3 of 22
3
CFI involved in scientific fraud?
Posted: 20 September 2012 11:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 20 September 2012 09:47 PM

Curious that Fullerton has disappeared from his thread.

He obviously was too close to the truth. I assume Doug was forced by the CIA and the NSA to ban him. But you will see he will be silent about this, or he will deny. Mark my words!

Or maybe he is studying engenearing and/or fissix now.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2012 11:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Nope, he’s still here, and if you check, his last visit was 9.20 at a little after 8:00 PM.  He just hasn’t been posting.  I guess he got convinced that there was no conspiracy and that the published explanations were correct.  LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 04:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15401
Joined  2006-02-14
GdB - 20 September 2012 11:27 PM

He obviously was too close to the truth. I assume Doug was forced by the CIA and the NSA to ban him. But you will see he will be silent about this, or he will deny. Mark my words!


SHHHHHH!!

zipper

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 04:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-08-31
dougsmith - 21 September 2012 04:36 AM

SHHHHHH!!

zipper

You see, Psy? Didn’t I tell you!!?

I wonder if anybody knows HOW MANY TONS OF CONCRETE is at the place where Doug lives… He told us he was in NY when it all happened. Say no more…

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 05:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2219
Joined  2007-04-26
TimB - 20 September 2012 08:06 PM

Another question has come to my attention. As I was prompted to go through links since this thread began, I came across links about “nanothermites” having been discovered in the WTC dust (that was created when the buildings collapsed).  I have tried to find links that explained why their would be such a thing in that dust.  I found one link that “debunked” nanothermites being an explosive, but it didn’t seem to answer my question which is “Why is there nanothermites in that dust?”  Note that I am asking a question and am seeking an answer.  I am not promoting some conspiratorial answer.  Perhaps someone has insight or a link that explains this.

Tim, first of all i would be a bit skeptical about most claims you come across on this subject since there are an enormous number of conspiracy theorists out there. Where did you read about the nanothermite claims, what was the original source, and can it be verified.

Secondly, you are talking about an incredibly huge debris site that swallowed up and mixed with a lot of surrounding material in very crowded city with active building and demolition as well as a long history of the same activities in the area. Im sure you can find traces of almost any substance you choose to look for in that debris field. There are probably even small amounts of uranium. Also who’s to say small amounts of nanothermite couldn’t be produced spontaneously under the conditions involved in the collapse of such a huge structure with tons of aluminum and iron oxide readily available when everything was crushed?

There are many possible explanations for why such a substance was found if indeed it was found at the site., but conspiracy theorists want you to believe there is only one possible explanation…theirs.

[ Edited: 21 September 2012 07:04 AM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 07:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05
TimB - 20 September 2012 08:06 PM

Another question has come to my attention. As I was prompted to go through links since this thread began, I came across links about “nanothermites” having been discovered in the WTC dust (that was created when the buildings collapsed).  I have tried to find links that explained why their would be such a thing in that dust.  I found one link that “debunked” nanothermites being an explosive, but it didn’t seem to answer my question which is “Why is there nanothermites in that dust?”  Note that I am asking a question and am seeking an answer.  I am not promoting some conspiratorial answer.  Perhaps someone has insight or a link that explains this.

macgyver - 21 September 2012 05:59 AM

Tim, first of all i would be a bit skeptical about most claims you come across on this subject since there are an enormous number of conspiracy theorists out there. Where did you read about the nanothermite claims, what was the original source, and can it be verified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

That video is three years old.

If someone gave you some dust and told you it was from ground zero after the WTC collapse, how would you KNOW?

If you had the equipment necessary to test the dust for nonothermite would you know how to use it?

So isn’t anything you read about nanothermite really trying to judge other people’s word?  Why not deal with understanding things for yourself?

Do we have to argue about whether or not skyscrapers must hold themselves up?  So doesn’t every level have to be strong enough to support all of the weight above?  So didn’t the designers of the WTC have to figure that out?  So why shouldn’t EVERYONE expect to be told the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings?  If you check the Wiki on the Empire State Building it says that building was designed from the top down.  They could compute the weight and figure out how much stronger it had to get and how much the weight increased all of the way down.  But I can’t find that information on any skyscraper in the world.  Guild secret?

That is the funny thing about atheists and 9/11.  Atheists supposedly have a problem with believing things without adequate data.  But apparently deciding what to be SKEPTICAL about is an emotional decision.  Conspiracies are about human behavior and motivation.  Physics is not about humans.  Humans cannot change the Laws of Physics.  But apparently lots of people can believe the results of impacts of airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 33 tons of kerosene can totally destroy buildings 2,000 times their own mass in less than two hours.

This is a question of ENERGY.  If we don’t have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers then it is impossible to accurately compute the Potential Energy.  Where has anyone computed the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the towers?

No matter what the truth is 9/11 is a scientific farce.

The Irony of Curiosity

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 07:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 21 September 2012 07:23 AM

But apparently lots of people can believe the results of impacts of airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 33 tons of kerosene can totally destroy buildings 2,000 times their own mass in less than two hours.

This is a question of ENERGY.  If we don’t have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers then it is impossible to accurately compute the Potential Energy.  Where has anyone computed the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the towers?

These questions are utter BS.

1. The impact of the collisions weakened the structures, but could not completely destroy them. Without fire the towers would still stand.
2. The fire weakened the bearing structures (made of steel that softens when it becomes hot) further, until they broke
3. And the bearing structures below were made to bear the static storeys above, not to catch them falling.

The energy needed to destroy the towers is the energy needed to weaken the structures, not the push to the side causes by the impact of the planes. The rest of the energy is the kinetic energy from the falling storeys (more and more during the fall). This is all very beysik fizzixz.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 21 September 2012 07:37 AM

1. The impact of the collisions weakened the structures, but could not completely destroy them. Without fire the towers would still stand.
2. The fire weakened the bearing structures (made of steel that softens when it becomes hot) further, until they broke

“1. The impact of the collisions weakened the structures”

This is an obvious truism.  Do you expect points for that?  Cutting a single column weakens the structure.  But how much weight had to be supported and how strong were the remaining columns compared to that?  So how are we supposed to determine the answers if we don’t even know the tons of steel and concrete on every level.  Although the core supported 53% of the weight some source say it was strong enough to support 150% of the weight.  The perimeter is purported to be stronger than that with 236 columns.

We have no evidence whatsoever about damage to core columns in the south tower.  In fact FEMA and NIST disagree on the trajectory of the plane in terms of impact against the core.  All you have to do is look at the fireball to see how it exploded out the side of the building.  Even the BBC video shows the fuselage missing the core.

Then what is the problem with knowing the amount of steel to determine how much energy was required to make it weaken?

And what is you explanation for my thought experiment of removing 5 level and analysing how 15 stories could crush 90 stories in less than 26 seconds.

Just saying questions are BS is SO SCIENTIFIC.  LOL

psik

[ Edited: 21 September 2012 10:45 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 01:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3205
Joined  2011-11-04
macgyver - 21 September 2012 05:59 AM
TimB - 20 September 2012 08:06 PM

Another question has come to my attention. As I was prompted to go through links since this thread began, I came across links about “nanothermites” having been discovered in the WTC dust (that was created when the buildings collapsed).  I have tried to find links that explained why their would be such a thing in that dust.  I found one link that “debunked” nanothermites being an explosive, but it didn’t seem to answer my question which is “Why is there nanothermites in that dust?”  Note that I am asking a question and am seeking an answer.  I am not promoting some conspiratorial answer.  Perhaps someone has insight or a link that explains this.

Tim, first of all i would be a bit skeptical about most claims you come across on this subject since there are an enormous number of conspiracy theorists out there. Where did you read about the nanothermite claims, what was the original source, and can it be verified…

 

Of course I am skeptical about most links that I have come across. (For instance, I scroll down to see if they go into a tirade about Jews, or a New World Order, or other such, and quickly move on, if they do.)  The link about nanothermites that I first found had a seemingly credible physicist named Steven Jones, and others who appeared to have done some rigorous scientific analysis.  (I am not a physicist, however, and cannot competently review his data or findings.)  I couldn’t quickly find that original link, that also had a short video of him discussing the provenance of the dust, but here is one with a short article and video interview of him, and one of the people who collected the dust from the near ground zero area.

http://world911truth.org/scientists-find-unignited-explosive-residues-in-wtc-dust/

These findings have been in the public domain for a few years.  So, I would think that there would be some credible explanation, by this time. 

If the explanation is that the nanothermite material can be spontaneously produced by collapsing buildings, I would like to see evidence of that. e.g., any buildings that have been purposely demolished might have evidence of similar nanothermite material?

Or perhaps the explanation is that only buildings that have collapsed with all of the existing material contents (computers, office materials, etc.), that the WTC had, could produce the nano material that Jones and others have found.  (If the latter, there would be a smaller, or non-existent source of samples to study).

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3205
Joined  2011-11-04
psikeyhackr - 21 September 2012 07:23 AM
TimB - 20 September 2012 08:06 PM

Another question has come to my attention. As I was prompted to go through links since this thread began, I came across links about “nanothermites” having been discovered in the WTC dust (that was created when the buildings collapsed).  I have tried to find links that explained why their would be such a thing in that dust.  I found one link that “debunked” nanothermites being an explosive, but it didn’t seem to answer my question which is “Why is there nanothermites in that dust?”  Note that I am asking a question and am seeking an answer.  I am not promoting some conspiratorial answer.  Perhaps someone has insight or a link that explains this.

macgyver - 21 September 2012 05:59 AM

Tim, first of all i would be a bit skeptical about most claims you come across on this subject since there are an enormous number of conspiracy theorists out there. Where did you read about the nanothermite claims, what was the original source, and can it be verified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

That video is three years old.

If someone gave you some dust and told you it was from ground zero after the WTC collapse, how would you KNOW?

If you had the equipment necessary to test the dust for nonothermite would you know how to use it?

So isn’t anything you read about nanothermite really trying to judge other people’s word?  Why not deal with understanding things for yourself?

Do we have to argue about whether or not skyscrapers must hold themselves up?  So doesn’t every level have to be strong enough to support all of the weight above?  So didn’t the designers of the WTC have to figure that out?  So why shouldn’t EVERYONE expect to be told the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings?  If you check the Wiki on the Empire State Building it says that building was designed from the top down.  They could compute the weight and figure out how much stronger it had to get and how much the weight increased all of the way down.  But I can’t find that information on any skyscraper in the world.  Guild secret?

That is the funny thing about atheists and 9/11.  Atheists supposedly have a problem with believing things without adequate data.  But apparently deciding what to be SKEPTICAL about is an emotional decision.  Conspiracies are about human behavior and motivation.  Physics is not about humans.  Humans cannot change the Laws of Physics.  But apparently lots of people can believe the results of impacts of airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 33 tons of kerosene can totally destroy buildings 2,000 times their own mass in less than two hours.

This is a question of ENERGY.  If we don’t have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers then it is impossible to accurately compute the Potential Energy.  Where has anyone computed the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the towers?

No matter what the truth is 9/11 is a scientific farce.

The Irony of Curiosity

psik

Psikey, I like most people, don’t have a great basic understanding of physics, and and thus in the position of having to rely on the expertise of others.  That doesn’t mean that I take official explanations without some level of skepticism.  That is why I tend to focus on anomalies that don’t seem to fit well with the official explanations.  Are those anomalies due simply to chance? Maybe, but I need some convincing. 

As far as your frustration about not finding information about the load capacity that different levels of the Empire State bldg has, that may not be information that should be in the public domain.  But if you are correct that no one has computed the amount of energy required to collapse each of the levels of the now demolished WTC towers, then I think that you have a legitimate inquiry.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2219
Joined  2007-04-26

Tim I didnt mean to imply that spontaneous creation was the only way thermite could have ended up there. Thermite is used in demolition and has probably been used in numerous locations in NYC over the years. It would not seem strange to me that a debris pile which mixed with several city blocks of building materials might have some traces of thermite in it.

As far as the spontaneous production is concerned, thermite is actually very easy to make. Give me an etch-a-sketch and some Brillo pads and I can mix up a bunch by tomorrow. The WTC collapse had lots of aluminum sources ( not to mention the airliner fuselages) and lots of oxidized iron. Its not inconceivable that small amounts of thermite could have been produced during the collapse but I am not implying this is the most likely explanation, just another among many.

[ Edited: 21 September 2012 03:01 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 03:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3205
Joined  2011-11-04
macgyver - 21 September 2012 02:46 PM

Tim I didnt mean to imply that spontaneous creation was the only way thermite could have ended up there. Thermite is used in demolition and has probably been used in numerous locations in NYC over the years. It would not seem strange to me that a debris pile which mixed with several city blocks of building materials might have some traces of thermite in it.

It was found in the accumulated dust produced by the collapse of the WTC buildings, collected by different individuals, not long after the event.

macgyver - 21 September 2012 02:46 PM

As far as the spontaneous production is concerned, thermite is actually very easy to make. Give me an etch-a-sketch and some Brillo pads and I can mix up a bunch by tomorrow. The WTC collapse had lots of aluminum sources ( not to mention the airliner fuselages) and lots of oxidized iron. Its not inconceivable that small amounts of thermite could have been produced during the collapse but I am not implying this is the most likely explanation, just another among many.

Perhaps so.  I do not know what Jones and others claim to have found would constitute a “small” amount.  I do not know if it can, in actuality, be spontaneously produced by a building collapsing with the necessary sources of materials.  I don’t know what the other likely explanations are.  I would like to know.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2219
Joined  2007-04-26

Tim I skimmed through the pdf and there are a couple of things that stand out. FIrst these guys clearly had an agenda. Right from the introduction and throughout the body of the report they make comment which show they went into this whole project with a preconceived conclusion and looked for evidence that would support that conclusion. The dust from the WTC was a huge conglomeration of materials ( building materials, airplane materials, office and computer components, not to mention the remains of 2,000 or so people). It is a real stretch of the imagination to believe that in that huge mass of dust these men managed to find tiny thermite particles just by pure chance. Somehow they decided to single these chips out from billions of other small particles and submitted them to testing. Why these particles? Some of the tests they subjected them to were also very specific as though they knew what they were looking for. Isn’t it odd in the least that they wanted to find something to support a conspiracy theory and that is exactly what they found?

At the very least they were biased from the start. A more cynical mind might wonder if they faked the results or tampered with the samples. It doesn’t really matter who collected them since anyone who handled them or tested them could have adulterated the samples. As best as I can tell no independent investigator has duplicated the results so before we even worry about an explanation for how thermite got in the dust we have to consider the fact that it may not have been there at all.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 04:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3205
Joined  2011-11-04
Occam. - 20 September 2012 11:56 PM

Nope, he’s still here, and if you check, his last visit was 9.20 at a little after 8:00 PM.  He just hasn’t been posting.  I guess he got convinced that there was no conspiracy and that the published explanations were correct.  LOL

Occam

He did say that all science illiterates would be ignored.  Perhaps he thinks that everyone who has replied is a science illiterate. (I can see how he could include me in that category, in terms of the physical sciences, but I wouldn’t think that of all who have replied.)

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 04:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2219
Joined  2007-04-26

Just one general comment here that needs to be stated. Any good skeptic is an anti-conspiracy theorist by definition. Conspiracies are messy and complicated. They defy Occam’s razor. That’s not to say conspiracies never happen but there is a huge burden of proof that rests on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorist. Its not enough to create doubt. You have to provide proof and lots of it.

Two planes clearly hit the world trade center. Thousands of witnesses saw it including many of my friends and family members. That part is indisputable. The buildings were caught in a raging inferno. Again lots of witnesses, indisputable. After a significant period of time the buildings collapsed and the collapse began at the spot where the planes hit and the buildings burned. Again an indisputable fact that is well documented. The obvious and simplest conclusion is that the buildings collapsed because they were hit by too large heavily fueled airliners. A A good skeptic, using Occam’s razor, would need an overwhelming amount of evidence to make them think otherwise and nothing has been presented that even comes close.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 22
3