what is truely hilarious is how chumpdumper used to be borderline skeptical about all "official" stories regarding 9/11, then stayed quiet on it, and now is a full fledged author of the commission report, all within the course of like 2 years
Did I?what is truely hilarious is how chumpdumper used to be borderline skeptical about all "official" stories regarding 9/11I remember that part.then stayed quiet on itAnd yet still doesn't like George W. Bush in the least.and now is a full fledged author of the commission report, all within the course of like 2 years
It's possible to do both.
All you have to do is be in on the conspiracy, like I am.
By the way, this is one of the worst examples of rank hypocrisy I have ever seen.
Tell me Dan, did you accept the infowars assumptions on faith, or did you actually test any of their conclusions?
DODGE.
Answer the question Dan. What assumptions in the infowars article did you accept on faith, and what ones did you test?
Do you even KNOW what assumptions were put forth by the infowars article?
STILL waitin' on the answer, dan. (two dodges so far, and counting)
Still waitin...
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-04-2007 at 12:50 PM.
Dammit, dan you are doing the exact same stupid that Yoni and gtown do. Sinking down to the level of the zealot.I am trained in sciencebut my day job for the last twenty years is in the visual arts
This monkey was trained in science too...
Instead of addressing the material or the idea, you simply attack the person making the case.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her cir stances, or her actions is made (or the character, cir stances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, cir stances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
If he is so far off base then it should be easy to see how he is wrong then.
Tell me how the material on the website is wrong Dan.
Funny you should ask.
If you actually read the NIST website, on their FAQ, they say that they didn't consider explosives because they did some initial modeling of the collapse that proved that there was enough simple mechanical/kinetic energy to completely collapse the building.
Being a curious sort, I decided to try and figure out how they did that.
Care to guess what I found by doing my own research?
LOOK FAMILIAR?PE = m x g x h
Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.
PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m
Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.
SOOOO
The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.
Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.
They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.
Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.
Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:
v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second
Subs ute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m
This means the 30 foot section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.
Think about this for a moment.
The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.
Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.
STILL FURTHER
Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.
IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.
Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)
What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?
Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-14-2013 at 10:48 PM.
Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"
Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.
The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
The only truth I'm noticing is all these 'faith believer' not acknowledging that the NIST report could be real, but then again, when something doesn't fit into your 'hypothesis', faith believers just tend to block it out..
(HANDS OVER EAR) LA LA LA....................I CANT HEAR YOU!
Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."
Ask these ass-clowns a few simple questions:
1) How much thermite would it take to sever the columns?
2) How many man hours would it require to set the thermite?
3) How was the thermite kept in contact with the steel long enough to melt it?
A few more inconvenient questions that can't be answered by the CTer version of things.
Remember they contend that the whole building , BOTH of them, i.e. 220 stories worth of building, came down in this manner.
Thermite takes a few minutes to work on THIN steel objects (it also tends to travel downwards due to gravity, as opposed to sideways through columns).
Considering the massive amount of steel columns (remember, they like to go on endlessly about the 47 core columns, not to mention the perimeter ones), that much steel melting would produce a LOT of heat.
Since they contend the steel MELTED, you are talking enough thermite to melt a LOT of steel.
Can they find evidence of the companies who make this stuff getting large orders for explosives in the months leading up to it?
I suppose the thousands of man hours used in setting thousands of charges in 220 stories of building was probably not volunteer work. Maybe they could find financial records that support this massive effort?
Or maybe they can point out why NO ONE noticed the massive labor effort and tons of materials moving into the buildings?
Why are the CT's so focused on thermite in the first place? Wouldn't RDX charges do a better job of cutting through steel beams anyway?
Are the CT's fixated on thermite because of Stephen Jones' paper?
Question: why would it be surprising to find residue of aluminum and oxides of iron following an incident where an aircraft made of aluminum crashed into a skyscraper made of steel and burned?
Wow, that's a real conundrum, ain't it?
Could take years, decades even, to unravel that mystery...
The sulphur in the gypsum wallboarding caused them to think that sulphur was from thermite, I think.
Yeah, but RDX or similar explosives would have made MUCH bigger booms, and they couldn't find evidence of those booms, so it had to have been something a bit quieter, I think.
I'm sure they have SOME reason for fixating on it.
Don't forget the facade of the towers also had a lot of aluminum, if memory serves.
So in other words, they developed a conclusion first, and then tried to figure out the contingency that best fits their preconceived conclusion?
Wow, that is so different from, say, creation science.
Aluminum melts at 800 degrees?Don't forget the facade of the towers also had a lot of aluminum, if memory serves.
ummm...but that's the NIST report in a nuts . If fact, I've come up with a catchy name for those who buy the 'official story', who shall from here on be called the 'faith movement' for your unbridled faith into a report by a agency that won't release the data they used to form their calculations.
Lower temperatures actually.
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, par ions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
So, we'll call you guys Mouvement Sans Théories.
Possible, but the sheer amount of molten material doesn't make it likely. Most likely was either Aluminum or steel.NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
You're right. I accept on faith that the thousand or so people that put this thing together knew a little bit about buildings, physics, and chemistry and aren't lying.
Silly me.
Whereas the CT movement has proven so much more reliable and honest...
Uh, dan -- the quote says it's aluminum.
Given that aluminum was present in large quan ies AND has a lower melting point, which is more probable?
They did release a lot of the data. It is in the report.
IF you had read it, you might know that.
The theory explaining the collapse mechanism (Bazant & Zhou) assumes that all columns on a floor were raised to 800º C. The behaviour of steel in fires is a complex mechanism. Steel columns would fail by gradual buckling. The fires did not cover an entire floor area in either tower. The maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating is 825º C (1517º F). The melting point of steel is 1535º C (2795º F). Even assuming that the fires reached a temperature to produce a gradual reduction in the steel’s (compressive & tensile) strength at temperatures up to the melting point, the mode of collapse initiation and free-fall of the whole structure would not fit in with this explanation. There would have been a gradual toppling/leaning of the structure towards the elevation where the fires (temperatures) were hottest. The collapse initiation did not indicate this. In fact, there are moving picture images showing steel beams that were projected horizontally out from the building as the floors collapsed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
