|
| |||||||||||||||
thermite,examining,911,conspiracy,debunks Debunking the Thermite Theory: 911 ConsipiracyDebunking the Thermite Theory: 911 Consipiracytags:An interesting video, which takes the claim of controlled demolition with the use of thermite seriously. This thread is getting long... But it is a clean conversation on both sides- I hope you enjoy reading it.
Comments  playlists with this video World Trade Center by choggie
• Controversies by Krupo
who voted for this video MycroftHomlz
- siftbot
x28Debunking The Thermite Theory: 911 Consipiracy Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. Seric
(118 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
Let's analyze this statement, shall we?...but not in such long-winded detail as the insects that pick apart, an "official" story-
there are some folks, who could see their goddamn clothes on fire, and deny the shit was either being consumed, or damaging the tissue beneath it, or that they even smelled the flesh as it was consumed.....
What miniscule meaning, true false or otherwise, does one minute smidgen of data, shown here or not, do to say anything more, than "I believe what I am told, because it is "The Official Story"-
Instead of the towers, or the goddamn explosions heard by several firefighters, or by the cat with the key, or the confiscated footage in D.C., or the tiny hole made by an expertly flown jumbo jet, or the lack of debris there, or the WTC 7 having been pulled(not to mention her tenants), or Rudy's lying, pathetic bought and sold ass, or Bush's continual, ineffectual actions, or the goddamn media silence on the issue when everyone is talking about it in thinking forums, or the constant barrage of garbage entertainment, organized sports, grieving victims, and unanswered questions.....what fucking proof does anyone need, to know that something is fucking rotten in Denmark, surrounding the events of this day, and the subsequent funding of the machine of consolidation of power and control....
The frustration the unbelievers have, is their inability to place blame on anyone. It was NOT, my Muslim bretheren, some off the reservation sand-dwellers....and if it was, the initialed ones had their hands innit.
This denial shit, is getting old.
I wish there was a penalty for that. It isn't cool and it's not funny.
It takes into question one of the theory's premises.
Big diff.
9/11 was an inside job, and Bush and Cheney blocked the investigation.
Those THREE buildings could not have fallen as they did without demolitions.
My point being that, you don't need the whole story to find enough evidence to draw a conclusion, or at least eliminate an erroneous alternative hypothesis. As it stands, all of the scientific evidence examined and computer simulations done by NIST and other universities such as UMD, and CU supports the thesis that the collapse of all of the Towers(Including WT7) was initiated by the airplanes crashing. The fact that you and others like you have not read NIST's report to effectively know the points you are arguing against is similar to a creationist saying "I don't need to understand the theory of evolution, because I have read the bible".
Read the report. If you still don't agree with it, then your opinion, at least, is based on scientific fact and not conjecture. I should reiterate the fact that no accredited scientific source supports your conjecture. According to Wikipedia, Steven Jones, is regarded very poorly, and at the least is seen as incompetent and in the worst case a fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
Jeff King, as I pointed out in a previous post, cannot be confirmed as a research scientist of any kind, let alone at MIT.
You asked me to present you three scientists who were not related to the NIST investigation. That is a very challenging task, primarily because the federal government essentially charged NIST with the scientific investigation. In order to be involved in this research a significant part of the structural and metallurgical engineering community have collaborated. In fact, the way scientific research is done in most countries virtually NO SCINETIFIC RESEARCH IS DONE WITHOUT FEDERAL FUNDING. As a scientist in my experience, these granting agencies have absolutely no influence over the findings of the researchers. Moreover, unlike small research efforts like the cold fusion experiments in the 1980s, such a large collaborative effort makes the likely hood of scientific fraud exceedingly unlikely.
That said there are numerous examples of researchers who are not affiliated with NIST - here are three.
MIT civil engineers Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm
UMD fire protection engineer Howard R. Baum
A simple literature research would reveal more, but I am at home and I don't have time to go into work today and do a literature search for you.
I encourage you to go to your local library or university and do a literature search for yourself.
In reply to this comment by choggie:
....
You may compile a mountain of data, that describes in detail the whys and hows this event was as they say....and you forget, the most important aspect of arriving at a conclusion that there is.
