Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (121289)	3/10/2010 5:04:59 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 132070

unlike you, i will address the issues. i want truth - whatever it is, not my personal agenda. >>They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless.<< let's not forget that thermite can be attached to bombs that do explode. >>The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives?<< you rig the building in advance. nobody knows exactly where the plane will hit - and when it does, it is likely that some of the thermite explosive will go off in the explosion of the plane and jet fuel. this isn't something that is left to choice. >>To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it"<< he's dreaming. it is easily explained and i just did so off the cuff in seconds. >>I'm sure they are. Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work.<< is this guy an expert? did he even research it it all? i searched his site and whois and didn't find anything that could me any idea who this guy/gal is who s/he works for or what kind of credentials s/he has. how many professionals in the industry has he interviewed to confirm this and where is the list? just because he's not an expert and doesn't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. >>While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column.<< proves nothing - especially since we don't even know if this guy just sits around his mother's basement. compare this to ae911truth.org. they sign their names. the MIT professor gives his place of employment and his expertise. >>Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work?<< you mean this guy doesn't know? i thought he was debunking something - his own personal ignorance debunks nothing. >>Anyone can make a patent but it doesn't mean it exists or even works. Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. It would be pretty absurd to suggest they moved the walls away from the columns just to fit these things around the columns.<< what sort of expertise does this person have on the layout of WTC buildings? nothing? nice. i've heard that there was access to the inner supports, that the building was completely shut down for 2 days - including all surveillance cameras and lots of people brining in boxes and long cables during the power down. all according to a WTC employee eyewitness. but this guy doesn't about that - so it obviously doesn't exist. >>Of course they'll say they didn't suggest that but it goes without saying. Anyway, physicists aren't supposed to know these things.<< yes, he can't debate physics laws with physics professors, so he goes ad hominem. that's a tell - a tell that this guy's argument is weak or nonexistent. >>I will give Jones the benefit of the doubt and say he and the other "Scholars for truth" may not know how to use Google. We'll chalk this up to old scholars who hate computers. (We'll also forget that professors are supposed to know how to do research. Though that one is a little tougher for me...)<< research what? this guy has said nothing meaningful beyond his contention that nothing exists unless he has personal knowledge of it. if i research something, the knowledge doesn't go into his head. >>The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later.<< untrue. completely fabricated. this guy builds up straw men and then tears them down. again, if the building was wired with thermite explosives, some would likely go off when the plane hit. that doesn't that all control of the other explosives would be rendered impossible. >>Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either.<< oh, so now he knows that thermite/thermate is coupled with explosives. oh, he argued only an idiot would think thermite would blow anything up... now he admits there has to be an explosive that could blow something up coupled with the thermite. my guess is some of the explosive went off when the plane hit, which yielded the likely molten steel / iron we saw dripping from the WTC. the control of the other explosives was maintained and eventually triggered. >>(Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse.<< not according to the eye witnesses i've heard. but this person hasn't heard them, so they don't exist. they don't believe what he believes so they must be lying. right? life is easy when you exclude any information you don't like. >>From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.)<< again, what are his credentials? >>Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off.<< so, if you can't find the murder weapon, a murder obviously did not take place. absolute genius! -lol- >>That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist.<< why, b/c he says so? the whole building was VAPORIZED. whatever was inside was VAPORIZED. of course you won't see it in pristine condition. so, name another steel building that fell due to fire and vaporized. oh, that's right, only these three steel framed buildings have ever fallen due to fire in HISTORY! >>It will be interesting to see how Jones gets around this now that he knows.<< what? he's said nothing of value. >>Will he use these rationalizations or produce hard facts? I have little doubt he will think of SOMETHING... << about what? this guy's imagination? see, ls, i'm not afraid of actual facts and discussion. i'm not a conclusion waiting filtering in and out whatever makes me feel comfortable.

To: longnshort who wrote (121289)	3/10/2010 5:15:21 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 132070

even worse... this guy states... >>Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black.<< look at the picture. he offers absolutely no evidence that the different colored items were actually previously even hot. they could be anything, but this guy interprets it to fit his point of view. or not, i don't know. not enough evidence. if he's trying to prove something, he completely failed. >>The color means nothing.<< the reason this person says this is b/c the color is what one would expect from molten steel / iron. he has to get around this fact. so he declares it meaningless. maybe it is, maybe it isn't - but he has to prove it is meaningless. does he? i'll place my bet right now. -lol- >>The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence.<< b/c they say so. -lol- >>This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed its color.<< based upon - oh that's right, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! ls, learn to thin for yourself. that guy is pathetic. he claims to debunk molten steel and you saw a video with a clear angled cut covered with molten steel across the cut. does he address that? nope. he can't. there is a reason. oh, we do learn a little about this guy... >>Now, I'm no "Professor"<< no, really? -lol-