QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:17 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 04:12 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 8 2006, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneiby
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
Professor Jones - Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
2. One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level cutting thermite-analog developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.--
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:17 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 04:12 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 8 2006, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneiby
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
Professor Jones - Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
2. One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level cutting thermite-analog developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.--
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:38 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:17 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 04:12 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 8 2006, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneiby
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
Professor Jones - Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
2. One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level cutting thermite-analog developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.--
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Would that be sulphur producing office furniture NIST says is there?
Just thought I would point out what Professor Jones was actually asking.
While the exact source of the sulfur was not determined, and since this piece came from the RUBBLE PILE, it was also not determined WHEN this reaction occurred. The authors also gave a number of possible sources of the Sulfur, none of which included thermate, or in fact anything out of the ordinary.
Sulfur it turns out is a fairly common element, so one doesn't have to postulate unlikely sources like thermate to account for it.
However IF thermate is used, and it is used in quantities to cause any appreciable effect, then one should also have a lot of melted steel and Aluminum Slag left behind as evidence.
Any evidence of Aluminum Slag boys?
Arthur
Sulfur it turns out is a fairly common element, so one doesn't have to postulate unlikely sources like thermate to account for it.
However IF thermate is used, and it is used in quantities to cause any appreciable effect, then one should also have a lot of melted steel and Aluminum Slag left behind as evidence.
Any evidence of Aluminum Slag boys?
Arthur
Just a small, perhaps redundant question.
In order for the fire to melt the building's steel, and make the building fall vertically, wouldn't it have to propagate symetrically, throughout the tower's structure?
Given that the planes struck from the sides, what are the odds that the fires would propagate symetrically?
Regards
In order for the fire to melt the building's steel, and make the building fall vertically, wouldn't it have to propagate symetrically, throughout the tower's structure?
Given that the planes struck from the sides, what are the odds that the fires would propagate symetrically?
Regards
QUOTE (gaussianum+Feb 8 2006, 08:49 PM)
Just a small, perhaps redundant question.
In order for the fire to melt the building's steel, and make the building fall vertically, wouldn't it have to propagate symetrically, throughout the tower's structure?
Given that the planes struck from the sides, what are the odds that the fires would propagate symetrically?
Regards
It wasn't the steel melting which brought down the towers. Where did you hear that? It was the weakening of the steel trusses which bowed and pulled the weakened perimeter columns in.
In order for the fire to melt the building's steel, and make the building fall vertically, wouldn't it have to propagate symetrically, throughout the tower's structure?
Given that the planes struck from the sides, what are the odds that the fires would propagate symetrically?
Regards
It wasn't the steel melting which brought down the towers. Where did you hear that? It was the weakening of the steel trusses which bowed and pulled the weakened perimeter columns in.
Kind of makes you wonder what all the popping noise were before the collapses.
Strength and Honor
Sentinel
Strength and Honor
Sentinel
I Bet it was Bean Burritos for Breakfast.
Ole'
Arthur
Ole'
Arthur
QUOTE (Sentinel+Feb 8 2006, 10:14 PM)
Kind of makes you wonder what all the popping noise were before the collapses.
Strength and Honor
Sentinel
We don't live in the vaccum of space. Steel beams snapping like twigs make noise on earth. Concrete floor slabs falling one on top of the other make noise. Electrical equipment shorting makes noise. Transformers exploding make noise. Something the fireman knew becaue I posted the quotes showing it. I even left the link to the original text.
Anyone swinging a sledge hammer to a concrete sidewalk knows it makes noise.
Strength and Honor
Sentinel
We don't live in the vaccum of space. Steel beams snapping like twigs make noise on earth. Concrete floor slabs falling one on top of the other make noise. Electrical equipment shorting makes noise. Transformers exploding make noise. Something the fireman knew becaue I posted the quotes showing it. I even left the link to the original text.
Anyone swinging a sledge hammer to a concrete sidewalk knows it makes noise.
QUOTE (Sentinel+Feb 8 2006, 10:14 PM)
Kind of makes you wonder what all the popping noise were before the collapses.
