99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Or it might act like all other thermite and actually burn properly.

No it won't, you are just making things up.

Show me the experiment where you demonstrate this to be the case. The literature on it is pretty clear, so I already have my data in hand.

Show you an experiment where thermite burns completely? Why on earth would I bother to do that? It's aproperty of the material that it burns. That's how it, um, burns stuff.

Just because you've found something you'd like to be thermite that doesn't behave like thermite doesn't mean one has to spend valuable time reiterating the basic properties of the substance to you.

"Look, I've found a cow!"

"It's a horse."

"Nonsense - it's got four legs, a tail, lives in a field, it's a cow."

"Cows produce cow's milk. Yours doesn't."

"Okay, prove it. Prove cows produce cow's milk."

No thanks.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

It's aproperty of the material that it burns. That's how it, um, burns stuff.

For explosives?

In your imagination maybe, but the scientific literature disagrees.

There is not more to say than the fact that you guys made up this property and continue to believe it in the face of hard evidence from independent sources and you have NO source, nevermind an experiment, to support it aside from your own (and what I am now convinced, delusional) imaginations.

reply to post by -PLB-

(for example ATS and Randi)

The fact that you find Randi forums a credible source of information speaks volumes about your standards for belief.

That is a positivist cess-pit if there ever was one.

Thank god you agree that Jones hypothesis is not correct just because it has not been formally falsified.

OMFG PLB!!

Are you seriously so confused that you don't know the difference between a falsifiable theory and a falsified one?

Fal´si`fi`a`ble a. ]
1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science

3. falsify - prove false; "Falsify a claim" confute, disprove - prove to be false; "The physicist disproved his colleagues' theories"

Notice that the burden of proof lies with he who wishes to falsify the theory, usually by employing another experimentally tested falsifiable theory.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The fact that you find Randi forums a credible source of information speaks volumes about your standards for belief.

That is a positivist cess-pit if there ever was one.

When someone presents a good argument, I don't care where it is from. If I did, I would be what is called biased. I also accept a good argument when it is posted on ATS.

OMFG PLB!!

Are you seriously so confused that you don't know the difference between a falsifiable theory and a falsified one?

Fal´si`fi`a`ble a. ]
1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science

3. falsify - prove false; "Falsify a claim" confute, disprove - prove to be false; "The physicist disproved his colleagues' theories"

Notice that the burden of proof lies with he who wishes to falsify the theory, usually by employing another experimentally tested falsifiable theory.

What on earth are you babbling about. Read my post again.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

It's aproperty of the material that it burns. That's how it, um, burns stuff.

For explosives?

In your imagination maybe, but the scientific literature disagrees.

There is not more to say than the fact that you guys made up this property and continue to believe it in the face of hard evidence from independent sources and you have NO source, nevermind an experiment, to support it aside from your own (and what I am now convinced, delusional) imaginations.

Making stuff up? Imagination? Extraordinary claim coming from someone who appears to have conjured from their imagination the notion that thermite is an explosive.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Making stuff up? Imagination? Extraordinary claim coming from someone who appears to have conjured from their imagination the notion that thermite is an explosive.

Skip to 11:15 That is thermate, which is way less powerful than nano-thermite, yet only 10 pounds of it sets off an explosion.

Thermite is an explosive.

0:34


Here's some thermite being ignited by a blowtorch:

Thermite can explode under certain conditions but it's not an explosive. Some simple research will confirm this for you.

And it's why Neils Harrit says there were hundreds of tonnes of conventional bombs in the building. Which coincidentally you haven't found any of either.

reply to post by ANOK


If gravity cannot do it, please tell me how gravity was suspended that day. You can talk all you want about the physics...what caused it...how long it took to fall. but in the end, it was gravity that was the deciding force. Pulling the weight that is not distributed properly. Causing the stress of the bolts and remaining columns to buckle. There are photos of the columns that buckled.

That is the answer to your question. 100 dollars is all it takes to get closure on Mr Jones experiments but no one wants to talk about it because it just may end the argument. I mean, what if all four schools found the evidence. You then have a data point for the MSM...that is your first step. Not selling DVD's and eating room service.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Thermite can explode under certain conditions but it's not an explosive.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Thermite can explode under certain conditions but it's not an explosive.

Oh dear. Lots of stuff can explode that it's a massive stretch to call an explosive. Cleaning products for example. Would you call a bottle of Flash an explosive?

In thermite's case you generally make various chemical additions - none of which are present in Jones' sample - and then heat it extraordinarily quickly. Like a lot of things under these very specific conditions it can explode. But that's not how it's used.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Oh dear. Lots of stuff can explode that it's a massive stretch to call an explosive. Cleaning products for example. Would you call a bottle of Flash an explosive?

If it explodes, yes.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

In thermite's case you generally make various chemical additions - none of which are present in Jones' sample - and then heat it extraordinarily quickly.

What do you think the significance of "nano" in nano-thermite is?

It?

speeds up...

the...


can YOU fill in the last word? What does having smaller particle sizes speed up in a reacti...

