Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The great thermate debate
12-23-2010, 07:35 AM,
#31
RE: The great thermate debate
(11-13-2010, 05:30 PM)JFK Wrote: Edit - embedded video.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

Now envision using high strength ceramics such as used in racing engines instead of steel for the container.
Would that explain the grey layer in Jones et al nanothermate ?

Video is great.I liked it.
Reply
12-23-2010, 06:50 PM,
#32
RE: The great thermate debate
Kitchen cabinets??

Spam
Reply
01-12-2011, 10:00 PM, (This post was last modified: 01-12-2011, 10:01 PM by Dunamis.)
#33
RE: The great thermate debate
(11-21-2010, 12:03 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: There was NO NEED to use therm*te. The planes had sufficient energy. The coincidences of TWO plane strikes and TWO failure points are difficult to ignore, but somehow you are managing it.

TWO plane strikes? TWO failure points? Not really. Each tower counts as a single building, so TWO towers, each with ONE plane strike and ONE failure point.

Clearly you are here to be illogical and add irrelevant 'information'.
"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." -- 1 John 2:6
"Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly... This is the interrelated structure of reality." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." -- Proverbs 18:13
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." -- Leo Tolstoy
"To love is to be vulnerable" -- C.S Lewis

The Kingdom of God is within you! -- Luke 17:20-21

https://duckduckgo.com/
Reply
01-13-2011, 02:40 AM,
#34
RE: The great thermate debate
(01-12-2011, 10:00 PM)Occams Razor Wrote:
(11-21-2010, 12:03 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: There was NO NEED to use therm*te. The planes had sufficient energy. The coincidences of TWO plane strikes and TWO failure points are difficult to ignore, but somehow you are managing it.

TWO plane strikes? TWO failure points? Not really. Each tower counts as a single building, so TWO towers, each with ONE plane strike and ONE failure point.

Clearly you are here to be illogical and add irrelevant 'information'.

Is it you both somehow managed to said:

"what are the chances of that?"

Reply
01-13-2011, 02:47 AM,
#35
RE: The great thermate debate
(01-13-2011, 02:40 AM)Doc Quack Wrote: Is it you both somehow managed to said:

"what are the chances of that?"

Huh

Sorry friend, I'm unsure what you mean, what's typed is nonsensical.
"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." -- 1 John 2:6
"Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly... This is the interrelated structure of reality." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." -- Proverbs 18:13
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." -- Leo Tolstoy
"To love is to be vulnerable" -- C.S Lewis

The Kingdom of God is within you! -- Luke 17:20-21

https://duckduckgo.com/
Reply
01-13-2011, 07:46 PM,
#36
RE: The great thermate debate
i think he is trying to say we both consider each others perspective to be improbable.

Im not sure he gets thats sort of the point of the debate.
Reply
01-14-2011, 05:09 PM,
#37
RE: The great thermate debate
(01-13-2011, 07:46 PM)rsol Wrote: i think he is trying to say we both consider each others perspective to be improbable.

Im not sure he gets thats sort of the point of the debate.

Ah! I think I understand. It's difficult when people don't specify who they are replying to, especially when they comment after you and with a not-so-great grasp of English. Wink

I've overall loved this thread though, seriously! I have pointed quite a few people here from other sites, many times, and will continue to do so.

The evidence speaks for itself gladly.
"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." -- 1 John 2:6
"Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly... This is the interrelated structure of reality." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." -- Proverbs 18:13
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." -- Leo Tolstoy
"To love is to be vulnerable" -- C.S Lewis

The Kingdom of God is within you! -- Luke 17:20-21

https://duckduckgo.com/
Reply
01-14-2011, 05:46 PM,
#38
RE: The great thermate debate
i still cant see jazz's interpretation of heatflow. Any idea where hes gone? perhaps reading the wiki for heatflow?
Reply
01-14-2011, 07:01 PM,
#39
RE: The great thermate debate
(01-14-2011, 05:46 PM)rsol Wrote: i still cant see jazz's interpretation of heatflow. Any idea where hes gone? perhaps reading the wiki for heatflow?

