|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 23, 2007 10:08:39 GMT -4
I think all of the points Steven Jones made sense. Why don't you pick a few and say why they don't make sense?
Try finding out about Structrual steel and Manganese, then find outy what type of steel uses Chroium. Once you do that, compare it to Jones' claims on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 23, 2007 10:48:32 GMT -4
Somewhere in the video, I don't remember where, Steven Jones proves that it couldn't have been aluminum. He melts some aluminum and it retains its silvery color. Okay, he melts it. Does it expose it to fire? Very hot fire? Does he ignite it by friction? There are many variables that can prove him wrong. The feeling is mutal. You referred to whom ever I referred to. At least, you implied that. You should've specified. From what I saw, critical thinking is serverly lacking on that forum. Pot, meet kettle. The only substance you offer are link after link, taking no time to support what is said, other than "it makes sense to me". The photo is blurry, not sharp. I've seen better photos. Heck, the picture doesn't resolve the grass too well. As always, your attention is on the white blob. Do you not see the object in front of it? This is where Occam's Razor, which it seems is your enemy, comes in. There are multiple explainations for the origin of the universe. It is the one that evidence exists for that is accepted. The same applies for 9/11. Sure, you can cook up any number of explainations. But which ones have evidence? Photos alone aren't evidence. Nor are speculations of planted witnesses, falsified reports, ect. You have to look at the whole picture. To some people, a geocentric system makes more sense. Ditto the idea of a flat earth, steady-state universe, pychics, astrologers, ect. Does that make those explainations any more correct than what the official version is? So it is with those videos and 9/11. Not everyone can. Some only have online access at work, at have no time for it. Some have dial-up. And some, like me, have better things to do. Besides, it helps to see if you understand what is presented, and if you can defend your beliefs. Note that most of us here do not rely on videos for our explainations. We may use it as a reference, but we don't use the links as our arguements. We show that we understand what is written, and can support our side of the arguement. It does no good to simply say "Go watch this" and consider it done with. Ah, you take in CT theories that make sense to you. Thanks for clearing that up. Tell me, what CT theories don't make sense to you? Geocentrics say the same thing. So do creationists, IDers, ect. How do you know the viewers aren't like us? How do you know they'll buy into what is said on those videos? You're taking a gamble with that assumption. Again, pot meet kettle. Did I like to any videos, or forums? Did I ever do that in past posts? And speaking of taking up space, what do you think all those links of yours do? You provide no argument to support your views; only links and videos. You call that substance?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 23, 2007 12:29:50 GMT -4
AG said: rocky responded: Tell us how you know this. Anyway, slag doesn't run that far.AG said: rocky responded: I don't sit around and theorize. I took a welding class back in 76. We did arc welding, mig welding, tig welding, and gas welding. We had to cut our own metal for the arc and mig welding. I've never seen slag run that far.Wowzers - "a" welding class 32 years ago. Pretty deep and meaningful juniour high experience for you, I guess. Let's just say I have more, and more recent, experience with metal working than you do. Well, of course you've never seen slag run that far, what with your one class and all. Neither have I - I've never had to cut a 3" thick slab of metal folded in half using a torch sized to cut maybe 1" steel. But I've cut some pretty big stuff with pretty small tools, and I'm telling you, that's a torch cut. The torch was too small for the job, technically, which results in a less-than-perfect cut. Perhaps I should ask "why" the slag wouldn't run that far? When cutting through steel, ordinarily, the torch melts a hole (look at your pic again, look at the top edge, near the middle - see a hole about the twice the thickness of the metal? torch too small) then the welder squeezes the "cut" handle to blow pure oxy into the melted metal. It doesn't "blow away" the melted metal - it burns it. Most of the kerf is blown away as rust. If your flame is too small (bad adjustments, or tool to small for the job) the cut will result in more of the metal running as melted slag, and less as oxidised iron. Here is a set of images from someone's tour of Ground Zero. You can see in several pictures cuts that look a lot like your beam. You make a fundamental mistake, here, in thinking that you know enough about welding to comment, when in fact you know less than you think. There's a lot more to know than you realize.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 23, 2007 13:36:23 GMT -4
When cutting steel the worker doesn't melt a hole before giving it the oxygen. He just heats the steel until it's red-hot. Once it's red-hot, you can give it the oxygen and it burns through the steel. Welders never leave the flame there without turning on the oxygen long enough to melt it when they're cutting. I'm wondering if you're telling the truth about your experience in welding now.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 23, 2007 15:18:55 GMT -4
Good for you - you can Google wikipedia articles!
Unfortunately, that doesn't really translate to real-world experience, which frequently varies from the ideal.
I'll admit I'm not a professional welder, and I'll admit my welding is generally pretty poor. But if I'm cutting thin sheetmetal, the center of my spot will frequently slump. This happens because I'm using too much heat for the material. I also warp the sheetmetal a lot.
