Iranian President suggests 9/11 foul play and cover up

[zArk]

And how many experts are saying that the "probability of thermite or thermate" being involved "is extremely high," as you just stated?



Oh, and read the FAQ before posting up another massive image.

yes i know now. I checked and wrote a brief apology.

with regard to how many.

I have no idea how many experts have been shown the video footage, but i welcome opinions from people you would accept as 'experts'.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

well, as with the last page of this thread, the questions over the molten metal observed in the basement areas of the rubble of all three buildings provoked investigation into how that came about.

So the conspiracy theorists decided that this was down to thermite rather than any other cause, presumably in the style of sherlock holmes "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." A deeply flawed statement by the way.

All three buildings? Dear god, i thought we'd delt with WTC 7 in the other thread.

 

[zArk]

So the conspiracy theorists decided that this was down to thermite rather than any other cause, presumably in the style of sherlock holmes "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." A deeply flawed statement by the way.

All three buildings? Dear god, i thought we'd delt with WTC 7 in the other thread.

Greening actually supports the official story

 

[zArk]

double post, soz

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Greening actually supports the official story

Irrelevant, there is no evidence for thermite in the buildings other than some hot metal. We have hot metal, which is nice, but there is no way to tell what got it hot.

 

[editor]

I have no idea how many experts have been shown the video footage, but i welcome opinions from people you would accept as 'experts'.

I'd imagine Leslie Robertson's seen it. And he's one of the world's leading authorities on both the WTC and structural engineering.

Could you now tell me what you were basing this claim on, please: "that video shows that the probability of thermite or thermate was involved is extremely high."

What are your qualifications in structural engineering, demolition, explosives and thermite?

What research has led you to conclude that the probability of thermite or thermate being involved is "extremely high."

What sources have you to back up this "extremely high" probability, please?

 

[zArk]

Irrelevant, there is no evidence for thermite in the buildings other than some hot metal. We have hot metal, which is nice, but there is no way to tell what got it hot.

ahhh but the official story says a combination of jet fuel and office fire weakened the struts. That temperature could create molten aluminum but the video shows molten metal at a colour that indicates with high probablity of 1000 centigrade which is higher than jet fuel and office fire can produce.

so investigation is valid

 

[teqniq]

Um, sorry to be pedantic but thermite is actually powdered aluminium and iron oxide

 

[editor]

ahhh but the official story says a combination of jet fuel and office fire weakened the struts.

That's also what the vast majority of experts in a host of related fields think too.

Including the lead engineer for the WTC.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

No evidence of thermite.
No evidence of thermite.
No evidence of thermite.
Repeat till it sinks in.

Now, tell me why this line is still valid:

well, that video shows that the probability of thermite or thermate was involved is extremely high.

And in addition if you could tell me why thermite would have been used for the job when it's so poorly suited to the purpose?

 

[zArk]

I'd imagine Leslie Robertson's seen it. And he's one of the world's leading authorities on both the WTC and structural engineering.

Could you now tell me what you were basing this claim on, please: "that video shows that the probability of thermite or thermate was involved is extremely high."

What are your qualifications in structural engineering, demolition, explosives and thermite?

What research has led you to conclude that the probability of thermite or thermate being involved is "extremely high."

What sources have you to back up this "extremely high" probability, please?

I am using the work of Prof. Steven E Jones Department of Physics and Astronomy, who holds a PhD in physics.

an ad-hominen argument i welcome in this thread but as i am mearly re-producing Prof Jones article i fail to see how that arguement is valid here.

 

[zArk]

Um, sorry to be pedantic but thermite is actually powdered aluminium and iron oxide

yes, and Prof Jones does talk of thermate.

 

[editor]

I am using the work of Prof. Steven E Jones Department of Physics and Astronomy, who holds a PhD in physics.

No, you claimed that well, that video shows that the probability of thermite or thermate was involved was "extremely high."

So how does it do that, then?

 

[Jazzz]

editor, your quotes from Leslie Robertson are undated. Were they not soon after the attack? It has taken a good while for all the information about molten metal (and other evidence you can find in Jones' paper, which I fancy you are too scared to click on). Whether Robertson has changed his mind, or is now doubtful, I wouldn't presume to know. But I don't think you can either. What we can say is that your expression of his opinion (repeated practically every single post) -which may have been before much evidence came to light - is extremely weak evidence.

 

[zArk]

No, you claimed that well, that video shows that the probability of thermite or thermate was involved was "extremely high."

So how does it do that, then?

1) molten metal found in basement of rubble
2) molten metal is clearly seen in video footage
3) the colour indicates a temperature of 1000 cent.

I question how is that possible. Jones says that a thermite reaction is consistant with this, as does Greening. Therefore until another expert puts forward scientific data to refute a thermite or thermate reaction being the cause, i will stand by my statement;

the probability of thermite or thermate was involved IS "extremely high."

If you wish to deny the video evidence because it doesnt fit with the official story, thats your denial and failure.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

1) Physiscs != Materials science, i'd prefer at least a chemist or the aforementioned discipline of materials science. Either way he's no more an expert than i am because of a physics docterate.
2) Yes
3) Possibly.

You're still failing to link molten metal to thermite.

 

[zArk]

1) Physiscs != Materials science, i'd prefer at least a chemist or the aforementioned discipline of materials science. Either way he's no more an expert than i am because of a physics docterate.
2) Yes
3) Possibly.

You're still failing to link molten metal to thermite.

No, the burden of persuasion is on the official theory and you.

There is a valid explanation of the molten metal found in the basement and the official theory fails spectaculary

 

[teqniq]

Hmmm, i haven't seen the vid that's being so hotly (pardon the pun) debated here but it seems to me that in buildings such as the WTC there would be plenty of aluminuim and steel that would burn of it's own accord without the assitance of thermite if the fire became hot enough. Just a thought.

 

[kyser_soze]

Actually I'd like to see more than one metturlagist sourced about this metal...I mean, it;'s not like there wouldn't have been services support equipment (a/c pipes, network cables etc) that would have caught fire.

And a chemist...and a spectograph analysis of the colour/temperature of the 'metal'

And zArk - completely ignoring BTLs post about how and where thermite is used in demolition, and the difficulties in doing so and it's utter unsuitability in this instance does not make the speculation based on the video any more 'correct'

 

[zArk]

Hmmm, i haven't seen the vid that's being so hotly (pardon the pun) debated here but it seems to me that in buildings such as the WTC there would be plenty of aluminuim and steel that would burn of it's own accord without the assitance of thermite if the fire became hot enough. Just a thought.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4602823&postcount=335

my post with link

 

[zArk]

And zArk - completely ignoring BTLs post about how and where thermite is used in demolition, and the difficulties in doing so and it's utter unsuitability in this instance does not make the speculation based on the video any more 'correct'

woah, wait-a-sec i know that Jones and Greening go to that conclusion but i am stating that the thermate/thermite explanation does account for the molten metal found in the basement and i havent seen another explanation which is as probable. full stop *for this thread*

 

[Jazzz]

Gods, thermite, don't get me started on that bullshit.

Thermite is not used in cutting charges, it's easier, faster and safer to use standard plastic explosives than thermite reactions. Thermite is used in military roles as an incendary grendade, but the emphasis is not on cutting at all, it's to weld things. In fact to use thermite to cut through something you'd really want a vertical feed which kind of limits your application to horizontal bars, it might be possible to cut through vertical members with it, but i can't see how. I've seen thermite used to cut through a metal bar, you need a drip feed system to do so.

Also thermite is a thermally triggered reaction (note, reaction, not an explosion), you have to get it very hot to set it off. While conventional plastic explosives can literally be set on fire and used to cook your food (other than the toxic gases given off) thermite would be one of the most stupid choices for demolishing a building that's going to have large amounts of burning kerosene in the area.