Oops, I gave it away, it speeds up the reaction folks, just like the independent scientific literature on the subject says it does.

And a sped up exothermic reaction produces what really quickly? I'm sure you can answer this one without any clues this time.

reply to post by -PLB-

What on earth are you babbling about. Read my post again.

You said this:

Thank god you agree that Jones hypothesis is not correct just because it has not been formally falsified.

Read that line again.

Jones' hypothesis IS assumed to be correct in terms of the scientific method because it made risky predictions which failed to be falsified by physical experiment.

That is what "true" means in science.

There is only two ways to read your sentence, the other way is that you think being formally falsified makes something not "not correct". Honestly I'm not sure which interpretation of your ambiguous sentence is worse.

SCIENCE IS ABOUT NOT ACCEPTING THINGS JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN.

If you believe something because it has been PROVEN to you you do not believe that thing on a scientific basis, you believe it on a rational basis. Ever since at least Kant rationalism has not been an accepted method in science and postivism was an abject and dismal failure "as wrong as a philosophy can be" according one of the founders of the movement. Can I make it any plainer?

PROOF NOT A SCIENTIFIC STANDARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you know why PLB? Go read that bit on why verificationism was discarded again. It is precisely because if your method were accepted in science, science would cease to exist. Completely and immediately. Because people would do precisely what you are doing to every theory, and no theory can withstand that brand of criticism, as demonstrated by Descartes (which demonstration ushered in the modern age).

Just as a thought exercise, how would you go about proving Newton's theory of gravity.

Go ahead, take your time.

reply to post by Darkwing01


So you should believe in the scientific method but not the results of scientists? Again, why has he not had the top 5 engineering institutions in the country test or review his findings. If I had a conviction and a belief I would do it so what is his excuse. There is no excuse only because there is no proof. If there is no physical proof than it is nothing but a theory.

reply to post by esdad71

So you should believe in the scientific method but not the results of scientists? Again, why has he not had the top 5 engineering institutions in the country test or review his findings. If I had a conviction and a belief I would do it so what is his excuse. There is no excuse only because there is no proof. If there is no physical proof than it is nothing but a theory.

But there is proof, and it's detailed in that paper that hasn't been debunked, criticized, or disputed by any other published work.

Now Bazants paper on the other hand, the one which explains the collapse of the twin towers, has debunked by several papers: The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics

Discussion of “What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York” by Zdeněk Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank Greening, and David Benson

Why is it that Bazants paper has been criticized and debunked, but Jones paper hasn't? Why are you arguing against a paper that has encountered no published objections? How can you defend a paper/theory that has been debunked while fighting tooth and nail against a paper that hasn't been debunked?

reply to post by Darkwing01


Again your post is a mess. From what I get you think we should accept a hypothesis just because nobody has formally falsified it yet? If so, you are clueless. I will say it again, a hypothesis requires confirmation before acceptance. This has nothing to do with verificationism. You really do not know what the term means. A hypothesis does not need to be shown true, it has to be confirmed, meaning it is shown not to be false by other scientist.

If you really do not get this, sure, believe any hypothesis you read that is falsifiable but has not been falsified. If you want to live a life of a gullible, be my guest.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

In thermite's case you generally make various chemical additions - none of which are present in Jones' sample - and then heat it extraordinarily quickly.

What do you think the significance of "nano" in nano-thermite is?

It?

speeds up...

the...


can YOU fill in the last word? What does having smaller particle sizes speed up in a reacti...

Oops, I gave it away, it speeds up the reaction folks, just like the independent scientific literature on the subject says it does.

And a sped up exothermic reaction produces what really quickly? I'm sure you can answer this one without any clues this time.

edit on 23-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

It's the ignition that has to happen quickly.

Thermite is not an explosive. Just another error in an increasingly expanding litany of them.

Have you had any luck finding Niels Harrit's thousands of tonnes of TNT yet?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

It's the ignition that has to happen quickly.

Nonsense, you just made that up. Again.

What is the difference between primary and secondary explosives?

Why is plastic explosives so useful?

Why do you imagine NORMAL thermite would ignite quickly, when it does not anyhow.

reply to post by esdad71

So you should believe in the scientific method but not the results of scientists?

Yes, science is not about what scientists think but what can fail to be falsified in experiment.

Again, why has he not had the top 5 engineering institutions in the country test or review his findings.

My guess is that they guess he is right and would hate to "prove" his hypothesis by failing to falsify it.

If I had a conviction and a belief I would do it so what is his excuse.

Because he DID test it and failed to falsify it. Your objections are all made up nonsense that are themselves falsified in the literature.

There is no excuse only because there is no proof. If there is no physical proof than it is nothing but a theory

I asked this of PLB and he evaded so I will ask you too:

How would you PROVE that gravity exists.

Be careful now, don't propose an observation that fails to falsify the existence of gravity, you actually need to PROVE that it exists. A picture of gravity would be best but you can do itany way you want.

I'll wait.