Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. 18:16 - Sep 9 with 12695 viewsPaddy39

We should have a minutes silence on Saturday to remember 9-11. Many English people lost their lives in the twin towers that day as well. 20yrs ago.

Poll: Should we retire our No.9 shirt for one season after losing Paul Mariner RIP?

-2
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 05:39 - Sep 11 with 2365 viewsKeaneish

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 23:28 - Sep 10 by eireblue

Here is the report.

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1a.pdf

The model was independently run and verified by a U.K. university.

Feel free to tell us the page numbers and paragraphs in the NIST report that are wrong and why.

Then applying Occam’s razor, provide a better scientific explanation.
[Post edited 10 Sep 2021 23:45]


Ooosht - 130 pages! That’s going to take a bit of time to plough through but I’ll read it and pull out the points which have been raised as problematic if that would placate the vociferous on this thread.

I’ll PM you some other stuff to read and a response to this although leave the sanctimonious tone out if you genuinely are interested in processing this conversation.
[Post edited 11 Sep 2021 6:14]

Poll: Who would be your managerial preference between these two?
Blog: [Blog] £2.65 Million and Waiting?

0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 05:52 - Sep 11 with 2360 viewsKeaneish

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 23:33 - Sep 10 by The_Flashing_Smile

It might be the way that you demanded "Now do the reading," or the fact that I'm moving home on Monday, have been packing all day, and went to a comedy gig tonight, which prevented me reading your many unsolicited links!

And when I see one of your sources is "Daniel Farnsworth - Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704" then I do wonder how credible/biased they are.


Unsolicited? You said, “I haven’t disproved the science”and insinuated I’m a ‘Conspiracy theorist’. I’ve provided you some links and reference material to support points I’ve made, reading I've done over the years to show this isn’t a whimsical reaction to sound bite.

There’s a lot of very credible discussion in there. As for that source you referenced, just because they’re part of an independent study or commission why would they be any less credible than someone at the NIST?

Poll: Who would be your managerial preference between these two?
Blog: [Blog] £2.65 Million and Waiting?

0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 05:55 - Sep 11 with 2355 viewsKeaneish

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 22:51 - Sep 10 by Herbivore

I don't think you really understand what you're talking about, mate.


Maybe, maybe not but that’s the whole point of this thread which seems to have been lost on you. There should be no conjecture 20 years on and there is, which isn’t right.

Poll: Who would be your managerial preference between these two?
Blog: [Blog] £2.65 Million and Waiting?

0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 07:52 - Sep 11 with 2334 viewsThe_Flashing_Smile

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 05:52 - Sep 11 by Keaneish

Unsolicited? You said, “I haven’t disproved the science”and insinuated I’m a ‘Conspiracy theorist’. I’ve provided you some links and reference material to support points I’ve made, reading I've done over the years to show this isn’t a whimsical reaction to sound bite.

There’s a lot of very credible discussion in there. As for that source you referenced, just because they’re part of an independent study or commission why would they be any less credible than someone at the NIST?


Firstly, I was expecting you to debunk specific problems you said you had with the article posted in this thread, on the forum. I didn't expect you to send me a PM with lots of links to all the sources you've read and expect me to read them all (when I'm very busy). I'm not doing your work for you.

Secondly, calling yourselves "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" suggests, before we even start, that they don't believe the official narrative.

Trust the process. Trust Phil.

0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 08:14 - Sep 11 with 2301 viewsHerbivore

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 05:55 - Sep 11 by Keaneish

Maybe, maybe not but that’s the whole point of this thread which seems to have been lost on you. There should be no conjecture 20 years on and there is, which isn’t right.


Take a look around you, there's conjecture about all sorts of stuff that there really shouldn't be. Some people still deny that climate change is a man made thing, ffs. Lots of people these days just simply refuse to accept the "official" truth of things on the basis that it's the official truth rather than because there's good evidence to doubt it.

9/11 was a pretty unique event, I'm not sure there are any other examples of passenger planes being flown into skyscrapers. There's no ready-made template for understanding what should happen in those precise circumstances. That some scientists struggle to understand elements of it does not mean that the explanations for what happened are inadequate any more so than climate deniers' lack of understanding means that explanations of climate change being man made are inadequate.

