9/11 Poll

[stereologist]

The pyroclastic comes from pyro, fire, and clastic, broken.

I have never seen the minimum temperature of pyroclastic flows defined anywhere. However, I will for the moment assume that it is defined somewhere as being 250C+. This may, in fact, be why the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site states that the WTC buildings had "Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds" but makes no mention of pyroclastic flows. The problem when dealing with terms that few people have even heard of is that some confusion may ensue and terms can at times be used somewhat incorrectly. However, whether or not one can officially define the dust clouds that occurred on 9/11 as a pyroclastic flow, there is no doubt that many of its characteristics are indeed characteristic of such a flow. This is made clear in video clips such as this one:

The problem I see here is that a clastic event is being called a pyroclastic event. Simply misleading.

There are few words on that chart. I'm not picking on a word in a tome. A summary such as the one provided concerns me when a word is used that to me is so misleading.

You sent me to a page to see some pics of destruction. On that page it says:

Pyroclastic flows are high-density mixtures of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move away from the vent that erupted them at high speeds.

Anyone engulfed by a pyroclastic flow is killed. They are burned to death. Some cars show most of their external paint intact. This does not look like a pyroclastic event. It looks like some vehicles burned. This does not mean it was pyroclastic in nature.

Why be misleading?

 

[scott3x]

I imply, you infer.
I imply something with my statements.
You infer from my statements (but suggest that it's implied in my statements).

The correct response to the above statement would be "I'm not inferring anything of the sort. (comic pause) I am however implying it."

Dictionary.com states that they're synonymous:

1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.​

 

[scott3x]

The pyroclastic comes from pyro, fire, and clastic, broken.

I have never seen the minimum temperature of pyroclastic flows defined anywhere. However, I will for the moment assume that it is defined somewhere as being 250C+. This may, in fact, be why the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site states that the WTC buildings had "Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds" but makes no mention of pyroclastic flows. The problem when dealing with terms that few people have even heard of is that some confusion may ensue and terms can at times be used somewhat incorrectly. However, whether or not one can officially define the dust clouds that occurred on 9/11 as a pyroclastic flow, there is no doubt that many of its characteristics are indeed characteristic of such a flow. This is made clear in video clips such as this one:

The problem I see here is that a clastic event is being called a pyroclastic event. Simply misleading.

There are few words on that chart. I'm not picking on a word in a tome. A summary such as the one provided concerns me when a word is used that to me is so misleading.

You sent me to a page to see some pics of destruction. On that page it says:
“Pyroclastic flows are high-density mixtures of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move away from the vent that erupted them at high speeds.”

Anyone engulfed by a pyroclastic flow is killed. They are burned to death. Some cars show most of their external paint intact. This does not look like a pyroclastic event. It looks like some vehicles burned. This does not mean it was pyroclastic in nature.

Why be misleading?

In attempting to describe a phenomena that has never occurred before, we attempt to use terms that are close to it; pyroclastic flows are what most closely resembles what happened on 9/11. This was clearly demonstrated in one of the videoclips from 911 Eyewitness that I linked to before:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1381525012075538113

 

[Oli]

What incensed me to write was that there was someone in the forum that would NOT allow someone to just "be."
This was such a glaring case of conflict of interest, it was screaming to be pointed out, was it not? Since no one else was going to do so, it motivated me to do so.

Then you may also have noticed that there have been several 911 threads none of which resolved anything, and also that this does happen to be a moderated forum.
You don't like the rules you go elsewhere.

“ If you're the kind of fly,” I see, so you don't believe in asking questions, and anyone who does deserves no respect and should be insulted and banned? Anyone has a right to your opinion? That sort of deal?

Anyone with an incorrect "opinion" and claims they can't justify deserves pulling up. Banning is to the mods.

Technicalities. Whatever. Yes, yes, you are correct. Under the proper conditions fire can incinerate/soften steel. And you want me to believe office furniture, and a bunch of jet fuel that burned off in the first few minutes produced said conditions?

If you had actually researched it you'd have found that it's quite possible: it depends on where (or if) the steel can shed the heat...

You hold your view, I'll hold mine. Do we need to generate negative energy in the process, why not just discuss like adults why we hold our views and dispense with the fallacious ad hominem attacks?

Discuss like adults?
You start with a false claim and then go on to state that you are the proof?

However, I do have lots of new stuff if you are interested that might blow your minds

Yeah, go ahead...

