Scott likes the word "fluff", considers it an all-purpose rebuttal, Round 4
This post is in response to shaman_'s
post 1726 in this thread.
Alright, will you simply admit that for now, the only logical argument you know of is that it was thermite or thermate?
Its not a ‘logical argument’ it is an assertion based on your faith. The point I am making is that there are potentially other explanations you’re just not interested in. I would need to know more about that photo to make any sort of guess as to what happened there. Where was it taken exactly? When was it taken exactly? Has the area around it been cleaned up? What combustibles were in the area when the car was burning? You are simply looking at a photo of a burnt car and going “oh well that
must have been the thermite/thermate/superthermite/nanothermitewhateveritisthisweek “, and then mocking any possible alternatives. No actual attempt to consider the possibilities was made.
Yes, I have, or I would never have heard of the thermite/thermate argument.
So you can answer my questions then.
I simply believe that it's the only logical explanation I've heard of. And I believe it's the only logical explanation -you've- heard of as well.
As I have said I don’t know anything about the photo. I have only heard your assertion and ridicule that paper could have done it. I’m not jumping to conclusions like you do though.
I have a theory, as do you; yours in planes and jet fuel, mine is controlled demolition. Here's to hoping you can admit that on this issue, the only logical explanation that you or I know is that it was thermite/thermate.
Nonsense. There are plenty of possibilities. In enough combustible material surrounded the car it could have been burnt like that. On the front page of the papers here today there are cars that look a little like that. They were burnt in bushfires. The difference in that picture is that the car looks compressed as if something heavy was pushing down on it as well. Whatever debris was burning may have done this.
According to you thermite cuts through steel and thermate explodes. So which one was it?
Yep. But by the time it got down to ground level, it was generally aerosolized; so, not as concentrated. Anyway, here's a good video of what thermite is capable of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCsbZf1_Ng
Will watch it at home.
I never said you did. I said you linked to the guy who did. You did so back in post 185, wherein you linked to a ream of sites that I assume you felt were good stuff. The link is from one of your favourite sites actually. Here's the link in question:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept
In that page, it has the following link:
[Steven]
Jones thinks vehicles around WTC site may have been set afire by "thermite dust." As opposed to, you know, paper.
Did you read the quote from the fireman?
I'm not interested in bothering with your fluffsters, other to make some of their absurd claims clear.
You brought it up and wanted to argue about the claims. They are the ones making them. I guess its easier to challenge a point with someone who did not actually make it. ??
If anyone should be taking it up with him, it's you- you're the one who proudly linked to the page with said fluffster.
?? You are the one who is challenging the claim!?
What are you talking about? You don't even have an alternative.
Tell me why paper couldn’t do that?
How about if I say "It's the only credible answer either of us has at present"?
Its not.
That way, you can continue to pine for one that doesn't mess up your fantasy that the official story is the cat's meow.
It’s no different from arguing with a religious freak. “Explain to me how everything began! You can’t? See god did it”
Look, if all you said was that I have fluff answers, I wouldn't have reported any of your posts. I don't even call you a fanatic.
Your posts are every bit as offensive as anything I have ever said to you.
I personally think that the steel was explosively bent. You can believe that the steel is softened if you want. Tony Szamboti has made it clear that you can't tell what temperatures a piece of steel reached simply by looking it shape.
No he hasn’t “made it clear”. He has asserted that it is the case. This assertion is in direct contradiction to Astaneh.
Let's take a look at that article...
Oh god how many times.. The article where he compares the steel to the clocks in a Dali painting.
I'm not "cherry picking". I'm telling you why I believe what I believe.
The New York Times reporter(s) said that Astaneh is the one who claimed it.
It was paraphrase. If Astaneh said those words then quotes would have been involved.
Another New York Times article said that Jonathan Barnett said there had been evidence of evaporated steel; Jonathan Barnett was asked about it and he didn't deny it, but essentially seemed to imply that it was a mistake.
Show me him being asked about it and this implication.
He was never asked as to -why- he thought it was a mistake. I'd ask him myself if I knew his email address. In any case, the fact that Jonathan Barnett didn't deny it when asked about his comment strongly suggests that the New York Times didn't misinterpret Astaneh as well. It may well be that Jonathan Barnett's comment was actually because he had heard Astaneh talk of it. After all, Jonathan Barnett was investigating WTC 7 and no steel at all was saved from that building; so what could he himself have witnessed?
Steel which was partly dissolved from a eutectic solution.
If you are interested in what they saw why don’t you read their peer reviewed reports? They did not see evidence of evaporated steel.
Surely you are aware the a metal can melt and then resolidify later, reforming in shapes which suggest previous melting?
lol Steel is going to melt and then magically go back into the shape of a girder when it cools. He made it clear that the 'melting' he was referring to was very soft steel, not liquid.
He has made it clear that he -believes- that the jet initiated fires were responsible. He is not some infallible deity, you know.
Scott pay attention. You are using (paraphrase of) his comments to imply ridiculously high temperatures. When you actually look at what he says you will see that he didn’t see evidence of evaporated steel at all. He investigated and his opinion is totally consistent with the official story. So replying with “He is not some infallible deity, you know.” is missing the point. You are quoting some paraphrase but ignoring his actual words because they don’t fit your beliefs.
If he actually said those words then why was he not quoted saying them? More evidence of conspiracy?
You have yet to present any evidence which suggests otherwise. .
What? He has made it perfectly clear that the fires and the removal of fireproofing led to the collapse! He actually investigated the steel and this was his conclusion. You are the one who has no credible evidence for evaporated steel.
The twin towers core columns were cut up into pieces and the concrete was pulverized. Looks like they did a pretty good of breaking things with force to me...
Yeah all the material in a 110 story building should be perfectly intact after a total collapse……
I should have been more specific:
I don't recall him ever looking for any clues of explosives being used.
So if a structural engineer who specializes in structural damage caused by terrorist attacks is investigating for clues of the collapse and sees evidence of explosives he is going to miss it because he wasn’t specifically looking to explosive related evidence? Oh come on that is stupidity.
Actually, a few people did: Steven Jones and some colleagues of his. They found evidence that thermate was used.
He found chemicals which have explanations other than thermite arson.
NIST freely admits they never tested for thermite type compounds, though.
What they found was consistent with the official story.
I think they could still do so, if they wanted to. They've certainly never said they couldn't. And yet, they don't. They give some lame reasons as to why they didn't investigate to see if thermite was used. Robert Moore handily debunks their lame reasons in his peer reviwed paper,
Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1.
Thermate.
Thermate is an explosive, right? You are saying that there were explosives somehow vaporizing the steel in front of everyone’s eyes and these explosions were somehow not seen on any video?
The Cardington report wasn't simulating the temperatures in the WTC buildings.
The last test was an office simulation. Can you not compute this? Are you unable to understand the words? The temperatures reached from burning office materials was, according to my report, over 1000C and the unprotected steel not far behind that.
Even more importantly, the steel didn't collapse in the Cardington tests.
For the 13434343435th time, the columns were shielded. In one of the tests a small part of a column was not shielded and it started buckling so they covered all the columns. In all the tests the beams sagged but if the columns were not shielded the structure would have probably collapsed very early on.
You don't see much, so I'm willing to bet that at the very least, a fair amount of it is.
A “fair amount” probably was dust. That's exactly what you would expect. If broken and smashed concrete being turned into dust equals demolition then it is clear that everything means demolition to you and you are basically living in your own world.
.