How can you draw a conclusion, without all the information? You can't-and close don't cut it-There are too many holes in the data that any of these websites whose mission it is to prove it was a conspiracy, and the ones that say it can't possibly be. We are quite simply, not in the need to know group-...
"because they dislike a video"....is perhaps, only one of several possible reasons for exercising demons-or evoking them...
and descriptive, rather than assumptive, and emotional.....this home-made montage with snippets of cut-and-paste, does not much to alleviate any doubts as to the pools of molten matter in the debris....the dripping from the tower could have been aluminum....but the flowing channels of molten steel in the pile, and the pockets of it weeks later???
Hey.... not at all saying, that I have not tagged some things, either offensive to my own sensibilities or others....feel free to go-a-changing anything you want of my own-go hogwild, and it may backfire-
I especially like this part...."A simple literature research would reveal more, but I am at home and I don't have time to go into work today and do a literature search for you.
I encourage you to go to your local library or university and do a literature search for yourself."
Captain Smugly Confident strikes, choggie is shattered, news at 11!
If you do have some time soon, I have some libarry books I need returned....
written by choggie | 4 days 5 hours 51 minutes ago | CH | profile reply [delete]
Moreover, I thought this comment answered a lot of misconceptions people have about how science is done and I didn't think it was inappropriate to post it. I regret that you feel that I violated your trust by posting my comment on this page. If anything I hope that you are still able to see my point.
I honestly believe that anyone who disagrees with any given theory or experiment owes it to those they disagree with to understand the opposing viewpoint. I don't see how you can do that if you don't read the published literature.
Regards,
MH
The NIST is in the Bush administration's pants pocket. They will not dare reach a conclusion that they know the Bush administration won't approve.
The universities know that their funding will dry up like a plate of water in the Sahara if they come to any conclusion other than the one decided upon by Bush.
Scientists, too, know that speaking out against the conclusion will result in their being targeted and harrassed and probably even be fired.
WT7 is the best evidence of all that the lie is big and well organized.
a) No colleague I know would work there.
b) Global Warming science at NIST would have died 8 years ago.
I'll use NIH as a model for us since most gov't funding agencies work like NIH.
First, Mr. Scientist writes his grant detailing his hypothesis, preliminary data, planned experiments, expected or possible results, and why the study is worth funding.
That grant is submitted and reviewed... NOT by some government bureaucrats, but by panels of experts in the field that pertains to the submitted grant. So if I submit a grant for funding for HIV research, the grant will be reviewed and scored by a group of retrovirus researchers at a meeting.
It makes me snicker when people say the Bush administration is controlling which grants get funded to control the science. This couldn't be farther from the truth. The scientists that select where the money goes are never in contact with any government stooges and make their decisions on scoring without considering any government opinion. In addition, a vast majority of scientists (this means most of the people giving out the money) are liberal democrats.
So your tax money is being doled out to scientists by scientists who are mostly liberals. Soooo, you don't need to be worried about the White House ever tampering with that research. Now on the other hand, research from places like the DoD and such is not quite as independent, so you can suspect that if you want. NIST research is very certainly not influenced by the administration in office. Scientists are far too self-important to allow themselves to be bullied by higher-ups. They'd in fact love it if it happened since they'd get a chance to tell everyone that they're being bullied. It'd make great headlines and they'd get famous in science in a snap.
Now, after the research is funded and done, it is not published by some government periodical that has been sifted by the administration. Scientific papers are submitted directly to private periodicals such as "Science" or "Nature" or "Journal of Virology" or whatever. The papers are reviewed by at least 2 other scientists who are experts in the field (this is done on a rotation so people don't get to many review requests). If the paper looks complete, it gets published. If not, it gets bounced back to Mr. Scientist with written reviews on what needs to be done to make it publish worthy. At no point does any government person see this paper. The magazines that publish the papers never interact with the government and are also run by mostly liberal democrats if you want to know.
So, funding agencies don't care what Bush thinks and disagree with him all the time: see global warming.
Scientists are mostly liberal democrats who don't give a crap what Bush thinks and disagree with him all the time without fear... with pride even.
No scientists are afraid to lose their jobs, cause they won't.
No scientists are worried about losing their funding because the government is not deciding who gets funded. The Scientists are.
Should I say most scientists are liberal democrats again?