Poll: Should someone on benefits earn more than David Cameron?
Blog: Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

2
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:07 - Sep 11 with 2269 viewsKeaneish

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 08:14 - Sep 11 by Herbivore

Take a look around you, there's conjecture about all sorts of stuff that there really shouldn't be. Some people still deny that climate change is a man made thing, ffs. Lots of people these days just simply refuse to accept the "official" truth of things on the basis that it's the official truth rather than because there's good evidence to doubt it.

9/11 was a pretty unique event, I'm not sure there are any other examples of passenger planes being flown into skyscrapers. There's no ready-made template for understanding what should happen in those precise circumstances. That some scientists struggle to understand elements of it does not mean that the explanations for what happened are inadequate any more so than climate deniers' lack of understanding means that explanations of climate change being man made are inadequate.


Again, you’re missing the point. There is exceptionally credible evidence to doubt it, which is why, as per my original point, there should be further investigation. At the moment it’s a case of, “here’s the official report, what we say goes, done”, which has become the popular narrative.

Simple questions : why were thermite deposits found in the debris? Why were iron deposits exceptionally higher than any other building debris collapse? How does a hydro-carbon fire struggling for oxygen burn to the degree reported? How does steel-carbon turn molten when the official report says the heat was way lower than what is required to cause that reaction? Why does the official report state that the liquid spewing out of the building was molten alloy when it’s clearly not?

Legitimate questions that need answering or further investigation (ffs).

Poll: Who would be your managerial preference between these two?
Blog: [Blog] £2.65 Million and Waiting?

0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:11 - Sep 11 with 2270 viewsRob88

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 05:55 - Sep 11 by Keaneish

Maybe, maybe not but that’s the whole point of this thread which seems to have been lost on you. There should be no conjecture 20 years on and there is, which isn’t right.


You really don’t need science for this one to understand what happened, and I say that as someone who has studied science and engineering and worked as a materials scientist/engineer. You do need science and engineering for the specifics of the “how”.

Logic is all you need, the evidence is there and very well documented by independent witnesses, you can watch it play out for yourself minute by minute.

I am not a demolitions expert but I think it is reasonable to expect a controlled demolition of the building to take significant time, effort and disruption on the part of a significant group of people. How would you get such a group of people to remain covert, not raise alarm in a hugely populous building. What would the cause be? Whoever was conducting a controlled explosion of the building, are they supposed to be in cahoots with whoever flew two great big airliners into the building or was that just a massive coincidence. It’s a bonkers assertion when you give it 5 seconds of thought.

*On the subject of steel supports breaking. You really don’t need temperatures to exceed the melting temperature for them to break. You can look at a plot of yield strength against temperature for carbon steel (or whatever grade of structural steel was used) and you will see the degradation in strength after only a few hundred degrees. You then need to consider this property data will not account for microstructural evolution as a result of thermal exposure for prolonged time. If you can find plots of this then you will see that the combination of temperature and time result in an even more pronounced effect on strength degradation (yield and ultimate tensile) and you can see why temperatures of 600ish degrees for an hour could spell trouble (temperature will have a more pronounced effect than time but you can see that for yourself if you have a go at calculating the Larson-Miller parameter for different time and temperature combinations.

**on the subject of elemental composition of flakes of material found. They haven’t even done a semi-quantitative analysis, which isn’t surprising as there samples were naff all in size and they used EDAX which wouldn’t be able to do any better when samples are manometers/microns in size. So what they have said is we have found some Al, Fe, C and other bits but they can’t say what wt%. So what is steel made from? C and Fe. What are planes and coke cans made from? Al. You could tear this work apart on every level but I have provided a very basic attempt (as it is a Saturday morning and there is a fresh coffee downstairs waiting).
[Post edited 11 Sep 2021 9:15]
4
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:27 - Sep 11 with 2246 viewsKeaneish

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:11 - Sep 11 by Rob88

You really don’t need science for this one to understand what happened, and I say that as someone who has studied science and engineering and worked as a materials scientist/engineer. You do need science and engineering for the specifics of the “how”.

Logic is all you need, the evidence is there and very well documented by independent witnesses, you can watch it play out for yourself minute by minute.

I am not a demolitions expert but I think it is reasonable to expect a controlled demolition of the building to take significant time, effort and disruption on the part of a significant group of people. How would you get such a group of people to remain covert, not raise alarm in a hugely populous building. What would the cause be? Whoever was conducting a controlled explosion of the building, are they supposed to be in cahoots with whoever flew two great big airliners into the building or was that just a massive coincidence. It’s a bonkers assertion when you give it 5 seconds of thought.

