1501st post!

Damn this thread is like the energizer bunny.

In other words Prove you wrong. Uh Uh...that's not the way it works.

And you claim that you're not trying to shift the burden of proof???

Come on...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

o/` The wheels on the bus go round and round... round and round... round and round... o/`

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

They do wear out though.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

24-December-2005, 11:08 PM

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Group think and mob tactics. That is good science. Let us
shift the issue a bit and look at the seismic data. While the
first building measured 2.1, the second measured at 2.3. This
is a significant increase, given that seismic data is not measured
linearly but logrithmically. What is the reason that two identical
towers yielded two drastically different readings upon collapsing,
if indeed the seismic crash, which amounts to a small earthquake,
was caused by falling rubble and not explosives?

Again, coincidence theorists, we are not talking about one or two
holes in this story. We are talking about swiss cheese. Everything
about the supposed terrorist attacks screams LIE.

Hey, at least we have a theory.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

It's not enough that you point out things you think are "holes" in the official story and then try to fill it with something as insubstantial as peanut butter.

So, what do we have? The seismic data differ for the collapse of the two towers. The buildings were identical, as you admit yourself, so why would there be any difference in, what you seem to be implying, the amount of explosives used to bring them down? How does this claim that explosives were used explain the discrepancy? I'll tell you what; it doesn't.

Just because I can't explain the difference doesn't make you correct without explanation.

So says you, and a handful of others. You have yet to prove it. Everything about your side of the argument parallels that of ID proponents: the official theory/story (evolution) is full of holes, by only your reckoning of course, so you fill in the gaps with your god (explosives) without making any attempt at explaining what actually happened.

You're defeating yourselves.

Well, at least you haven't explicitly claimed to be making attempts at anything resembling science. Groupthink away...

Remember this the central core columns who were cut at the base not the outside 147 columns
I have asked than YOU define exactly what would be the chimical(s)trace left who can satisfied you as a proof for the use of thermite.

What kind of seismic datas who can satisfied you as a proof or evidence about the use of thermite

First, welcome to the forum, count zer0. Please be sure to familiarize yourself with our forum rules.

That's a mischaracterization, and an unfair one at that. We tackle misconceptions on this forum via the examination of evidence on any given topic. In doing so, we thoroughly scrutinize claims and refute those which are incorrect as necessary. Your above allegation is incorrect.

The difference in force between a scale 2 and a scale 2.5 earthquake is only the equivalent of about 4-1/2 tons of TNT explosives. Considering that the falling buildings exerted forces in the range of 250,000+ tons of explosives on their foundations as they crumbled, the difference is only .0018% of the total force applied to the Earth's surface.

__________________
My son is my universe.

Are you saying that those columns, which are under the greatest load, would be able to support the weight of the entire building without the central core structure? Can you prove this? Remember: It's not up to us to prove that they wouldn't.

You have to be the one to provide the data, ChaByu.

Now, back to business. Your conclusion that thermite melted the columns at their bases and caused the weakest part of the building to begin falling seems based on nothing but, "I think it would happen that way" speculation. If that's all I have to battle against in your argument, then I can match it with, "I DON'T think it would happen that way" and I would have just as much right to claim victory as you, because I brought just as much evidence.

Remember that your example of a chain is a gross oversimplification. Chains don't stand upright. And even if one did, when you melt the bottom link, even a weakened upper link wouldn't be the first to fall.

Do you have anything besides speculation that melting the base of the supports would cause a collapse 70 stories up the structure?

__________________
My son is my universe.

If you cannot define yourself precisely what can constitue the proof or evidence for the use of thermite what makes you think you will be able to see it even if the evidence is presented.

For example chimical residue.
What kind of chimical residue you will accept as proof.

That is not i was saying.
I said than the stress caused by the central core columns (cut at the base) to everything attached to it will cause the weakest part to break first.