I know what you mean.But at least there are two major opinions presented and great to have a lack of playground antics on such a great thread.

Maybe he is doing a little research. Wink Wouldn't be a bad thing though.
"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." -- 1 John 2:6
"Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly... This is the interrelated structure of reality." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." -- Proverbs 18:13
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." -- Leo Tolstoy
"To love is to be vulnerable" -- C.S Lewis

The Kingdom of God is within you! -- Luke 17:20-21

https://duckduckgo.com/
Reply
01-14-2011, 08:47 PM, (This post was last modified: 01-14-2011, 09:03 PM by JazzRoc.)
#40
RE: The great thermate debate
(01-14-2011, 05:09 PM)Dunamis Wrote: I know what you mean.But at least there are two major opinions presented and great to have a lack of playground antics on such a great thread. Maybe he is doing a little research. Wink Wouldn't be a bad thing though.
[quote='rsol' pid='207956' dateline='1294944383']
i think he is trying to say we both consider each others perspective to be improbable. Im not sure he gets thats sort of the point of the debate.
Dunamis Wrote:Ah! I think I understand. It's difficult when people don't specify who they are replying to, especially when they comment after you and with a not-so-great grasp of English. Wink
I've overall loved this thread though, seriously! I have pointed quite a few people here from other sites, many times, and will continue to do so.
The evidence speaks for itself gladly.
Rsol, you never got the point of your science instruction - namely to be so primed you could actually DO science if you wished. Well, remain uninstructed. I certainly don't feel the need to instruct you.
The same to you, Dunamis.
Catch up with me, even a little, and maybe I'll find this less boring.


(01-13-2011, 02:40 AM)Doc Quack Wrote: TWO plane strikes? TWO failure points? Not really. Each tower counts as a single building, so TWO towers, each with ONE plane strike and ONE failure point.
Clearly you are here to be illogical and add irrelevant 'information'.
Were there TWO plane strikes? Yes.
Were there TWO failure points? Yes.
Were TWO failure points AT the TWO plane strike points? Yes.
Were these COINCIDENCES? Yes. Well, they WERE if the planes didn't down the towers on their own.
There is NO WAY neither that the planes could have struck the towers on predetermined floors, nor that CHARGES could have been set that
(a) Never blew up in spite of a local fire soaking them in heat for an hour, or
(b) Blew up on the right floor for the strike AFTER soaking them in heat for an hour.
WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC?
ARE YOU RELEVANT?

Reply
01-15-2011, 01:50 AM,
#41
RE: The great thermate debate
(01-14-2011, 08:47 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:
(01-13-2011, 02:40 AM)Doc Quack Wrote: TWO plane strikes? TWO failure points? Not really. Each tower counts as a single building, so TWO towers, each with ONE plane strike and ONE failure point.
Clearly you are here to be illogical and add irrelevant 'information'.
Were there TWO plane strikes? Yes.
Were there TWO failure points? Yes.
Were TWO failure points AT the TWO plane strike points? Yes.
Were these COINCIDENCES? Yes. Well, they WERE if the planes didn't down the towers on their own.
There is NO WAY neither that the planes could have struck the towers on predetermined floors, nor that CHARGES could have been set that
(a) Never blew up in spite of a local fire soaking them in heat for an hour, or
(b) Blew up on the right floor for the strike AFTER soaking them in heat for an hour.
WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC?
ARE YOU RELEVANT?

Sorry friend but the above isn't a quote from me. I am reading the thread with curiosity about the issue. Whether you happen to be a gatekeeper "or not" there is no need for the pompous aggressive attitude.
Enjoy your day.
Reply
01-15-2011, 05:15 AM,
#42
RE: The great thermate debate
(01-14-2011, 08:47 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: Were there TWO plane strikes? Yes.
Were there TWO failure points? Yes.
Were TWO failure points AT the TWO plane strike points? Yes.