I live in a cold climate and my house makes popping noises a lot if the outside temp drops and again when it rises. Does this mean that someone has planted explosives in my house?
In fact one year in a former house of mine it made a noise that sounded exactly like someone closing a car door in my driveway. At the time the nearest neighbour's driveway was 200 feet away. After looking out the window a few times to see who was coming to visit I figured out that it was the house contracting that made that sound. The next winter it did not do the same thing and instead made the regular popping sound.
With the towers heating and twisting and rocking it is no wonder that the structure was making noises. It is even less of a wonder that it made a lot of odd sounds as the collapse propigated.
I live in a cold climate and my house makes popping noises a lot if the outside temp drops and again when it rises. Does this mean that someone has planted explosives in my house?
In fact one year in a former house of mine it made a noise that sounded exactly like someone closing a car door in my driveway. At the time the nearest neighbour's driveway was 200 feet away. After looking out the window a few times to see who was coming to visit I figured out that it was the house contracting that made that sound. The next winter it did not do the same thing and instead made the regular popping sound.
With the towers heating and twisting and rocking it is no wonder that the structure was making noises. It is even less of a wonder that it made a lot of odd sounds as the collapse propigated.
Yes, the mother of all sledge hammers were at work that day.
Question: Could steel change from a solid to gas?
Answer:
Steel is a form of iron. Steel melts at about 1300 degrees Celsius
(2400 Fahrenheit). It's boiling point is about 3000 C (or 5400 F).
To generate that much heat would be astounding! Even when you get to
the boiling point, you would have to keep adding energy to vaporize
the steel. I haven't been able to come across a value for the amount
of heat needed for this either (called "delta H of vaporization"), but my
guess would be that it is very high since the vapor pressure of molten
steel is probably very low (vapor pressure is a measure of a liquid's
tendency to go to the gas phase).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
ANTHRAX + ANGEL IS NEXT + VAPORIZED STEEL = SEPTEMBERGATE
Answer:
Steel is a form of iron. Steel melts at about 1300 degrees Celsius
(2400 Fahrenheit). It's boiling point is about 3000 C (or 5400 F).
To generate that much heat would be astounding! Even when you get to
the boiling point, you would have to keep adding energy to vaporize
the steel. I haven't been able to come across a value for the amount
of heat needed for this either (called "delta H of vaporization"), but my
guess would be that it is very high since the vapor pressure of molten
steel is probably very low (vapor pressure is a measure of a liquid's
tendency to go to the gas phase).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
ANTHRAX + ANGEL IS NEXT + VAPORIZED STEEL = SEPTEMBERGATE
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 8 2006, 02:50 PM)
QUOTE (Brian+)
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
- are widely accepted, becoming more so each passing day, we reasonable people who have looked at the evidence can afford to ignore the desperate gathering here trying to stem this tide.
Stem this tide?
Its almost 5 years now and after all this time all you have is a couple of BYU fanatics and Griffin?
This is your Tide?
I guess for Salt Lake City this IS a tide.
Arthur
Poor BYU! I'm sure every potential employer IN THE WORLD will now and forevermore look ASKANCE at any 'graduate' and/or 'professor' and/or 'degree' from BYU!
Their new motto: BYU----from where the nuts come 'ready salted'!
You don't have a 'degree' from BYU too, do you Brian?
- are widely accepted, becoming more so each passing day, we reasonable people who have looked at the evidence can afford to ignore the desperate gathering here trying to stem this tide.
Stem this tide?
Its almost 5 years now and after all this time all you have is a couple of BYU fanatics and Griffin?
This is your Tide?
I guess for Salt Lake City this IS a tide.
Arthur
Poor BYU! I'm sure every potential employer IN THE WORLD will now and forevermore look ASKANCE at any 'graduate' and/or 'professor' and/or 'degree' from BYU!
Their new motto: BYU----from where the nuts come 'ready salted'!
You don't have a 'degree' from BYU too, do you Brian?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 06:12 PM)
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground.
Let's see. The first thing I notice about this paper is that it is self described as "simplified" and "approximate".
The second thing I notice is that it was written by a Prof of Civil Engineering & Material Science, and a grad student. Why not a structual engineer?