 

[Trippy]

Not by a long shot. Here's another blurb that accompanies a video recording of one fairly well known example:

Seconds before the WTC South Tower collapse, tons of molten metal was seen pouring out of the building. What caused large quantities of molten ferrous metal to be in the WTC South Tower? One answer could be Thermite. Thermite is used in controlled demolition and high temperature molten iron is formed as a by-product​

And the video ietself:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3408887492231274773

There's also much more evidence of molten metal, as made clear in 9/11 Research's article Molten Metal.

Did I, or did I not implicitly aknowledge this in the very next paragraph?

Right, moving along.

Or so you believe. You may want to read Steven Jones' paper "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method"; For those who so dislike "truther" websites, you can even download it from NIST's website now:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

He starts on page 16; by page 17, he brings up 4 possibilities to explain the molten metal, the second one being the one that NIST went with. They are:
1. Perhaps the structural steel in the buildings melted nad is flowing out.
2. Perhaps it is molten aluminum from the aircraft that melted and is flowing out, perhaps with added organics from burning office materials.
3. A mix of the two (above) including office materials, etc.
4. Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)

He then does experiments to determine which one holds up. From his work, it's clear that the only one that holds up to testing is #4. But don't take my word for it; read it yourself.

I'm also calling bullshit on this paper.
For starters, the same caveat applies for aluminium as it does for lead, and ccording to NIST, temperatures in localized areas reached 1000°C
Secondly, he completely ignores babbit metal.
Thirdly, he spends the first 5 pages advertising his work in cold fusion.
Finally, his presentation is as biased as any truther website i've come across.

Even NIST doesn't go for your lead hypothesis. As to any metal, it doesn't work with aluminum, atleast. Steven Jones explains why, beginning on page 17 of the aforementioned paper:

To test the second hypothesis, we performed experiments with molten aluminum. We melted aluminum alloy in a steel pan and poured out the aluminum. It appeared silvery, not glowing orange as observed at the South Tower. We then heated the steel pan until it was glowing yellow-hot and poured out the aluminum, and the flowing aluminum was still observably silvery. How do you get aluminum to 1000 °C (orange-hot temperature) if the aluminum is liquid and free to flow, unless there’s a big pan in the building to hold the aluminum while you heat it past its melting point?
​

Yes, i've deliberately cut the quote short.

Why does he exclude this - the possibility that there was some mechanism, probably relating to rubble distribution, or something along the lines of a gouge in the concrete (concrete damaged in the impact? Perish the thought).

The simple fact is that there is no good reason to exclude this possibility - a pan of opportunity, so to speak, however he does so simply because he can't imagine it happening. That is an argument from personal incredulity, a logical fallacy. In fact, much of his paper smacks of that particular fallacy.

I'm sure many people could come up with various theories that neither the government or the truth movement supports. However, if neither side is going for it, you may consider that there's probably good reason for it.

You say that like i'm the only person to ever consider lead.

 

[Trippy]

Dictionary.com states that they're synonymous:

1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.​

Yes, because when something is implied, it is also infered.

The difference between them is in the person performing the action.

And for the record, nothing I said, when taken in context says anything any different from what I saud, in fact, if you like, they're saying the SAME DAM THING AS I AM.

They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
He implied his displeasure with his cool toone of voice.

Get it yet?

Oi vey.

 

[The Esotericist]

You're right about one thing - a building that size has never been taken out by controled demolition - ever.

I see you've already made up your mind. It is either imperative to your world view, please wiki: cognitive dissonance, or you are an operative for the NWO. Either way I do not wish to continue generating negative energy with you, or wasting my time. The information is out there, you know where to look if you wish to open your mind and find out why so many people have stopped believing corporate media driven myths. Allowance good man, allowance. eace:

Didn't bother reading my next post before you started typing didja?

no. . . I was typing my post, sorry 'bout that. damn newbies, eh? lol

You think calling a grossly inaccurate statement bullshit is heated language, or a sign of me getting upset?
You need to shop around a little.

oh, I know, I'll shall remove myself from that behavior as well when I come across it. I will hope that I will receive only the attitude which I put out eventually. The seeds of wisdom can only find purchase upon fertile ground good sir. Remember, there is a very big difference between knowledge and wisdom, please don't confuse the two.

I don't even know where to start with this...
You yabber on about ego, and then go on like this?

What the Internationalists within our government, in Europe, and the (hmmm. . . I had better not mention them, it looks like that is a quick way to get censored. The ******** in Israel or the "Mossad") have done to the international world political scene and economy is unconscionable. What does this have to do with my ego?

 

[Oli]

Admittedly, I don't know much concerning the science in Star Trek; if they're off on this that or the other thing, I don't really care, as I just like the story line. However, I have heard from others who claim to know of such things that some of it is good.

If people are claiming that then their science is equally bad:Star Trek (and 90% of TV/ movie SF) is a joke as far as science goes. The language is used and the tropes, but the reality, sadly, isn't.

Oli, I have a strong feeling that you are being excessively uncharitable here .

Hardly: the main science advisor for the show has complained that he gets over-ridden due to plot requirements.

Atleast we can agree that some science fiction is good then, laugh ;-).

Written SF, yes.
TV/movie SF is entertainment.

Aw c'mon, it's a TV show; I'd just imagine they said the right thing; or bring it up the mistake with others and perhaps teach them something ;-).

Except that YOU yourself used it as an example of "science in TV", and the show was incorrect, merely so that the good guys could have a clue...

Again, I'd just do the same as the above CSI example with oil, kind of like you just did by explaining asymptotic. Instead of focusing on their errors, you could be teaching people about them; when people deal with concepts they're not all that familiar with (such as the actors on CSI, I would assume), there's bound to be a fair amount of mistakes. But by dealing with them, even if imperfectly, I think they bring up a lot of things that people may have been unaware of entirely before. And while some of the information may be mistaken, I have a feeling that in such shows much more of it is on the mark.

The point being that people assume these shows (due to the basic premise) are factual, when they aren't.
There was a study published some years ago stating that something on the order of 60% of the US public got all of their science from shows like Star Trek.
Does that bode well for science?
I think not.

Sorry, but that one just went over my head.

A grammarian, most especially an Oxford graduate (and a stickler for precision as the character was supposed to be), would know that the word required was "imply".
Anything else is sloppy and ambiguous.
Lack of care by the script writers - like Trek etc, if the writers don't care enough to get it correct why should I care enough to watch?

 

[Trippy]

Yes, because when something is implied, it is also infered.

The difference between them is in the person performing the action.

And for the record, nothing I said, when taken in context says anything any different from what I saud, in fact, if you like, they're saying the SAME DAM THING AS I AM.

They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
He implied his displeasure with his cool toone of voice.

Get it yet?

Oi vey.

To demonstrate my point further, the difference between Imply and Infer is the same as the difference between borrow and lend.

You understand that right?

 

[Trippy]

I see you've already made up your mind. It is either imperative to your world view, please wiki: cognitive dissonance, or you are an operative for the NWO. Either way I do not wish to continue generating negative energy with you, or wasting my time. The information is out there, you know where to look if you wish to open your mind and find out why so many people have stopped believing corporate media driven myths. Allowance good man, allowance. eace:

Oh right.
So because i've examined the same events as you, and come to a different conclusion, then obviously i'm either a government operative, or being closed minded.

Right...

Because there's no other possible explanation, like I just don't happen to believe the evidence supports the conclusions you're trying to draw from it.

oh, I know, I'll shall remove myself from that behavior as well when I come across it. I will hope that I will receive only the attitude which I put out eventually. The seeds of wisdom can only find purchase upon fertile ground good sir. Remember, there is a very big difference between knowledge and wisdom, please don't confuse the two.

Ugh.

What the Internationalists within our government, in Europe, and the (hmmm. . . I had better not mention them, it looks like that is a quick way to get censored. The ******** in Israel or the "Mossad") have done to the international world political scene and economy is unconscionable. What does this have to do with my ego?

Again, ugh - you're the one that bought ego into it in the first place.

 

[scott3x]

Dictionary.com states that they're synonymous:

1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.

Yes, because when something is implied, it is also inferred.

The difference between them is in the person performing the action. And for the record, nothing I said, when taken in context says anything any different from what I said, in fact, if you like, they're saying the SAME DAM THING AS I AM.

Using caps lock doesn't actually do anything for your argument; to the contrary, it only shows that you have a short fuse. I think the dictionary definition I quoted actually contradicts you, so no, I don't think that it's saying the same thing. However, I've probably seen the terms used in the way you are mentioning it, because when you made the statement below, it clicked:

They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
He implied his displeasure with his cool tone of voice.

This leads me to conclude that the dictionary messed up. To give an example: I believe you inferred something from the dictionary definition I gave that wasn't implied- namely that it was supporting your statement concerning the difference between inferance and implication. Conversely, either of us may imply things the other may never infer.

 

[Trippy]

Using caps lock doesn't actually do anything for your argument; to the contrary, it only shows that you have a short fuse. I think the dictionary definition I quoted actually contradicts you, so no, I don't think that it's saying the same thing. However, I've probably seen the terms used in the way you are mentioning it, because when you made the statement below, it clicked:



This leads me to conclude that the dictionary messed up. What is inferred is also implied, but the terms aren't synonymous.

Yes, something that is infered is also implied.

Actually, the dictionary.com perfectly agrees with me, I think the problem may be in what you understand synonym to mean.

It doesn't mean identically the same as.
It does mean that the words have similar meanings, they have to do with guessing what people mean.

When someone says that a meaning was implied, they're saying that you should have guessed, speculated, or surmised that that meaning is hinted at, implied or suggested.

When someone infers a meaning from what someone else has said, they are guessing, speculating, or surmising that that meaning is hinted at, implied or suggested.

And yeah, sometimes my fuse is a little short, but you don't get to judge it until you know me, and know my personal circumstance.

The difference is the participant.

 

[The Esotericist]

Then you may also have noticed that there have been several 911 threads none of which resolved anything, and also that this does happen to be a moderated forum.
You don't like the rules you go elsewhere.

Yeah, while we're on that subject, I CAN'T FIND the rules. I mean, in the sign up, it said it was moderated for things like language, sexual content, and nudity, but no where did it mention anything about IDEAS or RADICAL THOUGHT, or even OFFENSIVE IDEAS or THOUGHT. So I just want to read the rules on censorship and thought-crime if someone can provide the link for me, I would very much appreciate it. I have read the postings of several Muslims who seemed to want to express their views concerning Zionism, but apparently they are continually censored? I want to know if there is freedom of speech on this board, or if it is a place where group think must be maintained. If it is the latter, than yes, Oli, perhaps I should not waste my time here. Like cable and satellite TV in America, it would be nothing more than another brainwashing tool. I got rid of my TV because all it told were lies, why would I want to participate in something I can't speak the truth in?

Anyone with an incorrect "opinion" and claims they can't justify deserves pulling up. Banning is to the mods.

O.K. lol. Are you being "cheeky" with me? Or are you just uninformed as to the definition of, "OPINION?" Let's see; dictionary.com do?

"OPINION
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: "I haven't much of an opinion of him."​

Hence, NOBODIES opinion is ever "incorrect." No matter if you accept their proof or evidence or what ever. Kapisch?

"However, I do have lots of new stuff if you are interested that might blow your minds"

Yeah, go ahead...

Actually, I must post 20 times first. I think this is a good policy really. I am not really sure yet about this board. Like I said, there seems to be some REAL censorship issues of IDEAS as opposed to language or images, etc. I find that troubling.

There was a time when I was a kid, you could pretty much say and think what ever you wanted to, not anymore. Now, if it isn't approved by people in control, then you can't. Well sir, I have read 1984, and I have read "A Brave New World." Haven't You? You should. In fact, Aldous Huxley was among the powerful elites, and he even knew what was going on, you can listen to it from his own lips on Youtube if you care to do a search and find out. That's why I'm The Esotericist, I know things you aren't supposed to know, you don't want to know, you will fight to deny, because it isn't convenient to your world view. Hence, I need to know before hand if I am allowed to speak. :scratchin:

Whether or not you listen? I don't care, that's your choice.

 

[John99]

Hence, I need to know before hand if I am allowed to speak.

go ahead...speek

 

[Oli]

Yeah, while we're on that subject, I CAN'T FIND the rules. I mean, in the sign up, it said it was moderated for things like language, sexual content, and nudity, but no where did it mention anything about IDEAS or RADICAL THOUGHT, or even OFFENSIVE IDEAS or THOUGHT.

Oh you're quite mistaken.
You can THINK whatever you like.
Saying it is another thing altogether

O.K. lol. Are you being "cheeky" with me? Or are you just uninformed as to the definition of, "OPINION?" Let's see; dictionary.com do?

"OPINION
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: "I haven't much of an opinion of him."​

Hence, NOBODIES opinion is ever "incorrect." No matter if you accept their proof or evidence or what ever. Kapisch?

So you don't think a professional judgement could ever be incorrect?
Or an estimate of someone's character?
Or even a belief based on insufficient evidence?
Interesting... "I don't know much at all about this, but I'm definitely not incorrect in my opinion".:shrug:

Well sir, I have read 1984, and I have read "A Brave New World." Haven't You? You should.

Of course I have.

That's why I'm The Esotericist, I know things you aren't supposed to know, you don't want to know, you will fight to deny, because it isn't convenient to your world view.

Yep, you and a million others.
Including me.