Well, if we are looking at it like that, though I am unsure why you you are going off on this tangent of "two plane strikes", as there weren't as far as your reasoning goes. Or does the Pentagon not count in the official story? Would that not be three plane strikes?

Let's concentrate on this one building at a time.

(01-14-2011, 08:47 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: There is NO WAY neither that the planes could have struck the towers on predetermined floors, nor that CHARGES could have been set that
(a) Never blew up in spite of a local fire soaking them in heat for an hour, or
(b) Blew up on the right floor for the strike AFTER soaking them in heat for an hour.
WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC?
ARE YOU RELEVANT?

I think you are missing the point that herein lies the debate. The Official line would say that there was immense heat (though I've never heard the scientific term you use - "soaked in heat", I always thought to soak something always involved liquid).

But out of the official line of what happened that day, we all have seen the pictures of people alive and waking from the openings where the planes struck, some still there as the towers were brought down.

Also, I'd have said that a group of experts, wanting to crash planes into buildings and then use termite/mate would have the foresight to compensate for the short lived intense heat from the pressurised Jet Fuel and the smaller lastings fires of office material. Would you not think?

(01-15-2011, 01:50 AM)Doc Quack Wrote:
(01-14-2011, 08:47 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:
(01-13-2011, 02:40 AM)Doc Quack Wrote: TWO plane strikes? TWO failure points? Not really. Each tower counts as a single building, so TWO towers, each with ONE plane strike and ONE failure point.
Clearly you are here to be illogical and add irrelevant 'information'.
Were there TWO plane strikes? Yes.
Were there TWO failure points? Yes.
Were TWO failure points AT the TWO plane strike points? Yes.
Were these COINCIDENCES? Yes. Well, they WERE if the planes didn't down the towers on their own.
There is NO WAY neither that the planes could have struck the towers on predetermined floors, nor that CHARGES could have been set that
(a) Never blew up in spite of a local fire soaking them in heat for an hour, or
(b) Blew up on the right floor for the strike AFTER soaking them in heat for an hour.
WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC?
ARE YOU RELEVANT?

Sorry friend but the above isn't a quote from me. I am reading the thread with curiosity about the issue. Whether you happen to be a gatekeeper "or not" there is no need for the pompous aggressive attitude.
Enjoy your day.

He is quite right, the quote is from me. And of course, the attitude has been noted, I am sure you could drop that though J.R. Wink Let's at least keep it civil, rather than judging someone based on a single simple debate, because that really is irrelevant.
"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." -- 1 John 2:6
"Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly... This is the interrelated structure of reality." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." -- Proverbs 18:13
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." -- Leo Tolstoy
"To love is to be vulnerable" -- C.S Lewis

The Kingdom of God is within you! -- Luke 17:20-21

https://duckduckgo.com/
Reply
01-15-2011, 10:29 AM, (This post was last modified: 01-15-2011, 10:37 AM by rsol.)
#43
RE: The great thermate debate
Quote:Rsol, you never got the point of your science instruction - namely to be so primed you could actually DO science if you wished. Well, remain uninstructed. I certainly don't feel the need to instruct you.
The same to you, Dunamis.
Catch up with me, even a little, and maybe I'll find this less boring.
Sorry jazz but that alloy is being heated up by something. where is the heat source?
I, being a computer nerd, KNOW about heatflow from researching the design concepts for heatsinks over the 90s. Many different meathods were used, heatpipes, phase change, different metals and alloys. we went through them all in our quest for the ultimate heatsink.

to measure heat flow you are talking about how something takes heat from a source. the faster the heatflow, the better the heatsink. What that experiment showed was, with a nitrogen concentration, the heatflow on phase change from solid to liquid brought some different results, it still required a heatsource. With or without that nitrogen it would still be reaching those tempretures.

Hot gas? hot plate? which would bring you more coherent results? yes thats right, hot plate.

