- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2,088
- Reaction score
- 445
- Location
- Bonnie Scotland !!!
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
but I'm not really going to be getting into 9-11 issues very much. (especially with the latest releases and comments related to the video of the firefighters describing how the main lobby of building 7 exploded and collapsed on them and the related 'debunking'...
I fully understand B'man, for it can be an at times a contentious issue, there is a LOT of supposition involved.
But I will correct one small wee mistake here ... this video has been widely touted in conspiracy circles as Fire Fighters talking about the lobby of either the Towers or WTC 7 ... when in fact they were talking about the Marriot Hotel lobby.
They were from Ladder Company 24 which was sent to a staging area INSIDE the Marriot Hotel lobby ...
FDNY F/F James Duffy ...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110444.PDF
FDNY F/F Tyrone Jonson ...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110443.PDF
But the thing you have to understand about all these videos is that they are NOT proof of anything ... except that reports can be wrong during live events.
A news report saying there were bombs does NOT mean there were actual "bombs", things can and do get confused in the fog of war kind of thing.
There were many reports of bombs in other places that turned out to be not so, have you ever looked retrospectively at live news and seen how often they turn out to be wrong ...
News reports from a live, chaotic event are NOT GOSPEL !!!
You must understand that you need MORE than some jumbled testimony from frightened, tired, shattered people during a terrifying time as being wholly authorative.
Have you never been involved in a chaotic event where no-one "really" knew what was happening ... it is all very well for us to sit here years later with the benefit of hindsight and shout bombs ... but WITHOUT further corroborating physical evidence ... all those reports NEED to be taken with the proverbial pinch of salt.
Live news reports are NOT proof of anything other than chaos ...
I also find it very telling that all truthers whom loudly tout the Fire Fighters testimony as proof of explosives have to this very day NEVER shown the moral or intellectual backbone to actually GO AND SEE these people and see if they agree with your "interpretation" of their words ... you simply CANNOT in all moral decency and honesty use these peoples words WITHOUT checking you are right first !!!
And that is what your whole movement has failed to do ... check first !!!
First responders are public employees and this was a historic event in the full glare of publicity, there has been NOTHING stopping any truther group or individual from approaching a public employee and office and double-checking your interpretation of their witnessing.
Why has the truth movement failed to even attempt this ???
Oh... maybe I misunderstood, and since I first posted that I did learn that there's probably about 50 different concoctions of explosives / high level incendiaries that can be made into sol-gels.
No worries ... but sol-gels were not and never were past the theoretical and laboratory stage at that time and were not and still not available in large scale manufacture.
Thoeretical stuff does not cut it, then OR now !!!
At the very least, NIST should have performed the test for explosives to be able to say conclusively that there were no explosives, rather then the justification which amounts to 'we didn't test for explosives because it would have been too difficult' or 'because the buildings collapsed at the floors that were impacted'... I forget the specific reasoning, but it was along those lines.
They had no need to test NOR explain themselves, for scientifically, it was self-evident what caused the buildings demise, building collapse forensics is well known and understood ... and for them to have tested to suit the non-expert demands of the public is nonsense.
WITHOUT physical evidence of explosives ... there was no legal, moral or ethical reason to check ... you do not have a dentist check your teeth for an obvious broken leg !!!
Every single piece of debris was subjected to a detailed fingertip search at Fresh Kills, inspected, poked, prodded and analysed by a plethora of acknowledged experts in multiple fields, as well as sniffed all over by teams of dogs ... not a teeny, weeny, wee speck of anything bomb-like or explosive like was EVER found.
Explosives do not just disappear into thin air ... they ALWAYS leave "physical" evidence.
None was found ... oh! maybe then that is because there was NONE there !!!
The difference I was referring to was more like how you can put your hand into the flame of a candle for about half a second before it will start to burn you... so, the extra material would serve to extend the burning time in order to accomplish the objective reasoning behind it being there, whether it was explosive (2X TNT will provide at least 2X the explosive force), or incendiary to heat the steel further. (assuming that this stuff being in the building was accurate of course)
There is a difference between temperature and heat ... and whilst the duration of log fires can be "extended" by addition of another log, and no increase in heat output ... the same cannot be said of an incendiary material like thermite.
Thermite is not a combustable like a wooden log ... it is a chemical compound that reacts chemically.
But the scientist ALSO lied by performing a test that he KNEW would not be sufficient to destroy the steel... which was my point.
What lie ... he was tasked with performing a simple test between regular and super thermite ... he did that ... where is the "lie" ???
Stop trying to dodge and twist reality to suit ... it is weak !!!
Is it possible that Ventura as UDT might have been working WITH SEALS teams directly?? I mean in the sense that you might have a squad of soldiers on the frontlines working directly with a squad of artillery (probably a bad example, but I'm mostly ignorant on military affairs beyond certain basic understandings)
No B'man the point is he DELIBERATELY lies and calls himself a Navy SEAL when he has NO right to ... he never was a SEAL ... and even working closely with them does NOT give you the right to "claim" you were one of them, any more than my RAF career gives me the right to claim I am the pilot of the aircraft I am going on holiday in !!!
, as per usual I'm an advocate for discernment, separating the truth from the lies to the best of my abilities.
Yes, seperating the wheat from the chaff is a skill, but here is a hint B'man ... considering the amount of outright lies and compete psuedo-scince told by proponets of the Truth Movement they are more likely the chaff !!!
There's no simple answer to that... THERE ARE, however, MANY with credentials that do speak within their expertise, and anytime they are mentioned, every attempt to slander their character is made... just to specify a single factor of this.
Name just one B'man, but why do you think telling how UNQUALIFIED (think Gage ...the architect) to speak with authority is an attack on character ... it's not !!!
Saying someone is speaking wholly without their field, yet claiming authority is NOT slander ... it is a FACT !!!
Gage as an architect without experience of high buildings does NOT have right by credentials to speak about high rise building collapse ... FACT !!!
I would ask the same of the 'F.olks A.ccepting G.overnment S.tories' as well
Please point to one single outright blatent lie told by NIST or anyone else ???
BUT, to give an analogy of how his experiment gets into flawed territory, would be like taking a 9mm pistol and shooting an elephant and when it continues to charge at you make the conclusion that elephants are bullet proof...
Sorry, but this shows you have no understanding of scientific methodology, some tests to carry out on a real world scale would be impossible, due to size or expense ... so smaller tests are conducted, but by scaling up mathematically you can predict, quite accurately the real world outcome of the larger event.
Science works ... scientists and engineers use modelling all the time and just because a scientist used a much more simplified model, than he would routinely use, to suit a more lay audience does NOT in any way diminish the test.
Conceptual modelling is a proven and accurate method of finding out real world results ... happens all the time, from designing a new car to a new building.
Van Romero was demonstrating a principle that holds up in the real world, in that thermite (of whatever flavour) does NOT have enough heat energy for long enough to sever columns, such as at the WTC nor can act against gravity ... just because it is dumbed down for general viewing does not negate it any more than the "volcano" projects of schoolkids goes against the science of real volcanos !!!
Yes, this little papier-mâché project is über simpified and not quite reflecting the scale and reality of an actual volcano it STILL suffices to demonstrate principles !!!
So, had the guy used a heavy gauge steel stud and applied the same amount and it STILL didn't cut through, I'd have no choice but to shut up on that issue.
Yes B'man, I do understand that for many "seeing is believing" ... but when you consider the ability of modelling and mathematical scaling it becomes clear you do not actually need to do this, but I do understand that for many they do need to ... so why do you not contact some groups and get them to do a bigger better replay of Truth Burn at the Burning Man festival of 2007 ... which was another predictable abject dose of fail !!!
Getting hold of some equal size steel beams and jimmying them up with some thermite should be do-able ???
Then you can see with your own eyeballs what scientists know in their hearts ... it canna be done !!!
TruthBurn: TRUTHBURN Art Project at Burning Man 2007
Truth Burn at Burning Man - Democratic Underground
My overall point was that BOTH were lying and NEITHER made their case.
Wrong ... only one was lying, and he already has a record of such dishonest claims !!!
Yes, his experiment stands that there are different concoctions that can still fall under the category of thermite... but if he was so confident in the results, he should have made a better test scenario. That's all I'm saying.
So what ... the energy signatures are already well-known, so what difference would it have made ???
Do you not think he was so confidant because REAL scientists already know these claims are junk ... and that answers why truthers do not have the support, but rather the ridicule of the worldwide scientific and engineering communities, because they already know this is crud !!!