It also happens when I'm not using enough heat, and have to "overheat" the middle of the cut, because I'm using a little torch to cut thick pipe.
Not that any of this is relevant - thermite still isn't gonna burn through a beam sideways. You need magic pixie dust to do that kind of cut, and it's prohibitively expensive. Cheaper to convince a bunch of Arabs to fly a plane into the building and call it done.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 23, 2007 16:40:58 GMT -4
Wowzers - "a" welding class 32 years ago. '76 isn't 32 years ago, you know. David, that wasn't what I asked for. I asked for a paragraph giving details as to why you trust Steven Jones, and you haven't given any. In fact, you've strongly implied that you assume him to be trustworthy until it's proven otherwise. So not okay.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 23, 2007 16:46:49 GMT -4
Aren't there not only lots of pictures of these cut beams, but pictures of workmen cutting them as well?
I find it odd that Rocky can declare that those cuts can only be made from thermite/thermate/super duper thermate, but not provide any information about just how those substances could have made them either.
To me because lots of images of workmen cutting beams and the cut beams themselves during the removal operation, it seems more likely that those are just more cut beams after the collapse, some cut under difficult circumstances and with perhaps not exactly the right tools for the job, other than some exotic sideways-cutting super duper secret squirrel thermate.
Who on Earth thinks like that?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 23, 2007 17:35:46 GMT -4
Wowzers - "a" welding class 32 years ago. '76 isn't 32 years ago, you know. "I'm all messed up on cough syrup right now, so just , like, nevermind..." The Dead Milkmen
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 23, 2007 20:31:05 GMT -4
In fact, you've strongly implied that you assume him to be trustworthy until it's proven otherwise.
What you mean that you won't let him have the normal double-standard of a CT believing someone that agrees with him no questions asked, and always disbelieving those that disagree (especially if it is the story giving by the evil lying US Government). I mean, come on that is a basic tenant of being a CT.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 23, 2007 21:52:40 GMT -4
In fact, you've strongly implied that you assume him to be trustworthy until it's proven otherwise.What you mean that you won't let him have the normal double-standard of a CT believing someone that agrees with him no questions asked, and always disbelieving those that disagree (especially if it is the story giving by the evil lying US Government). I mean, come on that is a basic tenant of being a CT. That's it in a nutshell (so to speak), I'm afraid. I'm tired of the games. In another thread, I was asked for my position on American imperialism, which I gave, even though it was off topic, and I've never gotten a straight answer. I'm told that I obviously don't believe what I say I believe. I'm told that I lying to support a war that I vocally oppose, that (as I do keep mentioning) has taken my beloved to another continent for a very long time. (Though it's Friday; he might call tonight.) Well, David, I'm not playing by your rules. You're playing by Lunar Orbit's or not at all. LO, can I get you to require a straight answer on this one? If not, hey, it's your board and your rules. But I really want to know exactly, in David's own words, why we're all obviously liars and Steven Jones obviously knows what he's talking about, despite the fact that David doesn't know what he's talking about, either, and therefore cannot judge. Oh, and no worries, AG. It's just that, well, I was born in '76. I've not quite adjusted to being 30 yet, and you're trying to make me even older! (Though I do have the knees of a woman twice my age.)
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 24, 2007 1:37:32 GMT -4
Wohoo, someone here is younger than me (by 11-23 months) Does she know you have them?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 24, 2007 4:12:47 GMT -4
I doubt she wants them back. They suck.
That's 6 December, 1976, if you're curious.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 24, 2007 7:30:09 GMT -4
That's going to take a lot of research time. If you know, would you mind just posting it? I used to cut metal to use in practice weld in my welding class. It was only quarter inch steel, but I learned that when cutting steel the torch is applied until the steel is red-hot. Then oxygen is applied and the cumbustion process starts. Not much molten steel is produced as it's burning the steel instead of melting it. I can see from this post of yours that don't know what you're talking about. This is the only explanation I can think of. www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 It sounds to me like you haven't watched the videos. What he says makes sense. If you think he's wrong about something, say what it is and we can talk about it. When I look at the official version and then at Steven Jones' version, the official version looks so bogus. Someone's having credentials isn't a reason to trust him. There are lots of liars with credentials. It's what he presents that impresses me--not his credentials. This tactic you're using is a classic tactic used when a person is cornered by overwhelming evidence. In a situation like this the party that disagrees with the theory should examine the evidence and say why they disagree. Of course there are; as there always are in a demolition site. Is that proof that the ones in the photos were not cut by theremite? I suppose we can't rule out the possibility that the clean-up crew used thermite to cut those beams. What I want is your analyses of what Steven Jones said.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 24, 2007 10:57:12 GMT -4
I doubt she wants them back. They suck. That's 6 December, 1976, if you're curious. I imagine you refer to painful knees? My mom has that too. Have you tried Tripleflex?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 24, 2007 12:54:34 GMT -4
|
|