It's also notoriously hard to set off, generally it's done by having a more reactive fuse fitted to it, magnesium for example. Electrical ignition is not used in any case i've heard of (although an ISFE would let you use a remote ignition system). Either way you run the risk of accidental ignition or failing to ignite at all.

Now, problems. If it were set off by the fire it would have gone a lot faster than the buildings really did. It'd ignite with the inital kerosene flash and take a matter of minutes (very few of them) to burn through the support members.

The entire idea of thermite being used is based upon the same intellectual laziness as the idea the the WTC 7 building was demolished. Seeing something and then leaping to the first conclusion that you like the look of. All we know is that there is signs of intense heat in the building, we do not know the cause and we do not know the exact temperatures.

There is no reason to use thermite to demolish the building, it's inefficent, difficult to control, more sensitive to thermal issues than plastique and inappropriate for deomolition.

But there must be a way of weaking the vertical steels, which is normally done by slicing them through 90%, as editor pointed out a while back. That might be more appropriate for usual demolitions but not in this case. The hypothesis is that thermite was used for this and another explosive to bring it all down.

There were many reports of explosions before the WTC collapsed. Thermite triggering as you suggest? It seems to be perfectly in keeping with known observations. That the possible use of thermite here seems bold and risky is no reason to discount it.

And we have to have some way to account for all the molten metal.

 

[teqniq]

Sorry, not convinced. In a conflaguration of that magnitude that could just as easily be molten/burning metal that was part of the structure of the building.

 

[zArk]

Sorry, not convinced. In a conflaguration of that magnitude that could just as easily be molten/burning metal that was part of the structure of the building.

well, what metal?

 

[Jazzz]

Hmmm, i haven't seen the vid that's being so hotly (pardon the pun) debated here but it seems to me that in buildings such as the WTC there would be plenty of aluminuim and steel that would burn of it's own accord without the assitance of thermite if the fire became hot enough. Just a thought.

Not the case teqniq - normally aspirated hydrocarbon fires cannot get hot enough to melt steel. In addition to that, the quantity of steel in the buildings is vast compared with the fires on just a few floors.

 

[teqniq]

Please reread post #378

 

[editor]

And we have to have some way to account for all the molten metal.

You said molten steel.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz wants to rad his own link. Here is what it says:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

What you want to do DF is to read the whole link not just the first bit.

3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

further

It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger.

editor's appeal to the authority of Leslie Robertson - just an expression of opinion of his, no actual science - is an extremely weak one which fully deserves the description 'fallacious'.

 

[editor]

But there must be a way of weaking the vertical steels, which is normally done by slicing them through 90%, as editor pointed out a while back. That might be more appropriate for usual demolitions but not in this case. The hypothesis is that thermite was used for this and another explosive to bring it all down.

Your 'hypothesis' just keeps on getting more and more complicated by the minute, doesn't it?

So how was all this stuff brought it to the building then?
Who brought it in? Who installed it? How did they get it in situ? Who set it off?

And - more importantly - how come no security/door staff saw all these new people wheeling in wheelbarrows full of explosives?

And with all this activity going on, how come no office staff, managers, workers, cleaners, lift workers, parking attendant, police, CCTV operatives saw anything?

And how did they manage to install all these tons of explosives without a soul noticing?

I'd sure as hell notice some new blokes coming into my office and wiring things up without explanation and unless the entire floor had suffered some form of weird vision problem, they'd sure notice tons of wiring and explosives cluttering up the office.

Seeing as the WTC was open 24/7, perhaps you might come up with a credible solution as to how it managed to be invisible wired up with invisible explosives fitted by invisible operatives?

Any ideas?

 

[Jazzz]

You said molten steel.

Yes. As was observed. What's the point?

Professor Jones sticks to molten metal out of scientific rigour, something you wouldn't have a clue about. Either way the official theory is sunk.