Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2017, 09:32 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 09:18 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Wasn't going to get involved in this 9/11 conspiracy argument because, like belief in religion or any dogma, actual facts are discarded when they run counter to one's own biases.

But, just for fun, Popular Mechanics editors debunked the 9/11 conspiracies over a decade ago. Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

These facts won't, of course, change the mind of true believer/Alex Jones types, but the evidence is abundantly clear.

This article has been cited numerous times in a thread on the collapse of WTC by another poster called psikeyhacker, it as you pointed out made no difference and now as morondog suggested this thread is starting to smell slightly sockish too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 09:58 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 09:18 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Wasn't going to get involved in this 9/11 conspiracy argument because, like belief in religion or any dogma, actual facts are discarded when they run counter to one's own biases.

But, just for fun, Popular Mechanics editors debunked the 9/11 conspiracies over a decade ago. Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

These facts won't, of course, change the mind of true believer/Alex Jones types, but the evidence is abundantly clear.

I will address one issue in that article.

The pancaking mythos.

It is true that you have all the weight of the floors above the collapse descending on the floors below the collapse. The reverse however is also true, that you have all the floors beneath the collapse to counter against the weight of the floors above it.

There should have been a deflection of the weight. The floors above the collapse should have eventually slid off to the side of the twin towers and fallen onto the city below.





We actually do see some of this in the beginning of the first collapse.

However, the process just seems to stop after the initial stage, supporting the conclusion that while the top of the tower is falling it is not meeting any resistance from the floors below the collapse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 10:05 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Can anyone smell cheese ? Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 10:23 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 09:58 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 09:18 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Wasn't going to get involved in this 9/11 conspiracy argument because, like belief in religion or any dogma, actual facts are discarded when they run counter to one's own biases.

But, just for fun, Popular Mechanics editors debunked the 9/11 conspiracies over a decade ago. Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

These facts won't, of course, change the mind of true believer/Alex Jones types, but the evidence is abundantly clear.

I will address one issue in that article.

The pancaking mythos.

It is true that you have all the weight of the floors above the collapse descending on the floors below the collapse. The reverse however is also true, that you have all the floors beneath the collapse to counter against the weight of the floors above it.

There should have been a deflection of the weight. The floors above the collapse should have eventually slid off to the side of the twin towers and fallen onto the city below.





We actually do see some of this in the beginning of the first collapse.

However, the process just seems to stop after the initial stage, supporting the conclusion that while the top of the tower is falling it is not meeting any resistance from the floors below the collapse.

Oh yes this is starting to look very very familiar now, hi there psikey, got a new phone or internet connection perhaps two IP addresses? Changed posting style and language? Or do you conspiracy nutjobs just all sound alike? Who knows but my patience with bullshit and the serious disrespect to the victims and first responders that it represents has just died, CW or who ever you are you deserve all the ridicule you get I'm tired of being Mr reasonable screw this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 10:42 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Just to be clear, so we dont have any misunderstandings about the level/niveau of the discussion:

Hot spots in the rubble of the towers = Thermite. Thermite is the most probable conclusion? Is that what you are trying to argue?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 11:46 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 10:42 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Just to be clear, so we dont have any misunderstandings about the level/niveau of the discussion:

Hot spots in the rubble of the towers = Thermite. Thermite is the most probable conclusion? Is that what you are trying to argue?

It was more than just the rubble Deesse. I can not say that with 100% conviction that it was thermite that was used, but I have been shown that thermite could get the job done. So perhaps it is not thermite but some other material like thermite. Maybe it wasn't just thermite or the a similar material that was used but multiple materials. There are things I don't know. But I do know that molten metal was present preceding, during, and concluding the collapse of the World Trade Centers. Whatever caused all that metal to melt, caused the World Trade Centers to collapse.

(18-01-2017 10:23 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Oh yes this is starting to look very very familiar now, hi there psikey, got a new phone or internet connection perhaps two IP addresses? Changed posting style and language? Or do you conspiracy nutjobs just all sound alike? Who knows but my patience with bullshit and the serious disrespect to the victims and first responders that it represents has just died, CW or who ever you are you deserve all the ridicule you get I'm tired of being Mr reasonable screw this.

Emotions have no place in the realm of thinking critically.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 12:16 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
So his evidence that the government caused 9/11, which is just as good as the evidence for Evolution, is......A bunch of debunked assertions, a bucket load of "maybe", "perhaps", "could be", and "I'm not sure".



Raise your hand if you were surprised in the slightest.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
18-01-2017, 12:25 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(18-01-2017 12:16 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  So his evidence that the government caused 9/11, which is just as good as the evidence for Evolution, is......A bunch of debunked assertions, a bucket load of "maybe", "perhaps", "could be", and "I'm not sure".



Raise your hand if you were surprised in the slightest.

No whiskey to be honest I was not surprised in the slightest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2017, 12:47 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
So It was thermite or not?! Ok. Something similar to thermite? Ok.
Does "not thermite" include some 60t of kerosene? How much energy do 60t of kerosene have? I am asking because the energy density of thermite is 4MJ/kg, and kerosene is 40MJ/kg. Did you know that?

Kerosene has x10 the energy density of thermite. Do you agree that, if thermite gets the job done, then 60t (sixty fucking tons!) of kerosene with ten times the energy density get the job done too?

Do you know that kerosene burns with higher temperature than thermite?
So, if thermite can melt down WTC, then kerosene can too, would you agree?


Do you have even the slightest clue, what 60.000kg x 40MJ/kg = 2.4TJ of (kerosene) energy is? Do you know what 2.4TJ of energy probably can do (or not)? The Hoover dam produces 2.000MW. So we are talking about shoving 1.000s (15min) long the full power of the Hoover Dam into one WTC tower. I am not even including the "fuel" provided by flammable WTC material.
Alternatively you could have a smaller powerplant with "only" 1MW running for eleven days: 1TJ = 1GW x 1000s = 1MW x 1Ms (1Ms = 11,5 days!).

Would you agree that if CIA/Mossad wanted to fake a fire of 60t Kerosene, that they would use some 600t of Thermite, otherwise poeple like you would find out? Or do you think they were clever enough to plan such a massive plot, but missed the proper calculation of the fire/energy to release? If you think the WTC was fake, and if you think it looks like 60t of kerosene, and if you think they used "something like thermite", then there must have been 600t of that stuff. Who put it where in the WTC and when and how?

How long can kerosene burn in an environment like the WTC? How much stuff does one tower contain that can burn? About how much potential energy to be released in total are we talking? Once heated up inside (by Kerosene for example) the rubble, how long can the heat stay there? In other words, how is the insulation inside of such a rubble?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
18-01-2017, 01:16 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
I have a measurement rubric when deciding whether or not to take something seriously. It goes something like this:

Does Alex Jones, Brietbart and / or Donald Trump agree or support it?

If yes, then I can safely write it off as bullshit. And I have yet to be proven wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: