Smoking gun found by independent 9/11 scientists, proves World Trade Center brought down with explosives.
Posted on: August 28, 2008 - 9:08am
Offline
Smoking gun found by independent 9/11 scientists, proves World Trade Center brought down with explosives.
Once again, science to the rescue. An inconvenient truth for anyone who merely wants to scapegoat Muslims.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&hl=
- Login to post comments
http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html
Yes let's be honest.
Why do you want us to believe it was an inside job?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I gave up on the mindless twit an hour ago. Deluded.... please calm down. You and I have told him what happened, he does not like anyone abasing his new toy. The other people responding on this thread have brains and more importently they know US!
That nerrow minded birdbrain can take a long walk off a short pier.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Who killed Kennedy?
Who blew up the Hindenberg?
Where are all those 6 million jews hidding that Hitler 'supposedly' killed?
Who was really behind the Lincoln assasination?
Does Ted Koppel wear a tupe?
There really is no difference between you stupid conspiracy wackos and religious zelots. How do you people find your way to work or even function in society? Yes, blame the government for having swiss cheese like airport security, blame the government for not following up on tips from other law enforcement agencies, blame the government for being slow to react to tracking known terrorists in the country, but how, how in this day and age can you be so stupid and think that the government was the culprit on 9/11. It was 19 religously driven people that pulled off 9/11. At that point, it doesn't even matter how what building collapsed which way. It's moot. Why, because you take those 19 people out of the equasion and those buildings would still be standing and all those people would still be alive.
Next you're going to say it was a missle that hit the Pentagon.
I am getting deja vu of skepticdude's 911 nutjobbery from this troll, I mean poster. (P.S.-don't let him know we are all zionists, he may be on to us)
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris's grandad
Chuck Norris's basement
Chuck Norris's great-great-granddad
Yes, one made from real Chuck Norris hair.
Hey, now! Don't be that way.
There's a conspiracy that stole my Chuck Norris conspiracy. See, a long time ago (back when the intertubes were young), back just after Brandon Lee so mysteriously "died," I had a flash of realization. Who was Elvis Presley's karate instructor? Ed Parker, who introduced Bruce Lee to the person that introduced Bruce Lee to Hollywood. How did Elvis "die?" Priscilla ran off with Mike Stone, Bruce Lee's disciple. (By common accounts, he was dead inside. It just took his body a few years of abuse to catch up.)
What really happened is this: another disciple of Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, engineered it all, so that Elvis could get out of the spotlight. He'd done the same thing for JFK years before (when Chuck was a mere 23 years old, the same year he fought in the 15th Airforce Judo tournament and won), and even his old master and teacher, Bruce Lee himself.
I realized that the strange similarities between Brandon Lee's death, and his father's death, were just to wierd to be true. It could only be Chuck Norris.
Then along came a bunch of internet dandies with all kinds of ludicrous Chuck Norris conspiracies (building a time machine? c'mon!). They did this so the truth of my discovery would not be believed. DAMN THEM!
It was Chuck Norris's missile.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Chuck Norris always keeps a spare missile under his beard.
How in the world could I have overlooked Chuck Norris? It's so obvious now.
The Octogon and Good Guys Wear Black, are probably recruiting tools for his plan for world domination. I better start growing a beard...
How I see this argument so far as an observer:
Uz: Definitive proof the WTC was brought down by explosives! see? Thermite reactions!
DG: Um...(bunch of really complicated physics jargon about how everything Uz said was uneducated babbling)
Uz: Poopie-head bigotous twit!
Other rational person: So you're just going to insult him then?
Uz: Let me shift the goal posts to WTC 7.
DG: Wait, back up...are you going to address my previous post?
Uz: I don't walk to bigotous children who pretend to be experts in physics.
DG: *facepalm*
Other rational persons: *eyeroll* *shakes head* *whispers "what a douchebag that Uz is"* *shocked expression*
Uz: Ha! Thermite explosives is teh wayz! FTW!!!111!
DG: You do know that Thermite is not an explosive, but an incindiary? (MORE physics jargon)
Uz: Nuh uh, bigot! Check this site (gives wiki as a source)
DG & other rational persons: *shows how Uz's wiki source proves their point and not Uz's*
Uz: Muslim-hating bigots!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Yep, that's pretty much it.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
And then starts another thread on the same subject hoping to shake off the doubters
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Looks right to me, too. Give 'em the hat.
Wow DG, thanks for putting up with such retardation, you deserve a medal.
UX, you're arguing like a Christian/Muslim.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Frankly, I expected him to respond. Anyone who wants to have a serious discussion about this topic should be heavily versed in statics, multivariable calculus, thermal physics, material science and industrial chemistry. If the post in question appeared to be "a bunch of really complicated physics jargon" to my interlocuter, then he has a very serious problem and shouldn't be in the thread. Since much of this one-sided discussion revolves around work and energy, I'm going to ask him a very simple physics problem:
A point mass at the origin of an R2 plane creates a vector field of the form F=P<x,y>, Q<x,y>. A ball is thrown through the vector field under the closed interval [1,20] by the parameterizable curve f(x)=x2
You may assume that the ball and the point mass both have a mass of 1. In solving the vector field, you may ignore the Universal Constant of Gravitation.
What is the work done on the ball?
There we are. I crafted that problem on the spot. Now we shall see which one of us is pretending to know about physics.
[EDIT: I just computed the solution]. I want to see if he can do the same. The problem is actually easy. If I had set it to R3 instead of R2 then it would have been much more difficult and would necessitate the use of partial derivatives, the del operator, and multivariable integration.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
What about baby jesus?