*On the subject of steel supports breaking. You really don’t need temperatures to exceed the melting temperature for them to break. You can look at a plot of yield strength against temperature for carbon steel (or whatever grade of structural steel was used) and you will see the degradation in strength after only a few hundred degrees. You then need to consider this property data will not account for microstructural evolution as a result of thermal exposure for prolonged time. If you can find plots of this then you will see that the combination of temperature and time result in an even more pronounced effect on strength degradation (yield and ultimate tensile) and you can see why temperatures of 600ish degrees for an hour could spell trouble (temperature will have a more pronounced effect than time but you can see that for yourself if you have a go at calculating the Larson-Miller parameter for different time and temperature combinations.

**on the subject of elemental composition of flakes of material found. They haven’t even done a semi-quantitative analysis, which isn’t surprising as there samples were naff all in size and they used EDAX which wouldn’t be able to do any better when samples are manometers/microns in size. So what they have said is we have found some Al, Fe, C and other bits but they can’t say what wt%. So what is steel made from? C and Fe. What are planes and coke cans made from? Al. You could tear this work apart on every level but I have provided a very basic attempt (as it is a Saturday morning and there is a fresh coffee downstairs waiting).
[Post edited 11 Sep 2021 9:15]


You lost me in that first paragraph I’m afraid, logic is the “how?”

Regarding the point about the columns, they didn’t “break”, they warped causing the doplar effect according to the official theory. However, it’s clear to see even from a layman l’s point of view there is molten steel coming out the side of the building; they melted. So, going back to logic, how is this possible?

At least 3,000 architects and engineers want the same questions answering.

Poll: Who would be your managerial preference between these two?
Blog: [Blog] £2.65 Million and Waiting?

-2
Login to get fewer ads

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:28 - Sep 11 with 2247 viewseireblue

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 05:39 - Sep 11 by Keaneish

Ooosht - 130 pages! That’s going to take a bit of time to plough through but I’ll read it and pull out the points which have been raised as problematic if that would placate the vociferous on this thread.

I’ll PM you some other stuff to read and a response to this although leave the sanctimonious tone out if you genuinely are interested in processing this conversation.
[Post edited 11 Sep 2021 6:14]


Sanctimonious tone?

Jus so I am correct, with no emotion.

You have dismissed the NIST report. You haven’t yet read it?

You have made a a false claim about 35,000 people, in order to use an appeal to authority fallacy to forward your argument.

That is an emotional, not scientific based argument.

Scientific discussion is carried out in open.

Don’t PM your science, post it on the forum.
4
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:29 - Sep 11 with 2241 viewsRob88

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:27 - Sep 11 by Keaneish

You lost me in that first paragraph I’m afraid, logic is the “how?”

Regarding the point about the columns, they didn’t “break”, they warped causing the doplar effect according to the official theory. However, it’s clear to see even from a layman l’s point of view there is molten steel coming out the side of the building; they melted. So, going back to logic, how is this possible?

At least 3,000 architects and engineers want the same questions answering.


What’s the solidus temperature of steel?

You’ll want yourself a phase diagram, welcome to metallurgy.
[Post edited 11 Sep 2021 9:33]
3
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:37 - Sep 11 with 2228 viewsKeaneish

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:28 - Sep 11 by eireblue

Sanctimonious tone?

Jus so I am correct, with no emotion.

You have dismissed the NIST report. You haven’t yet read it?

You have made a a false claim about 35,000 people, in order to use an appeal to authority fallacy to forward your argument.

That is an emotional, not scientific based argument.

Scientific discussion is carried out in open.

Don’t PM your science, post it on the forum.


I’ve read large chapters of the NIST report, not the whole 135 page document, although 35 pages are accreditation and acknowledgment so I should be able to pick out sections quicker than first thought.

I have read the official report and the documentation from the Toronto hearing so I do feel I have grounds to raise questions I find troubling more than most. Incidentally, there seems to be a lot of reaction to this without much reading from anyone else. Yeah be just been bombarded with a load of quick Google searches as weak response to prove or disprove other people’s theories, which is absurd.

My mistake in the 35,000, it was unintentional. 3,000+ is still compelling.

Poll: Who would be your managerial preference between these two?
Blog: [Blog] £2.65 Million and Waiting?

