betsy Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, hot enough said: Apparently, you, like Wilber, can't even comprehend the written language, Betsy. You don't even understand how "estimate" and "assumptions" are being used here, what they are actually describing. I suspected as much about you quite some time ago. You are quite the able little cutter and paster, but you know very little about the topics you comment on. Maybe Mr Honest Scientist or Wilber, or ... will explain your profound misunderstanding to you. It's one thing if you're also taking into consideration what scientists - those who should really know - had explained refuting your theory. Your FEMA article quoteations are simply assumptions! They even specified that they are assumptions. But your author had decided to make his coclusion based on assumptions. His conclusion.....can't be considered a conclusion. Edited March 6, 2017 by betsy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 9 minutes ago, Wilber said: some of them were almost certain to have produced some kind of explosion. "almost certain" You have no sense of shame. NIST says NO EXPLOSIONS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, betsy said: It's one thing if you're also taking into consideration what scientists - those who should really know - had explained refuting your theory. Your FEMA article quotes are simply assumptions! They even specified that they are assumptions. But your author had decided to make his coclusion based on assumptions. His conclusion.....can't be considered a conclusion. Well, Impact, are you honest enough to explain to Betsy just how poorly she understood that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 34 minutes ago, betsy said: Why are you simply relying on FEMA? FYI, this is the primary purpose of FEMA: Quote The agency's primary purpose is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the United States and that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency I'm not "simply relying on FEMA", Betsy. If you knew anything about this topic you would realize that. Why are you attempting to discuss things that you have not the slightest clue about? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 The deafening silence tells it all. Not just here, but in society at large. This is not how western society, the child of the Enlightenment is supposed to be. If the official conspiracy theory, and it is nothing but a conspiracy theory, is so rock solid why are there so many folks being so dishonest when discussing it? Why are there so many sitting in the wings, silent, when they have fount of knowledge gleaned from their free, honest and open press? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 20 minutes ago, hot enough said: "almost certain" You have no sense of shame. NIST says NO EXPLOSIONS. I do, that's why I am not so positive about things I have limited knowledge of. Something you lack entirely. But if NIST says NO EXPLOSIONS, what the hell are you going on about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 13 minutes ago, hot enough said: "I replicated "that"" [but I was too frightened to present the results from my stunning experiment] Nothing stopping you from doing the same thing, and if you have a microscope handy you can see the tiny spheres. Even without a microscope you will be able to see some. Quote Building still standing; no collapse like that is possible. Based on what, a video from outside moments before you see it collapsing. You realize that the collapsing is uneven, and most likely internal structures like floors will bee the first to go. Quote Paint chips can't give the chemical signature of thermite. More speculation. If you go to the actual Harrit paper it does not claim the material is thermite, it says: “These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 4 minutes ago, Wilber said: I do, that's why I am not so positive about things I have limited knowledge of. Something you lack entirely. But if NIST says NO EXPLOSIONS, what the hell are you going on about? Unnnn, because NIST's entire report is one huge lie. Where have you been living for the last number of years. NIST Denies Evidence of Explosions in WTC 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 3 hours ago, hot enough said: Quote Or this one, Dubai's Torch Tower Consumed by Flames http://abcnews.go.com/International/dubai-torch-tower-ablaze-dramatic-video/story?id=29117236 Why is there such deep delusion among supporters of the highly fallacious US government official conspiracy theory? It simply makes no sense, but I have to admit that it has worked wonders on millions of people who are unable to see that this is something that the US government has been doing for centuries, deluding the highly gullible. Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html The One Meridian Plaza fire Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things. Sure but most skyscrapers are supported by large steel columns encased in thick layers of concrete. The WTC buildings were built super light to save costs, and did not even conform to local building codes. I don't find any of this stuff compelling at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, hot enough said: Unnnn, because NIST's entire report is one huge lie. Where have you been living for the last number of years. NIST Denies Evidence of Explosions in WTC 7 A huge building collapsed and some people heard some bangs. Compelling evidence of sabotage. Not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 40 minutes ago, hot enough said: I'm not "simply relying on FEMA", Betsy. If you knew anything about this topic you would realize that. Why are you attempting to discuss things that you have not the slightest clue about? Because you've not addressed the refutations that were