The third thing I notice is that it was apparently published on Sept 13th, 2001. They threw this together in two days.
The fourth thing I notice is that this quote: "The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground." is utter nonsense and easily disproven... the perimeter does NOT transmit the vertical load to the ground.
The perimeter columns were built to withstand lateral load from the wind, not the vertical gravity load of the structure. That was provided by the 47 enormous box columns in the core.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_C...The_Twin_Towers
Somehow we have to believe that 47 huge box columns failed in a perfectly symmetrical manner in the exact same fashion in both towers, even though the second tower was hit a glancing angular blow which would have had negligible impact damage to the core and lost most of the jet fuel in an external fireball. (We don't even mention the far more bizarre case of WTC7. Hey, the 911 Commission didn't either, so we're in good company)
Let me put this very simply. The notion that a 100 ton plane with 10000 gallons of kerosene could completely collapse a 500,000 ton steel frame building, over-engineered to withstand hurricanes, airliner crashes, and more, in less than an HOUR, is total, absurd, fantasy. Nobody in their right mind would believe this stuff if we hadn't been exposed to an overwhelming, emotionally manipulative magic show 5 years ago, and beaten with it ever since.
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground.
Let's see. The first thing I notice about this paper is that it is self described as "simplified" and "approximate".
The second thing I notice is that it was written by a Prof of Civil Engineering & Material Science, and a grad student. Why not a structual engineer?
The third thing I notice is that it was apparently published on Sept 13th, 2001. They threw this together in two days.
The fourth thing I notice is that this quote: "The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground." is utter nonsense and easily disproven... the perimeter does NOT transmit the vertical load to the ground.
The perimeter columns were built to withstand lateral load from the wind, not the vertical gravity load of the structure. That was provided by the 47 enormous box columns in the core.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_C...The_Twin_Towers
QUOTE
"What the towers may have lacked in architectural aestheticism, they made up for with engineering innovation. To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 ft (63.4 m) wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes all the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure. With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and lightweight shell for structural integrity, Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size."
Somehow we have to believe that 47 huge box columns failed in a perfectly symmetrical manner in the exact same fashion in both towers, even though the second tower was hit a glancing angular blow which would have had negligible impact damage to the core and lost most of the jet fuel in an external fireball. (We don't even mention the far more bizarre case of WTC7. Hey, the 911 Commission didn't either, so we're in good company)
Let me put this very simply. The notion that a 100 ton plane with 10000 gallons of kerosene could completely collapse a 500,000 ton steel frame building, over-engineered to withstand hurricanes, airliner crashes, and more, in less than an HOUR, is total, absurd, fantasy. Nobody in their right mind would believe this stuff if we hadn't been exposed to an overwhelming, emotionally manipulative magic show 5 years ago, and beaten with it ever since.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Feb 8 2006, 11:58 PM)
Question: Could steel change from a solid to gas?
Answer:
Steel is a form of iron. Steel melts at about 1300 degrees Celsius
(2400 Fahrenheit). It's boiling point is about 3000 C (or 5400 F).
To generate that much heat would be astounding! Even when you get to
the boiling point, you would have to keep adding energy to vaporize
the steel. I haven't been able to come across a value for the amount
of heat needed for this either (called "delta H of vaporization"), but my
guess would be that it is very high since the vapor pressure of molten
steel is probably very low (vapor pressure is a measure of a liquid's
tendency to go to the gas phase).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
ANTHRAX + ANGEL IS NEXT + VAPORIZED STEEL = SEPTEMBERGATE
Could 1,100 degrees be about 1,300? Because that's about the temps found.
Answer:
Steel is a form of iron. Steel melts at about 1300 degrees Celsius
(2400 Fahrenheit). It's boiling point is about 3000 C (or 5400 F).
To generate that much heat would be astounding! Even when you get to
the boiling point, you would have to keep adding energy to vaporize
the steel. I haven't been able to come across a value for the amount
of heat needed for this either (called "delta H of vaporization"), but my
guess would be that it is very high since the vapor pressure of molten
steel is probably very low (vapor pressure is a measure of a liquid's
tendency to go to the gas phase).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
ANTHRAX + ANGEL IS NEXT + VAPORIZED STEEL = SEPTEMBERGATE
Could 1,100 degrees be about 1,300? Because that's about the temps found.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 8 2006, 06:58 PM)
BS.
