be beholden to the US government? And one of those foreign scientists wrote one of the articles on progressive collapse that I wanted you to look at.
Also, I realize that this is going to get uncomfortable for you, but you could build some measure of credibility by addressing all of the counts of false presentation I and others have made.
Among them, a picture that was photoshopped of firemen looking in to a supposed pool of molten steel. We know it's faked for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that pool would have been hot to the tune of 2000 C. You know of any protective fire boots that would have protected those men? Further, one guy has his face right in it. His face would have melted! Don't know about you, but I don't even like to put my face over a 200 C backyard barbeque!
Then there was the other photo from one of your experts site that claimed it was a shot of molten metal. It was clearly not. Molten means melted, and it could not be picked up with a crane claw like that.
Then there was the matter of posting pics of wrong side of building 7. I posted the correct view. ALL of you truthers ignored it.
Then, I posted a picture that clearly showed one of the WTC towers NOT falling in to its own footprint. I know what you meant, but the idea you convey is completely false. It only makes sense, does it not, then when a building that is 95% air collapses in 10 seconds, the air needs to rush out of it rather quickly. Where do you think it rushed to, logically? Out the sides. Taking windows and walls with it. The picture clearly shows this. This debris is what damaged building 7. Like I said, it doesn't matter what TYPE of damage is incurred. What matters is, was it enough to overwhelm the system of multiple redundancies?
That you folks ignore these points, and likely will again, or change the subject when things don't go your way... leads me to believe that you folks are not honest, open-minded, critical thinking folks as you claim that you are.
Again, you don't even read my links. What kind of honest investigators are you guys anyways?"Social networking" is an oxymoron.
10-11-2012, 01:24 PM #303
However, can't say I heard of the ones who were arrested with explosives. Got a link?
Don't worry, I actually read them."Social networking" is an oxymoron.
10-11-2012, 07:07 PM #304Regular Guest
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Long Beach, CA
10-11-2012, 08:22 PM #305
Perhaps, Brian. But you or ANY other truther has yet to answer for the false claims made to make this case.
Can't you see that this failure to do so severely undermines your case?
See, you and others go on and on about cover ups and conspiracies. Yet, you cannot answer about what appears to be the exact same thing within the truther movement.
Please note that I am not accusing you or anyone. You did not present this apparently false, and in some cases intentionally doctored evidence.
What I am saying is that perhaps you and others drank the kool aid a little too quickly.
You wish to question every little quirk EXCEPT those present in your own case!
You can't see how bad that is to your overall presentation and case?
And, incidentally, you ignored these items just as I predicted. Doesn't the fact that I actually predicted your non-response say a lot about the truther argument?
So, in essence, you truthers are EXACTLY LIKE those you think control us. Why is that conclusion wrong?
Last edited by scrogdog; 10-11-2012 at 08:52 PM.
10-12-2012, 01:14 AM #306
Last edited by LibertyTree; 10-12-2012 at 01:38 AM.America; first we fight for our freedom,
then we make laws to take it away.
-Alfred E Newman
10-12-2012, 01:27 AM #307
America; first we fight for our freedom,
then we make laws to take it away.
-Alfred E Newman
10-12-2012, 01:33 AM #308
10-12-2012, 07:12 AM #309
10-12-2012, 07:47 AM #310
Oh dear. Looks like I'm going to have to use some confusing math and more precise scientific terms so that our resident chem major gets an education.
Before I do, I'll preface this post as follows; when we discuss things informally on the net, or anywhere, we do so using colloquial terms. I've often made the claim, for example, that layman misunderstand how scientists use the word "theory" because it is not the same way that we use it in everyday life. I'm guilty as charged here, using colloquial terms instead of scientific ones in order to try to increase understanding.
Ok, so, the first thing that we need to do is know the difference between an explosion and a detonation. If you take a can of corn and throw it in the campfire, what happens? BOOM! Should we now suggest that cans of corn are explosive devices? Watch out if you ever try this. Take cover, it will throw shrapnel much like a grenade.
So, being more precise, thermite (and black powder) do not DETONATE.
This is the very reason that, while an amateur can certainly make a pipe bomb or whatever using black powder, it is woefully inefficient as an explosive. That’s why we see black powder used like it is (as a way to fire projectiles) rather than a component of a properly engineered explosive demo device. Further, when you think about it, we wouldn’t WANT black powder to detonate; that would be bad (in terms of the way that we commonly use it). That doesn’t mean that it can’t deflagrate, however.
In order to achieve detonation, the stuff in question needs to have an expansion rate of over 3000 feet per second. Black powder is something like 1300 FPS while a more efficient device would be made with something like dynamite which has an FPS upwards of about 9000. We call both black powder and thermite “surface burners” for that reason. That’s also why you won’t see a black powder demo charge, because it just doesn’t have the oomph.
Thermite demo charges, then, would seek to burn and make cuts, not explode, because a black powder or thermite explosion would be about as useful as attaching a pipe bomb to the triple beam supports at WTC. Nothing would happen.
In addition, knowing the properties of thermite goes a little bit further in explaining why we use it as we do. The stuff is quite dangerous to handle. For one thing, it contains its oxident internally, meaning you can't smother it or put it out generally speaking. It works under water. It wouldn't be smothered by throwing a bunch of sand on it. The reaction does not stop until the reactants are exhausted. While dangerous, that property can also be quite useful when properly and safely employed.
So, even though gunpowder doesn't detonate, the gun still goes BANG!
So, glad we cleared that up for the general reader population, but I should not need to explain that to a chemistry major.
Last edited by scrogdog; 10-12-2012 at 08:09 AM."Social networking" is an oxymoron.
10-12-2012, 08:18 AM #311
10-12-2012, 08:20 AM #312