-4
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:38 - Sep 11 with 2227 viewsKeaneish

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:29 - Sep 11 by Rob88

What’s the solidus temperature of steel?

You’ll want yourself a phase diagram, welcome to metallurgy.
[Post edited 11 Sep 2021 9:33]


I’m not a metallurgist, I’ll need to look that up…

Poll: Who would be your managerial preference between these two?
Blog: [Blog] £2.65 Million and Waiting?

0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:10 - Sep 11 with 2202 viewseireblue

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:37 - Sep 11 by Keaneish

I’ve read large chapters of the NIST report, not the whole 135 page document, although 35 pages are accreditation and acknowledgment so I should be able to pick out sections quicker than first thought.

I have read the official report and the documentation from the Toronto hearing so I do feel I have grounds to raise questions I find troubling more than most. Incidentally, there seems to be a lot of reaction to this without much reading from anyone else. Yeah be just been bombarded with a load of quick Google searches as weak response to prove or disprove other people’s theories, which is absurd.

My mistake in the 35,000, it was unintentional. 3,000+ is still compelling.


You do know that the AE911 people used to go around to American University campuses, getting them to sign up to stuff?

You do realise, as I explained earlier, the list of “scientists” claimed was full of non-scientists?

Do you know what percentage of scientists deny climate change?

Do you know the percentages of people that do understand the science related to buildings that don’t question the NIST report, and have published many technical and scientific papers about how to build buildings based on learning, and have changed regulations on how to build such buildings, vs the number of qualified scientists that dispute the NIST report?

You are making a fallacious emotional argument, an appeal to authority, to try an give your posting some form of credibility, maybe justify your curiosity.

Just post your science, tell us why and how it is less flawed, more accurate and has less gaps than any alternative. Then give us testable criteria, that can verify your science, and show us that it has been tested.

Please post that in the public domain, where all good, non-emotive scientific debate should happen.
3
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:17 - Sep 11 with 2184 viewsRob88

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:10 - Sep 11 by eireblue

You do know that the AE911 people used to go around to American University campuses, getting them to sign up to stuff?

You do realise, as I explained earlier, the list of “scientists” claimed was full of non-scientists?

Do you know what percentage of scientists deny climate change?

Do you know the percentages of people that do understand the science related to buildings that don’t question the NIST report, and have published many technical and scientific papers about how to build buildings based on learning, and have changed regulations on how to build such buildings, vs the number of qualified scientists that dispute the NIST report?

You are making a fallacious emotional argument, an appeal to authority, to try an give your posting some form of credibility, maybe justify your curiosity.

Just post your science, tell us why and how it is less flawed, more accurate and has less gaps than any alternative. Then give us testable criteria, that can verify your science, and show us that it has been tested.

Please post that in the public domain, where all good, non-emotive scientific debate should happen.


Cognitive dissonance.

I need to stop this, I’m out.
2
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:23 - Sep 11 with 2177 viewsKeaneish

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:10 - Sep 11 by eireblue

You do know that the AE911 people used to go around to American University campuses, getting them to sign up to stuff?

You do realise, as I explained earlier, the list of “scientists” claimed was full of non-scientists?

Do you know what percentage of scientists deny climate change?

Do you know the percentages of people that do understand the science related to buildings that don’t question the NIST report, and have published many technical and scientific papers about how to build buildings based on learning, and have changed regulations on how to build such buildings, vs the number of qualified scientists that dispute the NIST report?

You are making a fallacious emotional argument, an appeal to authority, to try an give your posting some form of credibility, maybe justify your curiosity.

Just post your science, tell us why and how it is less flawed, more accurate and has less gaps than any alternative. Then give us testable criteria, that can verify your science, and show us that it has been tested.

Please post that in the public domain, where all good, non-emotive scientific debate should happen.


To put it quite simply, I do, yes, I’m aware of all of that and again, the tone is a little condescending.

I’m not here to prove to you or to anyone what is right or wrong, let’s be clear on that. As I have repeatedly said, I have questions and concerns which I’ve documented throughout. To back-up why I think these are valid I’ll PM you, Rob and whoever else directly if you’re genuinely interested in having a discussion about this. I’m not interested in this being a typical point scoring TWTD yarn.

I’ve sent a bunch of stuff to others, I’ll read the whole of the NIST report rather than just chapters I deem relevant and send you extracts for private discussion. Anyone interested in this?