EXPOSED means you are talking about AIR temperature.
REACHED means you are talking about STEEL temperature.
Pretty friggin obvious
But even though you were wrong look how you get into linguistic pretzels to try to wiggle out of it.
EXPOSED means you are talking about AIR temperature.
REACHED means you are talking about STEEL temperature.
Pretty friggin obvious
But even though you were wrong look how you get into linguistic pretzels to try to wiggle out of it.
QUOTE (newton+)
when i say 'exposed,', i mean 'this steel reached these temperatures, and no higher'. the air may have been signifigantly hotter
i.e. in Newtonspeak EXPOSED = REACHED
Right
Arthur
would your 'side' prefer that it was the AIR that was measured at those temperatures? LOL! why are you bothering?
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
hey, dude. i'm civil. despite your 'virtual onslaught'(and may i emphasize the 'virtual' part of that) of ad hominemary.
i don't pretend. i am human, and can be wrong or confused, but i don't 'pretend' stuff.
that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?
that is a 're-creation'(meaning highly paid shills having fun with big budget pyro games).
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter coloumns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
next.
i.e. in Newtonspeak EXPOSED = REACHED
Right
Arthur
would your 'side' prefer that it was the AIR that was measured at those temperatures? LOL! why are you bothering?
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Feb 8 2006, 11:58 PM)
Question: Could steel change from a solid to gas?
Answer:
Steel is a form of iron. Steel melts at about 1300 degrees Celsius
(2400 Fahrenheit). It's boiling point is about 3000 C (or 5400 F).
To generate that much heat would be astounding! Even when you get to
the boiling point, you would have to keep adding energy to vaporize
the steel. I haven't been able to come across a value for the amount
of heat needed for this either (called "delta H of vaporization"), but my
guess would be that it is very high since the vapor pressure of molten
steel is probably very low (vapor pressure is a measure of a liquid's
tendency to go to the gas phase).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
ANTHRAX + ANGEL IS NEXT + VAPORIZED STEEL = SEPTEMBERGATE
You are under a misapprehension my dear sir. It is not necessary to vaporise steel to make such holes. Under high heat conditions (but not actually 'melted') the various components of the steel alloy (carbon and Iron with a few traces of other metals and a trace of sulphur) would segregate and 'migrate' to crystal edges (much like salt 'migrates to ice crystal edges in warming ice floes). There these components act as catalysts for Oxygen transport to the Iron bulk proper (although the Iron on the exposed surfaces would not require such Oxygen transport mechanisms, being already next to the hot oxidising atmospheric Oxygen).
The Iron thus actually BURNS, as in rapid oxidation or 'expedited rusting' to Iron Oxide via combustion rather than slow/cool corrosion processes. The same thing happens to corrugated iron roofing in even 'normal' house fires.
IIRC someone has already pointed out that 'steel wool' does not need to vaporise before it will 'burn' away, even with ONLY the heat of its OWN making once it is set 'alight'. Try the experiment of lighting a wad of non-soaped steel wool scouring pad. You'll see that it does not vaporise before oxidising away. I hope this clears up some of your misunderstandings sir.
Answer:
Steel is a form of iron. Steel melts at about 1300 degrees Celsius
(2400 Fahrenheit). It's boiling point is about 3000 C (or 5400 F).
To generate that much heat would be astounding! Even when you get to
the boiling point, you would have to keep adding energy to vaporize
the steel. I haven't been able to come across a value for the amount
of heat needed for this either (called "delta H of vaporization"), but my
guess would be that it is very high since the vapor pressure of molten
steel is probably very low (vapor pressure is a measure of a liquid's
tendency to go to the gas phase).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
ANTHRAX + ANGEL IS NEXT + VAPORIZED STEEL = SEPTEMBERGATE
You are under a misapprehension my dear sir. It is not necessary to vaporise steel to make such holes. Under high heat conditions (but not actually 'melted') the various components of the steel alloy (carbon and Iron with a few traces of other metals and a trace of sulphur) would segregate and 'migrate' to crystal edges (much like salt 'migrates to ice crystal edges in warming ice floes). There these components act as catalysts for Oxygen transport to the Iron bulk proper (although the Iron on the exposed surfaces would not require such Oxygen transport mechanisms, being already next to the hot oxidising atmospheric Oxygen).
The Iron thus actually BURNS, as in rapid oxidation or 'expedited rusting' to Iron Oxide via combustion rather than slow/cool corrosion processes. The same thing happens to corrugated iron roofing in even 'normal' house fires.
IIRC someone has already pointed out that 'steel wool' does not need to vaporise before it will 'burn' away, even with ONLY the heat of its OWN making once it is set 'alight'. Try the experiment of lighting a wad of non-soaped steel wool scouring pad. You'll see that it does not vaporise before oxidising away. I hope this clears up some of your misunderstandings sir.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:17 PM)
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
hey, dude. i'm civil. despite your 'virtual onslaught'(and may i emphasize the 'virtual' part of that) of ad hominemary.
i don't pretend. i am human, and can be wrong or confused, but i don't 'pretend' stuff.
that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?
that is a 're-creation'(meaning highly paid shills having fun with big budget pyro games).
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter coloumns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
next.
QUOTE (Brian (no, not that one)+Feb 9 2006, 01:10 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 06:12 PM)
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground.
Let's see. The first thing I notice about this paper is that it is self described as "simplified" and "approximate".
The second thing I notice is that it was written by a Prof of Civil Engineering & Material Science, and a grad student. Why not a structual engineer?
The third thing I notice is that it was apparently published on Sept 13th, 2001. They threw this together in two days.
The fourth thing I notice is that this quote: "The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground." is utter nonsense and easily disproven... the perimeter does NOT transmit the vertical load to the ground.
The perimeter columns were built to withstand lateral load from the wind, not the vertical gravity load of the structure. That was provided by the 47 enormous box columns in the core.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_C...The_Twin_Towers
Somehow we have to believe that 47 huge box columns failed in a perfectly symmetrical manner in the exact same fashion in both towers, even though the second tower was hit a glancing angular blow which would have had negligible impact damage to the core and lost most of the jet fuel in an external fireball. (We don't even mention the far more bizarre case of WTC7. Hey, the 911 Commission didn't either, so we're in good company)
Let me put this very simply. The notion that a 100 ton plane with 10000 gallons of kerosene could completely collapse a 500,000 ton steel frame building, over-engineered to withstand hurricanes, airliner crashes, and more, in less than an HOUR, is total, absurd, fantasy. Nobody in their right mind would believe this stuff if we hadn't been exposed to an overwhelming, emotionally manipulative magic show 5 years ago, and beaten with it ever since.
Somehow we have to believe that 47 huge box columns failed in a perfectly symmetrical manner in the exact same fashion in both towers, even though the second tower was hit a glancing angular blow which would have had negligible impact damage to the core and lost most of the jet fuel in an external fireball. (We don't even mention the far more bizarre case of WTC7. Hey, the 911 Commission didn't either, so we're in good company)
Let me put this very simply. The notion that a 100 ton plane with 10000 gallons of kerosene could completely collapse a 500,000 ton steel frame building, over-engineered to withstand hurricanes, airliner crashes, and more, in less than an HOUR, is total, absurd, fantasy. Nobody in their right mind would believe this stuff if we hadn't been exposed to an overwhelming, emotionally manipulative magic show 5 years ago, and beaten with it ever since.
The second thing I notice is that it was written by a Prof of Civil Engineering & Material Science, and a grad student. Why not a structual engineer?
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
And it has yet to be refutted by another peer reviewed paper.
And it has yet to be refutted by another peer reviewed paper.
The fourth thing I notice is that this quote: "The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground." is utter nonsense and easily disproven... the perimeter does NOT transmit the vertical load to the ground.