Whether or not you listen? I don't care, that's your choice.

Depends upon its veracity doesn't it?

 

[The Esotericist]

But. . . back to my ORIGINAL point. At the time of this post, 52.63% of the people in this poll accept the official story, no questions asked. The others? Smell a rat.

So. . . What gives a moderator in that 52.63% of the people the right to continually stifle the discussions of the other 47.37%? Where is the appeals process here? I have been informed that numerous people have left this forum in disgust because of the shutting down of dissent. Seems to me, one person is making this place unfriendly to the many. I don't know much about Star Trek, but what do they say about the needs of the many over the needs of the one?

I am not really concerned at this point with the nuts and bolts of the discussion. What concerns me is the shutting down of dissent. That speaks volumes more to me about the truth of what occurred on that sad day in September, than any other disagreement about science or "the facts." The simple unwillingness to discuss the issue from the citizens that support the official myth, should tell those that are unsure of what happened to take a closer look at everything that is available out there.

 

[Oli]

But. . . back to my ORIGINAL point. At the time of this post, 52.63% of the people in this poll accept the official story, no questions asked. The others? Smell a rat.
So. . . What gives a moderator in that 52.63% of the people the right to continually stifle the discussions of the other 47.37%?

So you've taken "questionable in some areas" as being, for want of a better term, pro-conspiracy?

Where is the appeals process here? I have been informed that numerous people have left this forum in disgust because of the shutting down of dissent.

Do tell.

Seems to me, one person is making this place unfriendly to the many. I don't know much about Star Trek, but what do they say about the needs of the many over the needs of the one?

Just one person?
Tut, shame.
And you've got Scott's penchant for using fictional characters to back up your point, too.

I am not really concerned at this point with the nuts and bolts of the discussion. What concerns me is the shutting down of dissent.

Or maybe the fact that the entire 911 thing has been done to death with nothing new added since it started, the same tired arguments and "data" presented the same tired way...

That speaks volumes more to me about the truth of what occurred on that sad day in September, than any other disagreement about science or "the facts." The simple unwillingness to discuss the issue from the citizens that support the official myth, should tell those that are unsure of what happened to take a closer look at everything that is available out there.

Yep, or maybe it's just the fact that every thing's been gone through so many times without a conclusion so why re-hash it?

 

[Trippy]

But. . . back to my ORIGINAL point. At the time of this post, 52.63% of the people in this poll accept the official story, no questions asked. The others? Smell a rat.

Falsehood - only 2.63% of posters accept the Nist report unquestioningly.
68.42% of people believe the NIST report is correct, or basically correct, but with some areas that may need further exploration.

So. . . What gives a moderator in that 52.63% of the people the right to continually stifle the discussions of the other 47.37%? Where is the appeals process here? I have been informed that numerous people have left this forum in disgust because of the shutting down of dissent. Seems to me, one person is making this place unfriendly to the many. I don't know much about Star Trek, but what do they say about the needs of the many over the needs of the one?

Falsehood.
Only 31.57% of people believe that elements of the government were involved (thus constituting a government conspiracy or coverup).

I am not really concerned at this point with the nuts and bolts of the discussion. What concerns me is the shutting down of dissent. That speaks volumes more to me about the truth of what occurred on that sad day in September, than any other disagreement about science or "the facts." The simple unwillingness to discuss the issue from the citizens that support the official myth, should tell those that are unsure of what happened to take a closer look at everything that is available out there.

You don't think that Moderators should moderate discussions?

Interesting. Pray tell, what do you think that Moderators should do?

 

[Oli]

That speaks volumes more to me about the truth of what occurred on that sad day in September

Aha!
You're right - the moderators of SciForums did it.
How blind we've been.

The simple unwillingness to discuss the issue from the citizens that support the official myth, should tell those that are unsure of what happened to take a closer look at everything that is available out there.

Ooh and an assumption thrown in for good measure, perhaps.
Citizens of where?

 

[stereologist]

In attempting to describe a phenomena that has never occurred before, we attempt to use terms that are close to it; pyroclastic flows are what most closely resembles what happened on 9/11. This was clearly demonstrated in one of the videoclips from 911 Eyewitness that I linked to before:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...25012075538113

This is becoming quite disturbing at this point Scott3x.

You are describing an avalanche of material as a pyroclastic flow. That is misleading, purposely misleading. The video makes the same misleading statements.

The only thing that the video has in common with a pyroclastic flow is that the dust cloud is acting as a dense fluid. That does not mean it is even close to the density of a pyroclastic flow.