The reason i say it is irrelevent to our debate is because the heat source was no longer present on that day. In your experiment it is ALWAYS present. That is also coupled with the fact that temps were way higher than those in the experiments.

You are flapping with this one jazz. I think you know it too.

BTW welcome back. Although you have an abrasive side you seem marginal compared to some of the dicks we have inhabiting here at present.
Reply
02-18-2011, 01:41 PM,
#44
RE: The great thermate debate
(01-15-2011, 10:29 AM)rsol Wrote:
Quote:Rsol, you never got the point of your science instruction - namely to be so primed you could actually DO science if you wished. Well, remain uninstructed. I certainly don't feel the need to instruct you.
The same to you, Dunamis.
Catch up with me, even a little, and maybe I'll find this less boring.
Sorry jazz but that alloy is being heated up by something. where is the heat source?
I, being a computer nerd, KNOW about heatflow from researching the design concepts for heatsinks over the 90s. Many different meathods were used, heatpipes, phase change, different metals and alloys. we went through them all in our quest for the ultimate heatsink.

to measure heat flow you are talking about how something takes heat from a source. the faster the heatflow, the better the heatsink. What that experiment showed was, with a nitrogen concentration, the heatflow on phase change from solid to liquid brought some different results, it still required a heatsource. With or without that nitrogen it would still be reaching those tempretures.

Hot gas? hot plate? which would bring you more coherent results? yes thats right, hot plate.

The reason i say it is irrelevent to our debate is because the heat source was no longer present on that day. In your experiment it is ALWAYS present. That is also coupled with the fact that temps were way higher than those in the experiments.

You are flapping with this one jazz. I think you know it too.

BTW welcome back. Although you have an abrasive side you seem marginal compared to some of the dicks we have inhabiting here at present.
There was quite enough fuel (kerosine, office materials) to melt a few tons of aircraft duralumin.
A furnace is made from contained fuel, reflective walls, insulated base, and an air supply.
In case you hadn't noticed, the penetrated tower fulfilled all those requirements, even sporting something like a fifty-foot chimney stack, out of which was whistling a gale of exhaust smoke.
Somebody standing upwind in the entry hole isn't "evidence there was no fire" - the furnace conditions were TWO HUNDRED FEET AWAY at the other side of the tower.
Absurd. Sort yourself out.
Reply
02-18-2011, 05:50 PM,
#45
RE: The great thermate debate
all a heat sink requires is a place to collect heat and a place to dissapate it. that was also fulfilled. most furnaces are generally contained within its insulators without a mesh of metal heatpiping out. dont forget all that metal is interconnected to other metal. large big lumps of it.

Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  BRICS Summit: Far East Bloc versus America: 'Great Game' for Global Order via Banking and Currency? Solve et Coagula 9 2,178 01-13-2014, 10:10 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  CNN - Piers Morgan vs Larry Pratt - Gun laws "debate" fujiinn 9 1,433 01-12-2013, 01:12 AM
Last Post: R.R
  Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT Negentropic 105 37,032 12-01-2012, 05:50 AM
Last Post: macfadden
  Is Holocaust II (shorthand for another great turning against the Jews) inevitable? Solve et Coagula 0 431 02-24-2012, 06:36 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  Another great video by Luke at we are change.org Sovereignman 2 621 02-14-2012, 04:10 AM
Last Post: Sovereignman
  Ron Paul Owns Warmongers During Fox News Debate - 12/15/11 Solve et Coagula 0 456 12-25-2011, 11:05 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  The Elite, the ‘Great Game’, & World War III Solve et Coagula 0 402 06-13-2011, 12:54 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  Mideast Turmoil IS a Direct Threat to American Empire, and That’s Great Solve et Coagula 0 466 02-05-2011, 09:07 AM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  THE GREAT RENEGER video hilly7 2 762 08-18-2010, 10:25 PM
Last Post: hilly7
  The Great Bay: Chronicles of the Collapse Solve et Coagula 0 490 07-29-2010, 12:17 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)