Or, I become a metallurgist or expert in fluid-dynamics, architecture, physics, chemistry and engineering and we continue this free for all.

Poll: Who would be your managerial preference between these two?
Blog: [Blog] £2.65 Million and Waiting?

0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:45 - Sep 11 with 2167 viewseireblue

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:23 - Sep 11 by Keaneish

To put it quite simply, I do, yes, I’m aware of all of that and again, the tone is a little condescending.

I’m not here to prove to you or to anyone what is right or wrong, let’s be clear on that. As I have repeatedly said, I have questions and concerns which I’ve documented throughout. To back-up why I think these are valid I’ll PM you, Rob and whoever else directly if you’re genuinely interested in having a discussion about this. I’m not interested in this being a typical point scoring TWTD yarn.

I’ve sent a bunch of stuff to others, I’ll read the whole of the NIST report rather than just chapters I deem relevant and send you extracts for private discussion. Anyone interested in this?

Or, I become a metallurgist or expert in fluid-dynamics, architecture, physics, chemistry and engineering and we continue this free for all.


Publish them in the thread.

Yes, you need considered peer reviewed data from experts in metallurgy, fluid dynamics, physics, chemistry, engineering etc.

By the way, this is the level of detail I will be interested in.

NIST, looked at all the designs, architecture diagrams, recommended materials, all the invoices, for all the different metals that were used in building construction.
They verified that the metal found matched everything that was designed and purchased.
They even went to the extent of sourcing similar material from all the manufacturers, they couldn’t get material from a supplier in Japan, ( I recall ), it had shut down.

They tested the material to check if it matched the tolerances and make-up of the designs, and what was found.

That was just one aspect that NIST tested.

Please publish the stuff that you have that is equally scientifically rigorous, is testable and has been tested.

It is not condescending to point out when someone is using an appeal to authority argument, it is not condescending to further point out the “authority” used is also based on a false data.
5
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:50 - Sep 11 with 2154 viewsKeaneish

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:45 - Sep 11 by eireblue

Publish them in the thread.

Yes, you need considered peer reviewed data from experts in metallurgy, fluid dynamics, physics, chemistry, engineering etc.

By the way, this is the level of detail I will be interested in.

NIST, looked at all the designs, architecture diagrams, recommended materials, all the invoices, for all the different metals that were used in building construction.
They verified that the metal found matched everything that was designed and purchased.
They even went to the extent of sourcing similar material from all the manufacturers, they couldn’t get material from a supplier in Japan, ( I recall ), it had shut down.

They tested the material to check if it matched the tolerances and make-up of the designs, and what was found.

That was just one aspect that NIST tested.

Please publish the stuff that you have that is equally scientifically rigorous, is testable and has been tested.

It is not condescending to point out when someone is using an appeal to authority argument, it is not condescending to further point out the “authority” used is also based on a false data.


No mate, I send them directly to you, I’m not interested in peer review because the level of insight or interest in this and the types of responses aren’t very insightful and steeped in emotive responses.

We’re on the same page in terms of discussion topics an level of granularity, this is what I’m happy to get into deep discussion about.

“False data” - we can discuss this.

Poll: Who would be your managerial preference between these two?
Blog: [Blog] £2.65 Million and Waiting?

-4
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:56 - Sep 11 with 2150 viewseireblue

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:50 - Sep 11 by Keaneish

No mate, I send them directly to you, I’m not interested in peer review because the level of insight or interest in this and the types of responses aren’t very insightful and steeped in emotive responses.

We’re on the same page in terms of discussion topics an level of granularity, this is what I’m happy to get into deep discussion about.

“False data” - we can discuss this.


You are the person trying to use an emotive and fallacious argument.

Science is done in the public glare.

Just like the NIST report, the draft was published for anyone to comment. Scientists and members of the public.
All the comments were assessed, and then the final NIST report was published.

If we are on the same page on level of granularity, let’s get on the same page in terms of the public scrutiny that went into the NIST report.

Post your science in public.
3
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 11:14 - Sep 11 with 2140 viewsHerbivore

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:07 - Sep 11 by Keaneish

Again, you’re missing the point. There is exceptionally credible evidence to doubt it, which is why, as per my original point, there should be further investigation. At the moment it’s a case of, “here’s the official report, what we say goes, done”, which has become the popular narrative.

