revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[jakee 1,573]

Quote

so you have all beeen arguing that the aluminium was at 800 degrees, and was glowing orange, when NIST claimed it was the organic matter that was glowing.

I could have pointed this out to you before but I wanted to point out how your own conclusions are differetn to the NIST's.

Are you blind? Everyone you have been arguing with on this point has repeated to you, time and time and time again, that the flowing metal would have been mixed with burning organic matter which would have been responsible for much of the orange glow.

Don't even think about pretending otherwise.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

So the 970 plus engineers and architects that have signed a petition, and believe nano therite was used, are not engineers or architects in you opinion?

I do not know them personally, but if they think nano-thermite was used they are sorely mistaken.
Do you even know what nao-thermite is? What it is made of? How it is used? And, most importantly, the composition of any residue?

I urge you to go back to Kallends post and look at the chart he typed in that compares temperatures to color. But, since you seem to understand that organic material mixed in with molten aluminum will also glow orange/red, what is it that prevents you from accepting that it was aluminum and not stel that was pouring out? Everybody agrees on both sides that the temps never got high enough for steel to melt so that aspect is a non-issue.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I urge you to go back to Kallends post and look at the chart he typed in that compares temperatures to color. But, since you seem to understand that organic material mixed in with molten aluminum will also glow orange/red, what is it that prevents you from accepting that it was aluminum and not stel that was pouring out? Everybody agrees on both sides that the temps never got high enough for steel to melt so that aspect is a non-issue.

Don't charm yourself, I don't believe organic matter can mix wth molten aluminium, it will burn and potentially stick to the surface with the other crap that is on the metal, but it will not freely mix with the metal itself.

this is not very hard to understand, and your buddies down at NIST quite clearly could not mix it with thier experiment on the matter try watching it this time CLICK THIS CLICKY AND WATCH

It is not indicative of the colour of the metal, much rather the inability for any organic matter to frrely mix with the metal, upon contact it would immedately ignighte and turn to ash and would only remain within the metal by means of force. it would tend to gather and stck to the next available surface that is cooler than the metal.

The metal flowing from the WTC immediately prior to collapse, IMHO was not Aluminium.

That is all.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[airdvr 210]

Getting back to the title of this thread. If there really was something there don't you think Obama would be all over it? Or is he part of it too.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DanG 1]

Quote

The metal flowing from the WTC immediately prior to collapse, IMHO was not Aluminium.

What was it?

- Dan G

[billvon 3,090]

> I don't believe organic matter can mix wth molten aluminium, it will
> burn and potentially stick to the surface with the other crap that is
>on the metal, but it will not freely mix with the metal itself.

Early on, smelters realized there was so much organic crap in their metals that it was almost useless. It remained mixed so well that they could not separate it out. It was not until the Bessemer process (for steel) and the induction furnace (for aluminum) that they found a way to separate it.

So not only does organic material freely mix with metals, it's hard to get out.

>upon contact it would immedately ignighte and turn to ash . . .

If metal was melted on top of the organic matter, and ended up covering it, where would it get the oxygen to ignite?

>The metal flowing from the WTC immediately prior to collapse,
>IMHO was not Aluminium.

Correct. It was most likely a mixture of aluminum and other trash (plastics, resins etc)

[Belgian_Draft 0]

I have watched your video. The organic material he added sure looked like it was glowing. I don't see what your point is unless you are saying that since the aluminum he melted did not glow red then the river flowing out of the tower could not have been aluminum, but that would be an illogical assumption.

So, if you claim it wasn't Al, then what do you think it was? We know it wasn't Fe because temps did not get high enough to melt steel.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

So, if you claim it wasn't Al, then what do you think it was? We know it wasn't Fe because temps did not get high enough to melt steel.

How do you know, from assumtion?

Because the Big fat lie report told you?

Ha ha you fools 'it' is seems to be on the doorstep, and you guys will be then feeling like the worlds biggest assholes, on you own accord! I will cherish the day for ever more!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

How do you know, from assumtion?

No damage was found that would be expected if the temps had gone that high.