given.. You're simply ignoring them. That's not how you discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, dre said: The WTC buildings were built super light to save costs, and did not even conform to local building codes. Yes, this is an interesting fact. The World Trade Centre, and several other high profiles buildings in New York City are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (commonly just referred to as the Port Authority). It is a bi-state organization, and able to circumvent a lot of local building codes because of the jurisdiction it operates under. For example, when originally built the World Trade Center didn't even have sprinklers. Although they later installed sprinklers (after a fire), they still had other big deficiencies like lack of floor to floor partitions between tenants. The biggest code violation appears to be the very thin insulation on steel support structures, something they were in the process of correcting but didn't get to the floors that sustained the biggest fires. Edited March 6, 2017 by ?Impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 17 minutes ago, ?Impact said: 1. Nothing stopping you from doing the same thing, and if you have a microscope handy you can see the tiny spheres. Even without a microscope you will be able to see some. 2. Based on what, a video from outside moments before you see it collapsing. You realize that the collapsing is uneven, and most likely internal structures like floors will bee the first to go. 3. More speculation. If you go to the actual Harrit paper it does not claim the material is thermite, it says: “These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere” 1. This is highly illustrative of just how dishonest you are. YOUR EXPERIMENT, which you misleadingly, still, right up to now, erroneously suggest that there is some connection to steel being vaporized at WTC. And you haven't ever even described it? Are you going to show Betsy how poorly she understood, or do you like keeping all you can around to distract from the science? 2. Yup, based on a VIDEO which shows a human being being explosively ejected from an opening, when no explosives are the official story. Collapsing is uneven when there is fire, because fire is an organic process, which tells us that a free fall, totally symmetrical collapse is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE! The floors - remember, you just described "uneven", which is correct. Any floor collapse, which would be uneven, would be halting and gradual, ie. not uniform across an entire floor [which you must know and understand was of composite construction, and it COULD NOT produce such a concentrated explosive force. 3. Forget about helping Betsy. You may well understand less than her. The entire paragraph is "2. Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature?" and they describe many times how it is a thermitic reaction. How could a guy who does fantastic science experiments, in secret, in his kitchen, have misunderstood what "reminded us" meant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 33 minutes ago, dre said: Sure but most skyscrapers are supported by large steel columns encased in thick layers of concrete. The WTC buildings were built super light to save costs, and did not even conform to local building codes. I don't find any of this stuff compelling at all. You might, dre, if you actually read the material. In the same article!!! However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: 1. And you haven't ever even described it? No description needed. We had one guess that is close enough, and probably more related to what happened at the WTC. I expect you know exactly what I did. 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: 2. ... totally symmetrical collapse is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE! ...and we did't have a totally symmetrical collapse. That is evidenced by the debris pile. 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: COULD NOT produce such a concentrated explosive force. Just how much force are we talking about? An entire floor collapse is well over a half million cubic feet. That is about 25,000 times the area (by a foot) of a single window. If we are only talking about 10% of a floor collapse, that is still 2,500 times. Assuming we are only talking about the initial fall of about 10% of one floor, that is under 0.9 seconds to build up that 2,500:1 pressure difference. 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: 3. they describe many times how it is a thermitic reaction The scientific paper, or the truther blogs? I know what a thermic reaction is, not sure what a thermitic reaction is but I guess you are implying it uses thermite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 20 minutes ago, ?Impact said: No description needed. We had one guess that is close enough, and probably more related to what happened at the WTC. I expect you know exactly what I did. ...and we did't have a totally symmetrical collapse. That is evidenced by the debris pile. You advance something and you hide your "science". That's completely unscientific. But we all know you by now. [see next post] Yes we did. WTC7. Symmetrical and free fall, 8 floors, 2.5 seconds, 105 feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 4 minutes ago, hot enough said: Yes we did. WTC7. Symmetrical and free fall, 8 floors, 2.5 seconds, 105 feet. Evidence? A video from one side is not evidence of symmetry. If you look at the video however you will see the penthouse collapsing first, that is a good indication of non-symmetry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 26 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Quote 3. I, hot enough said: they describe many times how it is a thermitic reaction The scientific paper, or the truther blogs? I know what a thermic reaction is, not sure what a thermitic reaction is but I guess you are implying it uses thermite. You had previously said, "3. More speculation. If you go to the actual Harrit paper it does not claim the material is thermite, it says: “These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere” I went to the "actual Harrit paper". In that paper, which you quoted, which assumes from what you wrote above, that you went to the paper and read it, there are 27 uses of "thermitic" in the whole paper, but Impact, the scientist is "not sure what a thermitic reaction is". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 9 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Evidence? A video from one side is not evidence of symmetry. If you look at the video however you will see the penthouse collapsing first, that is a good indication of non-symmetry. Perfect symmetry. Denying that is as big a falsehood as NIST denying free fall. Denying that is as big a falsehood as NIST denying explosions. Denying that is as big a falsehood as NIST denying molten metals. NIST phony video is not symmetrical, it is completely unrealistic, like your contentions. Neither yours nor NIST's are based in any actual reality. Are you going to help Betsy or are you as confused as she is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, hot enough said: the paper and read it, there are 27 uses of "thermitic" Yes, there are many uses of the term thematic. Most of those 27 you quote are copies of the paper title on each page. He does however use the term themitic reaction twice, so I guess he gets first reference in creating this term. I suspect the highly respected Bentham Open needs to work on its peer review process, we wouldn't want them to be confused with a vanity press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Yes, there are many uses of the term thematic. No, there are NONE, ZERO for "thematic". Perhaps you got confused with 'the', of which there are 1,070. Or you were confounded by 'them', of which there are three. Quote He does however use the term themitic reaction twice, No, he doesn't, not a once. You might want to check your, your, ... your conscience. Why does Impact, the scientist, the guy who pretended he read the article, not know "what a thermitic reaction is". How is it possible that Impact, the scientist, can get so many little things so wrong? It doesn't make anyone wonder why he gets so many big things wrong. Quote I suspect the highly respected Bentham Open needs to work on its peer review process, we wouldn't want them to be confused with a vanity press. The gall, the unmitigated gall. Edited March 6, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, hot enough said: No, there are NONE, ZERO for "thematic". Yes, again my spell corrector doesn't accept the made up word thermitic* and unless I go back and force it to accept this abomination. Quote No, he doesn't, not a once. You might want to check your, your, ... your conscience. I am referring specifically to: Page 21: That thermitic* reactions from the red/gray chips have indeed occurred in the DSC... Page 22: Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic* reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide. Again the spell corrector does not accept this made up term unless I genuflect and say three hail Mary's followed by a blood offering. Yes, again the spell corrector changed the term but the point is that there are 2 uses of of the made up term you are referencing, not 27. Could you point out any earlier references to the term thermitic* reaction in the literature? Scientists don't talk about the Mentos reaction, they talk about nucleation (a physical, not chemical reaction). *my apologies if I have failed to make all the appropriate sacrifices to the Gods to get the messed up spelling to work. Quote The gall, the unmitigated gall. So it is gall to point out a publishing house that claims to have a rigorous peer review system accepted a complete nonsense paper if the author paid the appropriate fees? Edited March 6, 2017 by ?Impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) Quote but the point is that there are 2 uses of of the made up term you are referencing, not 27. Your "research skills" are pathetic. As is your knowledge of English. There are 27, 14 of them in the text and the remainder in page headings and the title. Another important point to remember is that you don't even seem to understand the concepts. And your stark confusion. And the fact that you can't discuss any topic in any depth. And your drive by accusations point up other not at all nice things about you. Edited March 6, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 Stop ranting. You are sounding desperate and pathetic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, hot enough said: Your "research skills" are pathetic. I suggest you go back and do your research again. I am talking about the term thermitic* reaction which is what I have used consistently. Have you found earlier references in the literature? I suppose you car has a gasolinic reaction, not combustion. Do you want to discuss watching youtube videos? That seems to be your forte. I thought I would look at the other authors on the paper in a bit more detail (research as you say). I see that only one other is from a university. At least this time Jeffrey Farrer didn't get listed as a professor, as he did in an earlier Jones paper. He is(was) a student lab manager at BYU, no idea where he is now as he is no longer listed on BYUs Physics and Astronomy staff page. The rest of the authors are from industry, or the 911 truthers group. *again the qualifier of apologizing if I didn't make the right extra worldly incantations. Edited March 7, 2017 by ?Impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.