Simple questions : why were thermite deposits found in the debris? Why were iron deposits exceptionally higher than any other building debris collapse? How does a hydro-carbon fire struggling for oxygen burn to the degree reported? How does steel-carbon turn molten when the official report says the heat was way lower than what is required to cause that reaction? Why does the official report state that the liquid spewing out of the building was molten alloy when it’s clearly not?

Legitimate questions that need answering or further investigation (ffs).


I don't think I'm missing the point at all. And I don't think you've read much more widely than looking at the sceptics. I get it, it's more interesting, but it's not a very rigorous way to form an opinion. All of the questions you've asked by the way are answered in various different places if you're genuinely interested in having them answered.

I think it's pretty disrespectful to the people that lost their lives that all this innuendo is still going on to be honest. I've yet to see any credible alternative explanation for what happened that day that's better than the one I witnessed with my own eyes.
[Post edited 11 Sep 2021 11:15]

Poll: Should someone on benefits earn more than David Cameron?
Blog: Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

5
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 12:58 - Sep 11 with 2090 viewsKeaneish

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:56 - Sep 11 by eireblue

You are the person trying to use an emotive and fallacious argument.

Science is done in the public glare.

Just like the NIST report, the draft was published for anyone to comment. Scientists and members of the public.
All the comments were assessed, and then the final NIST report was published.

If we are on the same page on level of granularity, let’s get on the same page in terms of the public scrutiny that went into the NIST report.

Post your science in public.


Is that why the NIST and no-one from the U.S government turned up to the International hearing held in a court of law in 2010 to answer challenges on their report?

I’ll post on this thread if that will satisfy you. I see little value to it though given that no-one on here will bother looking at either report or explore the sources. It almost feels like a weak challenge to see if I’ll actually do it; a one upmanship but as you see fit…

In the mean time, maybe look into the farcical shotgun experiment NIST conducted to simulate the explosive force of the Boeing collision dislodging the fire protective coating. That’s one thing I have a grievance with given dislodging of the fire resistant material is integral to their theory of global collapse.

Also look at how a building that pancakes from floor to floor loses energy rather than gains it. Both towers fell in 9 and 11 seconds - free fall, global collapse with no resistance. One floor collapsing on another creates and gains energy, it doesn’t fall from one to the next uninhibited without an increase in mass, energy and subsequently time.

Poll: Who would be your managerial preference between these two?
Blog: [Blog] £2.65 Million and Waiting?

0
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 13:28 - Sep 11 with 2058 viewseireblue

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 12:58 - Sep 11 by Keaneish

Is that why the NIST and no-one from the U.S government turned up to the International hearing held in a court of law in 2010 to answer challenges on their report?

I’ll post on this thread if that will satisfy you. I see little value to it though given that no-one on here will bother looking at either report or explore the sources. It almost feels like a weak challenge to see if I’ll actually do it; a one upmanship but as you see fit…

In the mean time, maybe look into the farcical shotgun experiment NIST conducted to simulate the explosive force of the Boeing collision dislodging the fire protective coating. That’s one thing I have a grievance with given dislodging of the fire resistant material is integral to their theory of global collapse.

Also look at how a building that pancakes from floor to floor loses energy rather than gains it. Both towers fell in 9 and 11 seconds - free fall, global collapse with no resistance. One floor collapsing on another creates and gains energy, it doesn’t fall from one to the next uninhibited without an increase in mass, energy and subsequently time.


Post your science, and yes please include the sources.
3
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 13:40 - Sep 11 with 2037 viewsThe_Romford_Blue

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 09:27 - Sep 11 by Keaneish

You lost me in that first paragraph I’m afraid, logic is the “how?”

Regarding the point about the columns, they didn’t “break”, they warped causing the doplar effect according to the official theory. However, it’s clear to see even from a layman l’s point of view there is molten steel coming out the side of the building; they melted. So, going back to logic, how is this possible?

At least 3,000 architects and engineers want the same questions answering.


Firstly, sorry to hear Cheltenham Blue was there. Must be awful to have gone through live.

Secondly, Keanish I won’t label you a conspiracy theorist as I’m not sure you’re quite like the majority of those who believe anything but the obvious. But I would like to ask how you’d suggest a controlled demolition happened as to the timing with the planes. i.e, how would it have been timed so the 600mph plane went in at the same moment someone at the bottom was blowing it up. Not just once.. but twice in an hour. Do you not think that’s just so so unlikely that it’s not an angle to go with? And we know the planes hit as there were billions of people watching it on tv as well as the hundreds of thousands who unfortunately saw it live. Surely with the planes being something that can’t be denied, the likelihood of an explosion happening at the exact same time is just so slim that it can’t be a serious suggestion.