And finally, periodicals are not influenced by government authority and would love to defy them given the opportunity.
Also, not all science is done in the US.
You can argue all day that the science is wrong and that the buildings were demolished, but don't try to tell me that the scientists are in Bush's pocket, because that is simply and completely untrue. Most scientists would love to stick it to Bush.
...unless of course you think that all of us scientists are in on it. <.< >.> <.< Dun. Dun. DUUUUUUHHHHH.
My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.
There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.
A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.
If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Go to 6. There is the answer.
Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-
We must agree that as the floors collapsed onto each other the total momentum of the falling object increases. We can express this as a force equation, in the following way-
F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse
Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.
Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.
This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.
Note:
Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
g_STP is gravity at Standard Temperature and Pressure, which is negligibly different than g in a vacuum.
We need a "delete post" button.
Sometimes...
Sometimes... I think I speak in tongues.
Don't give it away, Doc! That's for season 9, where Jack Bauer tortures the truth out of us and discovers that gravity is a myth and bacteria don't exist!
P.S. The only concerted, controlled destruction the Bush administration is capable of is of itself.
Three buildings fell at near free-fall speeds all in one day. One of the buildings wasn't even hit. The excuses given are preposterous.
I don't think people like MyCroft want to know the truth.
I really don't think they even care.
I have said this before, I open to your explanation. I would believe anything provided experimental evidence and theory to back it up. I haven't read anything remotely close to that coming from your side of the argument, which is why I call it conjecture.
WTC7 fell EXACTLY as a building rigged with demos.
So did the other two buildings.
All of those floors that were unaffected by the impact essentially disappeared. All resistence to those buildings falling within their own footprint was removed.
All I'm hearing from you are bad excuses trying to explain away a real crime.
The NIST is a sham, and it sure as hell is in Bush's pocket.
The NIST admitted that it did not even consider a "controlled demoltion" hypothosis.
How convenient that they could debunk such a claim when they didn't bother to consider it in the first place.
And:
"The position of NIST director is a presidential appointment. Bement, 69, was nominated by President Bush on Oct. 23, 2001, to be the 12th director of the agency. He succeeds Raymond Kammer, who retired in December 2000. NIST Deputy Director Karen Brown has served as acting director in the interim."
I suppose it's true that crazy people have no idea that they're insane. You seem to be oblivious. So now you're saying that not only did our President carry out all these evil conspiracies, but he's planted henchmen on Videosift to lead it's community astray. Wow... You are unique.
9/11 happened just exactly like Bush said it did, and he would never stoop to having people silence dissent. He's such an honest man, and he would never lie to get what he wants.
Wow – you are naïve.
Remember the Los Alamos scientist who publically claimed the building's shouldn't have fallen like they did? Remember how he was forced to recant his statement only days later?
And:
"Jeffrey, 45, was nominated by President Bush on May 25, 2005, to succeed Arden Bement, who was appointed director of the National Science Foundation in November of last year. NIST Deputy Director Hratch Semerjian has served as acting director in the interim."
You still haven't explained why my physics is wrong.
And, no, I not a government agent. I can't tell you how funny I find that.
/rolls eyes
*EDIT* I thought it would also be worth mentioning that it's usually the deceitful that constantly suspect deception *EDIT*
thanks
Carry on.
For the record, tag changing is fair game for all goldies, but please don't abuse it. Similarily, if someone did abuse it - perhaps with the intent of being funny or cute - don't get too upset, just change it back and laugh along or ask that it not be done anymore.
Ability to edit tags is quite useful for various reasons, primarily to help sort vids together better, though.
I'm not sure what they're teaching in calculus, physics, statics/dynamics nowadays but that math doesn't explain why 3 steel buildings fell at freefall speed - one of which wasn't hit by a plane (WTC7). That is a big jump to go from
"..rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible."
to
"..the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall..."
That is basically saying that the time between when the building starts to fall and the point where "the effect of the other forces becomes negligible." is negligible. In other words that is saying it took zero time for this model to behave like a freefall collapse.
Applied to the given situation not only does this model not work when trying to explain the freefall collapses - but it defies very fundamental principles in math and physics obvious at the grade school level. That clearly doesn't justify freefall collapse - especially 3 separate buildings.