What do you think the flowing mass was?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 3,090]

>>We know it wasn't Fe because temps did not get high enough to
>>melt steel.

>How do you know, from assumtion?

No, from chemistry. Maximum flame temperatures in jet fuel + air fires are around 1100C. That's not hot enough to melt steel.

>Because the Big fat lie report told you?

Here's the very same Big Fat Lie from you a few years ago:

"Im never budging from my stand on the matter but will use clouded examples to try to put my point across.

The video did not say steel can not burn it said steel does not burn, it was determined that the Jet A1 was not enough to melt the 4 INCH THICK steel."

>Ha ha you fools 'it' is seems to be on the doorstep, and you guys
>will be then feeling like the worlds biggest assholes, on you own
>accord! I will cherish the day for ever more!

It's been coming for - what? - five years now? But the laws of physics remain stubbornly fixed, even in the face of the inconsistent and constantly changing rhetoric from the truthers.

[normiss 873]

Now we're fools for disagreeing with you?

uncle.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

If you are so certain that the official story is correct, how are you so certain the suspects are guilty if there has never been an investigation?

There has been an investigation. I guess you missed it.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Now we're fools for disagreeing with you?

uncle.

Discussing physics with truthers is like playing Calvin-Ball....you make up the rules as you go to fit the situation.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[mnealtx 0]

When are you going to answer my explosives questions, rhys?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DJL 235]

Quote

Quote

So, if you claim it wasn't Al, then what do you think it was? We know it wasn't Fe because temps did not get high enough to melt steel.

How do you know, from assumtion?

Because the Big fat lie report told you?

Ha ha you fools 'it' is seems to be on the doorstep, and you guys will be then feeling like the worlds biggest assholes, on you own accord! I will cherish the day for ever more!

To everyone, why does the glowing stuff have to be either molten aluminum or some kind of thermite ignition? I've seen plenty of video of uncontrolled burns and burning crap spilling out the sides isn't anything new.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 3,090]

>why does the glowing stuff have to be either molten aluminum or
>some kind of thermite ignition?

It doesn't. Indeed, it is probably a mix of molten aluminum and plastic with some assorted ash, jet fuel and other debris mixed in.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

It doesn't have to be, we are just showing it is a strong possiblity.
Truthers want it to be molten steel so they attempt to eliminate the possibilty of it being anything else including (especially?) aluminum.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

For the reference of those that read this, here is a good guideline to see who is being responsable and who is on a bandwagon.

I freely admit I am not perfect and my personal investigations and questions have been in fields I have not enough experience in to decide...

hence discussion.

But this brilliant piece will allow true skeptics to see who is actually seeking truth and who is being ignorant/deceptive/defensive.

Quote

Here is the excellent post on the JREF forum (Feb 6th) that actually exposes all of their 9/11 Debunking tactics in one convenient tidy package - from their own master.

It can be seen as the bible of the true skeptic - by the ultimate skeptic, Proff Truzi. Use this to expose the debunkers with their own "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic". (I have added the numbers for your future use). Use it liberally!


Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic

I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.

Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.

Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,
Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
16. No references to reputable journal material.
17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.


True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence
Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way. Its not amazingly consistent (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5592493
Boris Epstein

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rushmc 23]

Quote

For the reference of those that read this, here is a good guideline to see who is being responsable and who is on a bandwagon.

I freely admit I am not perfect and my personal investigations and questions have been in fields I have not enough experience in to decide...

hence discussion.

But this brilliant piece will allow true skeptics to see who is actually seeking truth and who is being ignorant/deceptive/defensive.

Quote

Here is the excellent post on the JREF forum (Feb 6th) that actually exposes all of their 9/11 Debunking tactics in one convenient tidy package - from their own master.

It can be seen as the bible of the true skeptic - by the ultimate skeptic, Proff Truzi. Use this to expose the debunkers with their own "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic". (I have added the numbers for your future use). Use it liberally!


Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic

I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.

Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.

Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,
Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
16. No references to reputable journal material.
17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.