Poll: Would we sell out our allocation for Wembley for a PJ Trophy final?

0
[Redacted] on 14:04 - Sep 11 with 2008 viewsvictorywilhappen

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 13:28 - Sep 11 by eireblue

Post your science, and yes please include the sources.


[Redacted]
3
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 14:17 - Sep 11 with 1986 viewsGlasgowBlue

Seeing as this thread has descended into the realms of 911 conspiracies, this article is well worth a read.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/18/september11.israel

It tells how what starts of as seemly harmless crank conspiracies are rooted in age old racist tropes.

Iron Lion Zion
Poll: Our best central defensive partnership?
Blog: [Blog] For the Sake of My Football Club, Please Go

2
Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 17:10 - Sep 13 with 1863 viewsCheltenham_Blue

Remembering 9-11 with our American owners. on 10:12 - Sep 10 by Keaneish

Emotion has no value to this discussion topic about contradictory science to the official report. I'll PM you the sources for you to have a read through.

Lack of empathy? It's the opposite. I have empathy which is why i'd like a proper study done and the NIST to look into the evidence gathered since their update in 2005. Too much conjecture means families can never rest, it's not right and its not just.


I must admit I took sometime to take a look at this having not wanted to do it over the weekend.

I asked you to send me a 'credentialed and peer reviewed journaled article' to support your theory of a thermite reaction within the Towers. That's not what you sent me.

You work for the Economist to I assumed you knew what a peer reviewed journaled article meant, but it seems, alas not. What you sent me was an article from 'Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth' a group set up in 2006 by Richard Gage, a well known conspiracy nut and someone who has repeatedly cited as being, "responsible for peddling some of the most pernicious and long-running lies about the 9/11 attacks".

This article in 'AE911' contains a number of references, 4 of which, from YouTube, that well known academic resource, (and home of the conspiracy nut job), one of which a video from AE911 themselves, meaning they used their own film as a reference for their article and an out of context video of firefighters talking about "molten rivers of steel running down the channel runs", 9/11 is not mentioned, bar a 1 second clip of fire fighters pointing at an aerial shot of the 9/11 'pile'. The most telling thing in this out of context clip is the final fire fighter, who says, "There was no machinery, because the machinery was all gone", what 'machinery' could possibly be in the towers prior to collapse, except for the lift gear, which was well above the impact zone, and even if fire fighters WERE in the lift rooms, you'd have to argue that they were pretty sh1t at their jobs to be in a room unaffected by fire well above the seat of the fire.

Next we come to the article, written by several academics that you hint at. This article was published in 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal'. I assume, working for the economist, you'll know what an 'open' journal means?

Just in case, it means it's not reviewed, I could write an article that said I discovered the existence of BigFoot and I can prove he is responsible for teaching people how to make crystal meth, and they'd probably publish it.

All of this is before I've even mentioned that the article by Niels H. Harrit, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen et al has been completely dismissed as inaccurate and the samples reanalysed by spectroscopy, the final report stating,

"There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles that you would expect to see from a thermite burn. They say the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon-steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. And there is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, so the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."

Niels Harrit tried to sue for libel a Danish newspaper, Weekendavisen, which dismissed his claims and called him a liar, during the trial, he called Professor Per Hedegaard as a witness on his behalf, the following is from Professor Hedegaard's testimony, "from the data in Harrit’s nanothermite report there would have to be about 60 metric tonnes of unreacted nanothermite, which would mean that there would have been even more inside the buildings that actually reacted."

Dr Harrit lost his libel claim.

Peddling this sort of sh1t, is really pretty low. Do some proper research, not rely on 'research' that at my University would have got an F for being unable to substantiate their claims, and talk to people who were actually there.

Still think they were packed out with Thermite? Thermite is a very reactionary substance, funny how it managed to stay inert as two planes flew into it isn't it? 9/11 isn't a suitable subject to be going, 'look how clever and edgy I am', especially on a football forum.
[Post edited 13 Sep 2021 18:16]

Poll: Smooth Mash or Mash with Lumps?

15
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024