You're confusing something here. In a 110 story building made of steel perimeter columns and inner Core columns, both the outer and inner columns hold vertical load. The perimeter column did not take the whole buildings load but it does hold load unless the perimeter columns are in the weightlessness of space. The outer column's weight was not 100% transfered to the core through the trusses were they. But I do know the core held most of the vertical load. That's not in debate.
Had you gone on this would have been made clear to you...
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
Professor Jones - Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
2. One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level cutting thermite-analog developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.--
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Would that be sulphur producing office furniture NIST says is there?
Just thought I would point out what Professor Jones was actually asking.
I note that heavy duty rubber damping pads were 'connecting' adjacent floor beam-end steel surfaces AND outer/inner beam-face steel surfaces.
I note too that the 'vulcanising' of such large quantities of rubber to such 'heavy duty' toughness would have involved the inclusion of great quantities of SULPHUR in order to produce the resulting 'tough' vulcanised rubber compound.
The high temperatures would have set these alight and they would have reacted in their 'burning' state with the steel. The sulphur would have acted as a catalyst (much like it does in 'gunpowder' formulations).
The point of a catalyst is that very little of the catalyst material ITSELF is consumed as it continues to catalyse a PROGRESSIVE combustion of the Iron for LONGER periods (especially in the rubble pile) than if the sulphur itself was consumed as a ONE-OFF contributor instead of a CONTINUING contributor to the 'catalysed' steel 'burning' process.
The question as to both the source and the effect of the SULPHUR in the rubble mix is thus at least partially answered. Of course there are ALSO ample sources of sulphur in many furniture and equipment plastics formulations and 'construction' adhesives and 'building' compounds too.
And who knows how much 'existing' sulphur contamination and 'embrittlement' of the steel might already have occurred due to accumulated 'seepage' into the steel over time from acid rain/environment. And even as sulphur already IN the ORIGINAL steel as forged (remember that some steel also CONTAINS some sulphur as a 'too costly to remove' IMPURITY).
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
I will assume that the other sources of sulphur also existed in WTC7 equally as wideapread as in the towers.
questioner?
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
hey, dude. i'm civil. despite your 'virtual onslaught'(and may i emphasize the 'virtual' part of that) of ad hominemary.
i don't pretend. i am human, and can be wrong or confused, but i don't 'pretend' stuff.
that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?
that is a 're-creation'(meaning highly paid shills having fun with big budget pyro games).
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter coloumns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
next.
Civil is objective. You can be uncivil without cursing. I just prefer to be overt about it.
If you are trying to find out how the person died from a knife wound yes. I don't need the exact knife to cut your carotid artery to see if you bleed to death. What you're doing is saying the dead guy died from a heart attack because you don't have the exact knife which caused the slit on his neck. Heh!
If you are trying to find out how the person died from a knife wound yes. I don't need the exact knife to cut your carotid artery to see if you bleed to death. What you're doing is saying the dead guy died from a heart attack because you don't have the exact knife which caused the slit on his neck. Heh!
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter columns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then? Is there a bomb which pulls perimeter columns in before blowing up? Did the CIA put machines to pull the columns in? The ONLY way they could have pulled in like they did was HEAT on the STEEL which WEAKENED the TRUSSES till they BOWED and PULLED IN THE COLUMNS! PERIOD!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
hey, dude. i'm civil. despite your 'virtual onslaught'(and may i emphasize the 'virtual' part of that) of ad hominemary.
i don't pretend. i am human, and can be wrong or confused, but i don't 'pretend' stuff.
that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?
that is a 're-creation'(meaning highly paid shills having fun with big budget pyro games).
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter coloumns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
next.
newton, do you realise what you just said in the bold part of your post?
You effectively said that the wind was fanning the fires to high temperatures like in a blast furnace space between 'concrete insulated' floors above and below.
This is the same thing that happens in runaway bushfires where the fire-created winds create a blast furnace effect EVEN IN OPEN AIR.
So how much hotter would the partially enclosed and effectively well-insulated fires be burning due to your forced ventilation.
You also should realise that your admission that there was plenty of air for the fires goes against the usual CT claim that the fires were 'starved' and 'cool'.
How do you reconcile these things, newton?
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
hey, dude. i'm civil. despite your 'virtual onslaught'(and may i emphasize the 'virtual' part of that) of ad hominemary.
i don't pretend. i am human, and can be wrong or confused, but i don't 'pretend' stuff.
that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?
that is a 're-creation'(meaning highly paid shills having fun with big budget pyro games).
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter coloumns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
next.
newton, do you realise what you just said in the bold part of your post?
You effectively said that the wind was fanning the fires to high temperatures like in a blast furnace space between 'concrete insulated' floors above and below.
This is the same thing that happens in runaway bushfires where the fire-created winds create a blast furnace effect EVEN IN OPEN AIR.
So how much hotter would the partially enclosed and effectively well-insulated fires be burning due to your forced ventilation.
You also should realise that your admission that there was plenty of air for the fires goes against the usual CT claim that the fires were 'starved' and 'cool'.
How do you reconcile these things, newton?
the candle that burns twice as hot burns half as long. that's how.
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
Professor Jones - Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
2. One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level cutting thermite-analog developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.--
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Would that be sulphur producing office furniture NIST says is there?
Just thought I would point out what Professor Jones was actually asking.
I note that heavy duty rubber damping pads were 'connecting' adjacent floor beam-end steel surfaces AND outer/inner beam-face steel surfaces.
I note too that the 'vulcanising' of such large quantities of rubber to such 'heavy duty' toughness would have involved the inclusion of great quantities of SULPHUR in order to produce the resulting 'tough' vulcanised rubber compound.
The high temperatures would have set these alight and they would have reacted in their 'burning' state with the steel. The sulphur would have acted as a catalyst (much like it does in 'gunpowder' formulations).
The point of a catalyst is that very little of the catalyst material ITSELF is consumed as it continues to catalyse a PROGRESSIVE combustion of the Iron for LONGER periods (especially in the rubble pile) than if the sulphur itself was consumed as a ONE-OFF contributor instead of a CONTINUING contributor to the 'catalysed' steel 'burning' process.
The question as to both the source and the effect of the SULPHUR in the rubble mix is thus at least partially answered. Of course there are ALSO ample sources of sulphur in many furniture and equipment plastics formulations and 'construction' adhesives and 'building' compounds too.
And who knows how much 'existing' sulphur contamination and 'embrittlement' of the steel might already have occurred due to accumulated 'seepage' into the steel over time from acid rain/environment. And even as sulphur already IN the ORIGINAL steel as forged (remember that some steel also CONTAINS some sulphur as a 'too costly to remove' IMPURITY).
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
I will assume that the other sources of sulphur also existed in WTC7 equally as wideapread as in the towers.
questioner?
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
Professor Jones - Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
2. One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level cutting thermite-analog developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.--
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Would that be sulphur producing office furniture NIST says is there?
Just thought I would point out what Professor Jones was actually asking.
I note that heavy duty rubber damping pads were 'connecting' adjacent floor beam-end steel surfaces AND outer/inner beam-face steel surfaces.
I note too that the 'vulcanising' of such large quantities of rubber to such 'heavy duty' toughness would have involved the inclusion of great quantities of SULPHUR in order to produce the resulting 'tough' vulcanised rubber compound.
The high temperatures would have set these alight and they would have reacted in their 'burning' state with the steel. The sulphur would have acted as a catalyst (much like it does in 'gunpowder' formulations).
The point of a catalyst is that very little of the catalyst material ITSELF is consumed as it continues to catalyse a PROGRESSIVE combustion of the Iron for LONGER periods (especially in the rubble pile) than if the sulphur itself was consumed as a ONE-OFF contributor instead of a CONTINUING contributor to the 'catalysed' steel 'burning' process.
The question as to both the source and the effect of the SULPHUR in the rubble mix is thus at least partially answered. Of course there are ALSO ample sources of sulphur in many furniture and equipment plastics formulations and 'construction' adhesives and 'building' compounds too.
And who knows how much 'existing' sulphur contamination and 'embrittlement' of the steel might already have occurred due to accumulated 'seepage' into the steel over time from acid rain/environment. And even as sulphur already IN the ORIGINAL steel as forged (remember that some steel also CONTAINS some sulphur as a 'too costly to remove' IMPURITY).