I read over deludedgod's long post where he explained a few concepts (post #4) and it matches what I have learned in my undergraduate studies as a materials scientist. Ux is bragging about his three physics classes, but he must not have learned much in them since deludedgod was spot on in his post yet Ux tried to dismiss it as false. If we want to play the "I've taken classes" game then I want to play too. I know deludedgod beats me at it since I am still an undergrad, but at least I have Ux beaten. I have taken numerous materials science, physics, and mechanical engineering classes at my university. It is funny that Ux brags about his three classes. In my freshmen year I took three physics classes. They taught me enough to realize that I am NOT an authority on physics and that I have only an entry level understanding. If you have as much education in a subject as a college freshmen, don't brag about it. I just wish that Ux could have spouted off his stupidity in the failure analysis class that I took last quarter; we would have had fun laughing him out of the room.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
I did the problem. I have an answer for it, but won't post it and my explanation of how I got it until Ux or deludedgod say they don't mind me putting it up. I know that Ux can not solve this, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt for a while. I don't want to give anything away yet, but I will have a question for deludedgod about this problem later, once we all know that Ux is incapable of solving it.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
WTC 7 had 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel in it, and was burning for hours before it collapsed.
Go ahead and put it up. I also computed the solution so we can review it. I don't think you need to worry about the benefit of the doubt. It's been a day.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Ux has conveniently fled this thread since deludedgod posted his challenge, so I will assume that Ux was lying about his physics knowledge. Just to see if I remember enough from my physics classes, I did the problem that deludedgod posted as a challenge to Ux. I think I might have done it wrong, but here it goes:
So we have a Euclidean plane with an object of mass 1 at the origion. The vector field is a gravitational force field. These two objects will attract one another by the relationship: F=(GmM/r^2).
So deludedgod is saying that F=(mM/r2) and the G will be ignored. Since both masses equal 1 unit of mass we have: F=(1*1/r2)=1/r2. Now things are getting simpler. The R2 plane will be characterized by a f(x) axis and a x axis. I will denote "f(x)" as "y" from now on.
So the path of the ball is from x=1 to x=20 along the the curve y=x2. r=(x2+y2)-2 and y2=x4, so r2=(x2+x4). So F=1/r2=1/(x2+x4).
Work in this problem is computed as a line integral of Fdr. I don't solve integrals anymore, instead I just put the funtions into Excel and solve them graphically.
A B C D E F"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
You should remember that gravity is a conservative field. Therefore, what matters is the start/end points, not the path. So you don't have to go and calculate every last point.
So the work done is intergral Fdr
which is GMm[integral[r1,r2]]dr/r2
which turns out to be GMm(1/r2-1/r1..)
I think Ux was completely full of shit too. Maybe he meant he took like HS physics and failed it 3 times before passing?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I was actually thinking of solving it by splitting the path into a straight path in the x direction and a straight path in the y direction. Those two paths when added together would have the same start and end point as the curve given by deludedgod. Perhaps I should have went with that approach.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Pineapple is correct. What I actually did was use the fundamental theorem of line integrals after solving the vector field. This is much more accurate. Any line integral derived from the gradient of a scalar function is path independant. So the first thing to do is solve the vector field. Then you compute it as the gradient of a scalar function. Then you take the end and start points of that function and you minus the end from the start.
You should find that the vector field has the following equation. I have computed it in this word document. Most of it is spent computing the field:
Page 1-2:
Page 3:
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I am confused by the last line. I think it is: W=[(202+4002)-1/2]-[(12+12)-1/2]=[160400-1/2]-[1/(21/2)]=.0025-.7071=-.7046 which is approximately -.7
Are you writing that [(12+12)-1/2]=1? Or are you approximating .7071 about equals 1?
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
That was an error which I fixed several minutes ago.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
It is a conspiracy theory that involves, the Government, FBI (after all they dismissed that attack on the WTC/planes involvement), Military, the Demolition company or those involved setting up the explosions, the WTC management/employees at the building (getting a building ready for demolition isn't a thing you can simoy do without anyone noticing) the airplane companies that sacrificed their planes and passengers, some way of controlling the planes via remote I guess is the only way if someone did not maneuver the plane themselves (to which now your saying those passengers where lying to their families about the hijacking of the planes which now involves them as well to in a suicide bid)....and NO ONE has said squat in 7 years.....all this to pick a fight with Muslims. Seems like a lot of trouble when just killing an important diplomat would have been so much easier or having them kidnap a bunch of Americans and killing them and having Osama bin laden take the blame. No it could not have been a coordinated attack against America by a rogue military/guerilla organization hell bent of making Islam the default religion of the world and killing all infidels....no it was a massive conspiracy....I see the truth now....what a wanker.
And how many participants have kept their knowledge secret all these 7 yrs ? Oh, really ??? But still, "eat the rich" ....
Atheism Books.
Was that a door I just heard closing? Hey, where's Ux?
Now that our fanatical interlocutor has fled, I think we should reflect on the lessons that can be learned from this thread.
Our interloctutor was defeated because he was not in a position to evaluate the arguments given to him because his context-specific understanding of mechanics was poor. But if that is the case, the converse is also true: He was not in a position originally to evaluate the arguments of others he put forth in support of his thesis, insofar as it pertained to the same subject matter. This puts him on tenuous ground, epistemologically speaking. The lessons we should draw is that we should always tread softly around subjects whose contents pertain to concepts we may not be able to evaluate, because otherwise we are just listening to talking heads. It is funny that he styled himself a critical thinker and asserted that he was trying to "free our minds", yet could not recognize this, as a genuine critical thinker should have been able to. That is the most important lesson to be learned from this thread, not "9/11 was not a conspiracy", although that too is important. The conversation here presented a genuine example of a problem that, if alleviated, would make the world a better place: People forming strong opinions on subject matters where they don't know what they are talking about.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism