Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Another Solid Debunker

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories is dedicated to proving that the controlled demolition believers in the 9-11 Denial Movement are every bit as wacky as the No-Planers. Mike King uses science and logic to debunk Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin. He's also a terrific writer and I recommend his site without hesitation.

13 Comments:

At 30 August, 2006 16:18, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Do I have to say it....dear god another Mike to add to the confusion over at LC...lol. Between the Mikes and the Marks...

 
At 30 August, 2006 17:40, Blogger CHF said...

That website is - all together now - a HIT PIECE!

 
At 30 August, 2006 20:23, Blogger nesNYC said...

So let me get this straight, thermite could not have been used in the WTC demolition because

1) it takes too much time
2) You would need too large quantities of it
3) it isn't reliable for demolitions..

So he's concluding that jet fuel beats thermite hands down! How's that for OS'er logic? Puhleezz..

Throw this one in the recycle bin as well.

Hence the CD theory is not supported by the quantities of molten metal, because thermite in its conventional form is useless in demolition: it is slow-burning, with unpredictable time to melt, and can only be used in direct contact with horizontal unclad steel beams / components. (The horizontal steel members in the Twin Towers were covered by at least 4 inches of concrete.) Prototype thermite cutter torches have been developed which could cut steel at any angle, but they work by producing as stream of high-velocity, high-temperature combustion products. Any iron produced by such a cutter would be dispersed as as droplets and would only in exceptional circumstances pool into any significant quantities of molten iron. It is more likely that a film of iron particles, mixed with aluminium oxide particles, would be deposited on nearby surfaces. However this is speculation on my part as I cannot find any reference to commercially available thermite cutter torches. If anyone can provide information on such devices I would be pleased to hear from them. Nano-thermites, mentioned by Jones, are also ruled out because they operate more like an explosive, and so would disperse iron particles as I suggest above. The thermite lance, a variant that uses a long iron tube with aluminium rods running through it, is ruled out as far as I can tell because it would require an operative.

 
At 30 August, 2006 20:53, Blogger Alex said...

So he's concluding that jet fuel beats thermite hands down! How's that for OS'er logic? Puhleezz..

Same as usual; it contradicts YOUR logic, meaning it's pretty accurate.

In this case you're right, if someone had brought in 20,000 gallons of thermite it would have done more damage than 20,000 gallons of jet fuel. However, just how exactly someone is supposed to smuggle in 20,000 (or even 10 or 5 thousand) gallons of thermite is something I'll leave up to you to figure out. I'm sure you'll claim that Captain Kirk volunteered the use of his transporter 10 seconds before impact, or something along those lines, however, we're not buying what you're selling.

 
At 30 August, 2006 21:02, Blogger nesNYC said...

20,000 gallons of thermite

You should just stop there. Seriously. LOL.

 
At 30 August, 2006 21:29, Blogger Alex said...

eh? ok einstein, how much thermite would be needed to generate temperatures required to bring the buildings down? since you seem to be the demolitions expert here, I'll let you do the math.


go ahead.


any time now...

 
At 30 August, 2006 22:15, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

(chirp) nesNYC (chirp) is typing frantically and hoping Charlie Sheen gets back to him soon (chirp)

 
At 31 August, 2006 06:59, Blogger CHF said...

No Nazinyc,

thermite could not have been used in the WTC demolition because

1) it can't be applied on numerous beams at the same time as you suggest it was

2) it doesn't burn sideways

I've only asked you to explain these things about 10 times now....

 
At 31 August, 2006 08:16, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Alex:

i think in his humorless way, Out of Sync was making fun of you ruse of "Gallons" as a measurement for Thermite, a solid...but I could be wrong.

 
At 31 August, 2006 10:35, Blogger Alex said...

Ah. Well, that would make sense, since he's certainly ignorant enough not to understand that a gallon can just as easily measure solids as it does liquids, since it's simply a measurement of volume.

 
At 31 August, 2006 18:05, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

yup...solid, liquid, or gas, although most scientists dont use the imperical/american units when dealing with volumes of solids or gases...or liquids, for that matter.

it is good for fuel, but most scientists in the world use litres...

 
At 31 August, 2006 20:22, Blogger Alex said...

To tell you the truth, I was just too lazy to convert gallons to kilograms :) I don't actually know the density of thermite so converting would have been a pain in the ass. It was easier to just leave the unit of measure the same, since I was only using it as an example and not trying to make an accurate measurement. Of course, non-sync totally missed the point.

 
At 01 September, 2006 10:00, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

he always does...:)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home