Not a chance. You want us to arbitrarily limit the data you can provide so that you can shrug of any of our later claims that it isn't convincing, saying, "Hey, that's what you asked for. Not my fault you won't believe it."

Right. The point, at the base, where the strongest of the buildings support (the core structure) was severed. If I'm not mistaken, the core was the main load-bearing structure for the WTC towers.

One of the criticisms of the WTC design, from the Wikipedia article on the attacks:
What you don't seem to be understanding is that severing the core makes that point the weakest point, not the impact point. It doesn't matter if the core would've "pulled" on everything else and caused the impact point to finally fail, because the building is already coming down at that point, "bottom up". That's obviously not what happened...

ChaByu, your demand for us to set the qualifications of proof is unreasonable. Bring it if you have it.

I repeat my question from my last post.

Do you have anything besides speculation that melting the base of the supports would cause a collapse 70 stories up the structure?

__________________
My son is my universe.

Good.
Do you agree than if thermite was used to cut the central core columns this will create a hugue amount of heat in the basement?

And where does that come from. Can you support that in any way?
I will go back and look at the definition of the seismic scale.

Has anyone read the firefighter eyewitness reports yet? Or the
transcripts from their radio calls?

We are talking about your theory. But if you want to work upon an axiom such as "IF thermite was used in the basement" then yes, thermite would create lots of heat in the basement.

But this is a diversion from the issue. We are discussing your version of events and your question is based on an assumption that has no proof.

Answer my question. Do you have any evidence other than speculation that the collapse at the aircraft impact point was caused by thermite in the basement?

__________________
My son is my universe.

Well if jet fuel is the cause of the heat evident in the September 15th thermal imaging why is WTC7 almost equally as hot?

Source, please.

__________________
My son is my universe.

This is a technical subject and things have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Why don't you present what you think is evidence of thermite. I don't know much about thermite, but I don't believe it is used in building demolition.

__________________
I believe in karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long, and assume they deserve it.

Also, let me back up and ask you to outline your version of events on 9/11. What do you claim brought down the towers, specifically, and give me an overview of what leads you to the conclusion that there was some conspiracy involved other than terrorists wanting to run planes into buildings.

So long as you don't reveal your theory, we will only go 'round and 'round on these little tidbits of information and misinformation that seem odd.

__________________
My son is my universe.

IIRC jet fuel only caused the initial fires in both cases, it burned up quickly but ignited building contents, that fueled the fire that brought the buildings down

__________________
I believe in karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long, and assume they deserve it.

You wrote
-ChaByu, your demand for us to set the qualifications of proof is unreasonable. Bring it if you have it.-

You have asking me to provide my proof but before i release it i want to be sure you agree with the elements than i have in hand.
So i will continue using axioms.

Do you agree than that hugue amount of heat will also heating the air contained in the basement thus will create water vapor

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-...r-01-0405.html
please notice the .gov
and not .consipracy

First of all the two buildings are not identical. One is taller than the other. Are you claiming that each building was also identical internally? So each had the same number of people, office furniture, computers, cubicles?

Second one of the buildings fell more or less straight down, while the top of the other tilted before it fell.

The basic thermite reaction is
2 Al + Fe2O3 = 2 Fe + Al2O3
It needs a very high temperature to be started, usually provided by burning a magnesium ribbon. So I would expect a lot of aluminum oxide, probably in the form of a sintered mass or powder. I would expect to see molten iron metal (not melted structural steel).

The applications I am most familiar with for thermite are not demolition, but welding (for example, railroad rail). In this application it does not melt the steel rails (that would be kind of pointless). The thermite is placed on top of the rails, ignited, and the melted iron flows down, welding the rails. I suspect if you attached a thermite package to the side of a vertical structural column, that the molten iron would just flow down the side of the and would not particularly cut it, but I guess I can not prove that. I have tried to find information about using it to cut columns and how much you would need, but I suspect it would be a very large quantity.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple