"Truthers" and 9/11

[Munjibunga]

from that site...
quote '"....It is indeed ironic that the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has prompted many
9-11 researchers to reach the erroneous conclusion that deliberately placed thermite
“cutter charges” must have been used to bring down these buildings. The findings
outlined in this article show the underlying reasons for this misconception. Simply put,
thermite-induced reactions were largely responsible for the destruction of the Twin
Towers on that terrible September day in New York City – but the fatal damage was not
from deliberately planted thermite charges. Molten aluminum was the culprit, and the
true terrorist! "...

So they admit thermite is present , but claim it was created by the fires and contents of plane and the building.... what are the odds of that happening?

100 percent, apparently.

 

[sloasdaylight]

It may also be worth noting that the WTC was not designed to withstand an impact from a fully-fuled 767. It was designed to withstand an impact from the largest commecial airliner of the time: 707s and DC8s.

Great point.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

well the theory that the spray on fireproofing broke away from the steel is bullsh*t. I used that product... it is called Chartek And it is epoxy based. And once it has cured up there isn't anything... not even a jet crashing into a building is going to take that stuff off. I did this with a company called Park Derochie, based out of Edmonton, Alberta. in the early 80s.
Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

And you have tried recreating the force of a plane that weighs 80-90 tons (that's just the unloaded weight) crashing into something at several hundred miles per hour? (I don't know what speed they were moving at immediately before impact, but they generally cruise at over 500mph).

I have no horses in this race, so I can be somewhat impartial... I just watch and see what comes out in the wash. I use what personal facts and knowledge I have, and a healthy BS meter to weigh things out in a Sherlock Holmes type fashion, where once you eliminate the impossible, no matter how implausable the theory.... you are on the right track. There are lots of "near impossibilities",that I am having a hard time accepting the explanations of. That's all

Like the thermite...
I do not understand it's presence in the basement of the WTC. It would not be on a jet plane... or in the building... where did it come from???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_steel 2800*F - to melt carbon steel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel 549.5*F - open air temperature of burning jet fuel

That is simply the open air burning temperature.

With the petrol we use in a car engine it is possible to reach peak temperatures of up to 2,000 deg C.

I'd bet the towers, being high up like that, having all the windows smashed out and the ignited fuel would have caused a firestorm effect. Sucking in lots of air from the surroundings and ramping up the temperature.

Also, there are plenty of reasons to why thermite could have been there. All you need to do to produce thermite (without going into details) is two metals, one of which that is oxidised and add a lot of heat to ignite it. I'm pretty sure there is plenty of metal in a large tower like that, and throw in the heat from the ignited jet fuel.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

It may also be worth noting that the WTC was not designed to withstand an impact from a fully-fuled 767. It was designed to withstand an impact from the largest commecial airliner of the time: 707s and DC8s.

Not to mention that normally a plane in the terminal control area around the NY airports would be flying at about 250 kts or less. The hijackers flew the planes at high speed into the buildings.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

I know you're talking about the bird that hit the Pentagon, but I'm more curious about flight 93.

I'm not an authority on airline crashes but I have had to guard a few crash sites from military aircraft going down. None ever crashed into a building, only wooded areas much like flight 93 did. So I have some limited knowledge of what they look like.

The crash site in PA doesn't resemble any type of crash I've ever had to guard. The fire from the sites I've guarded incinerated a fairly large radius around the debris. Where's the fire damage? The Harriers and F16's that went down were carrying less fuel than flight 93 and are significantly smaller birds, yet the military aircraft left more fire damage and larger craters.

At the crash sites you've guarded, did the planes plunge perpendicularly into the ground, as Flight 93 did, or did they hit at an angle? Most crashes involve the aircraft striking at an angle, which spreads the damage over a wider angle.

 

[hbarcat]

Here I am!

Did I miss anything?

 

[CayceG]

Okay, I'm a civil engineer and it reeeally hurts my head to see people and other engineers suspecting an inside job.

Occam's Razor, guys. The most probable explanation is usually the simplest.

 

[aborgman]

So they admit thermite is present , but claim it was created by the fires and contents of plane and the building.... what are the odds of that happening?

If I mix sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid, what are the odds I'll get water and table salt?

 

[Bongolation]

Occam's Razor, guys. The most probable explanation is usually the simplest.

Another keystone of conspiracism is not merely a failure to consider the principle of parsimony, but a deep, fundamental aversion to it.

 

[unbasslichkeit]

Another keystone of conspiracism is not merely a failure to consider the principle of parsimony, but a deep, fundamental aversion to it.

Guess this doesn't apply to this thread, because I see an awful lot of hard work being done to debunk any non-conforming theories.

"Although there is no rule that requires nature to follow the simplest path, and results can vary based which pieces of evidence are used, it is nonetheless a strong basis for the scientific work of paleontologists."

Rock on, then...

 

[Bongolation]

I know you're talking about the bird that hit the Pentagon, but I'm more curious about flight 93.
[...]
The crash site in PA doesn't resemble any type of crash I've ever had to guard.

OK, let's cut to the chase:

If it wasn't a plane crash, what was it?

If it wasn't Flight 93, where did the plane, crew and passengers go?

 

[Bongolation]

Guess this doesn't apply to this thread, because I see an awful lot of hard being done to debunk any non-conforming theories.

Hard what, and where?

 

[Jim Nazium]

Hard what, and where?

That's what she said.

 

[unbasslichkeit]

Hard what, and where?

Fixed it. Four letter word.

 

[unbasslichkeit]

Fixed it. Four letter word.

Defined as "that which folks on this thread either do not have enough of, or are not doing it if they do."

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Another keystone of conspiracism is not merely a failure to consider the principle of parsimony, but a deep, fundamental aversion to it.

Very true.

 

[Bongolation]

Guess this doesn't apply to this thread, because I see an awful lot of hard work being done to debunk any non-conforming theories.

Where? Simply enumerating the sheer, daunting number of physical impossibilities attendant to ridiculous hypotheses blithely posited by people apparently too challenged to have thought them through?

That's not violating the principle of parsimony, it's merely pointing it out. OBL said his operatives destroyed the WTC buildings by crashing planes into them, and we saw those planes hit them and take them down.

Only a huge violation of parsimony could come up with a plausible alternative explanation and so far one hasn't been offered.

 

[unbasslichkeit]

Where? Simply enumerating the sheer, daunting number of physical impossibilities attendant to ridiculous hypotheses blithely posited by people apparently too challenged to have thought them through?

That's not violating the principle of parsimony, it's merely pointing it out. OBL said his operatives destroyed the WTC buildings by crashing planes into them, and we saw those planes hit them and take them down.

Only a huge violation of parsimony could come up with a plausible alternative explanation and so far one hasn't been offered.

This is obviously very important to you. Therefore a plausible alternative explanation is not possible. You've just said so yourself.

 

[ehque]

So they admit thermite is present , but claim it was created by the fires and contents of plane and the building.... what are the odds of that happening?

Did you just skim through that article to find something to rebutt?

Why would someone need to sneak thermite - essentially aluminium and an oxidizer - into the WTC if they had the means to chuck a 67 ton block of aluminium at the building itself?

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Therefore a plausible alternative explanation is not possible.

No, he just said one hasn't been offered.