True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence
Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way. Its not amazingly consistent (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5592493
Boris Epstein

The following takes place from 06:30 (your post time stamp) until 06:45 (when I start typing my response)

I read your response and I start to type an immediate reply. I delete the reply and go finish cooking the nachos. I eat a few nachos and open a beer and have a few swallows from my cold Negra Modelo. I return to the keyboard and start typing again. I delete the started post, go eat a few more nachos and down the freshly opened (but not quite full) beer. I return to the key board and formulate the following response;

Are you serious? This appears to be a lame attempt to silence "deniers" by trying to hang some sort of stupid label on them!! Seriously??? You think this will fly???

So, here is what it is. You have a position that nobody here buys. You think you can shut up those (deniers) by posting this bs crap??

What should really be the topic is whether you are a skeptic or a psycho-conspiracy believer dude.

Glad I took the time

Funny shit

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rhys 0]

Quote

So, here is what it is. You have a position that nobody here buys. You think you can shut up those (deniers) by posting this bs crap??Laugh

What should really be the topic is whether you are a skeptic or a psycho-conspiracy believer dude.

Glad I took the time

Funny shit

Thanks Smile

Representing your genre to the fullest once more I see.

I did not post it for you or any of the hardcore deniers (don’t charm yourself), I posted it for those third parties that read and don’t feel compelled to post replies based on who posted something rather than its content.

Look at how many people read a thread as opposed to how many post, then take into account the post whores like you, mike and the other right wing nut jobs that seem to be professional dz.com posters, and then consider again the amount of people that read but don't post.

that post was for them, not you!

9/11 in particular is a subject than intrigues many but most are reluctant to comment.

Why? because they are not sure and they don't want to be subjected to the ridicule from those of your ilk.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So, here is what it is. You have a position that nobody here buys. You think you can shut up those (deniers) by posting this bs crap??Laugh

What should really be the topic is whether you are a skeptic or a psycho-conspiracy believer dude.

Glad I took the time

Funny shit

Thanks Smile

Representing your genre to the fullest once more I see.

I did not post it for you or any of the hardcore deniers (don’t charm yourself), I posted it for those third parties that read and don’t feel compelled to post replies based on who posted something rather than its content.

Look at how many people read a thread as opposed to how many post, then take into account the post whores like you, mike and the other right wing nut jobs that seem to be professional dz.com posters, and try to consider the amount of people that read but don't post.

9/11 in particular is a subject than intrigues many but most are reluctant to comment. Why, because they are not sure and they don't want to be subjected to the ridicule from those of your ilk.

Oh well that's different
I guess this approach will really persuade the masses to your point of view or at least shut a few of them up

And "intrigues many"??? You are not fooling anybody but yourself

For me this all boils down to one question

IF, what you are saying has any iota of a possibility of being true, please explain to me how one would go about keeping the legions of people needed to carry this out quiet for this long?

That my friend would be IMPOSSIBLE

And then you have the balls to call others post whores or right wing nut jobs?

The meter just went atomic

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Belgian_Draft 0]

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[champu 1]

Quote

True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence
Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way. Its not amazingly consistent (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)

That list isn't bad... save for being highly redundant. Unfortunately, however, "E" and "I" are incompatible. "Reason" I take no issue with, but the kinds of things people are willing to adamantly claim (and be horribly horribly wrong about) citing "common sense" are baffling to me.

[rhys 0]

Quote

IF, what you are saying has any iota of a possibility of being true, please explain to me how one would go about keeping the legions of people needed to carry this out quiet for this long?

That my friend would be IMPOSSIBLE

So many of the CIA ops are also impossible?

That is a pretty stupid question, thousands of people are dead, their families ignored and people (mostly lawyers ) have made absolute fortunes, the lies have been exposed but you cling on to a feeble fable.

The most obvious flaw of the official story is the failure to even consider an iota of anything other than what they are trying to present.

It all happens right in front of your face yet you simply don't see it, you accept corruption as the norm or acceptable. That is the real problem, of course people will do bad things and the hardest part of a crime is getting away with it. Deniers make it so much easier for them to do so.

Congratulations.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Here. Consider it a sympathy gift.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.