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
I will assume that the other sources of sulphur also existed in WTC7 equally as wideapread as in the towers.
questioner?
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
Professor Jones - Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
2. One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level cutting thermite-analog developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.--
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Would that be sulphur producing office furniture NIST says is there?
Just thought I would point out what Professor Jones was actually asking.
I note that heavy duty rubber damping pads were 'connecting' adjacent floor beam-end steel surfaces AND outer/inner beam-face steel surfaces.
I note too that the 'vulcanising' of such large quantities of rubber to such 'heavy duty' toughness would have involved the inclusion of great quantities of SULPHUR in order to produce the resulting 'tough' vulcanised rubber compound.
The high temperatures would have set these alight and they would have reacted in their 'burning' state with the steel. The sulphur would have acted as a catalyst (much like it does in 'gunpowder' formulations).
The point of a catalyst is that very little of the catalyst material ITSELF is consumed as it continues to catalyse a PROGRESSIVE combustion of the Iron for LONGER periods (especially in the rubble pile) than if the sulphur itself was consumed as a ONE-OFF contributor instead of a CONTINUING contributor to the 'catalysed' steel 'burning' process.
The question as to both the source and the effect of the SULPHUR in the rubble mix is thus at least partially answered. Of course there are ALSO ample sources of sulphur in many furniture and equipment plastics formulations and 'construction' adhesives and 'building' compounds too.
And who knows how much 'existing' sulphur contamination and 'embrittlement' of the steel might already have occurred due to accumulated 'seepage' into the steel over time from acid rain/environment. And even as sulphur already IN the ORIGINAL steel as forged (remember that some steel also CONTAINS some sulphur as a 'too costly to remove' IMPURITY).
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
I will assume that the other sources of sulphur also existed in WTC7 equally as wideapread as in the towers.
questioner?
well, questioner, the quick answer is that this infamous steel is from tower seven, which did not have the dampeners.
Thank you newton. But I would have liked a more informative answer from someone.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Thanks again, newton.
I won't be able to interact further until tomorrow. Good night.
questioner?
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
hey, dude. i'm civil. despite your 'virtual onslaught'(and may i emphasize the 'virtual' part of that) of ad hominemary.
i don't pretend. i am human, and can be wrong or confused, but i don't 'pretend' stuff.
that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?
that is a 're-creation'(meaning highly paid shills having fun with big budget pyro games).
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter coloumns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
next.
newton, do you realise what you just said in the bold part of your post?
You effectively said that the wind was fanning the fires to high temperatures like in a blast furnace space between 'concrete insulated' floors above and below.
This is the same thing that happens in runaway bushfires where the fire-created winds create a blast furnace effect EVEN IN OPEN AIR.
So how much hotter would the partially enclosed and effectively well-insulated fires be burning due to your forced ventilation.
You also should realise that your admission that there was plenty of air for the fires goes against the usual CT claim that the fires were 'starved' and 'cool'.
How do you reconcile these things, newton?
the candle that burns twice as hot burns half as long. that's how.
Whoa man! Did you just say that the fires would have burned twice as hot as CTers say? Sounds like it.
And by the way, that planeload of fuel and office furniture (which ALONE would have burned at least as hot as in the Feb 1975 fires which Sentinel admitted burned very hot indeed) adds up to ONE WHOPPING BIG CANDLE, no?
And in case you missed it, the fires were raging for an hour at least in that enclosed blast furnace like space 'fanned' as you say. Not QUICK either, no?
You have to get ALL these things straight BEFORE you can even PRETEND to be a logical thinker, heh?
Stop pretending to maturity, too. Your parade of posting faux pas keeps revealing your self-evident immaturity and latent idiocy.
What a 'thinker'! Uselessly impotent and elegantly stupid with it. Foxx would be proud, no?
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground.
Let's see. The first thing I notice about this paper is that it is self described as "simplified" and "approximate".
The second thing I notice is that it was written by a Prof of Civil Engineering & Material Science, and a grad student. Why not a structual engineer?
The third thing I notice is that it was apparently published on Sept 13th, 2001. They threw this together in two days.
The fourth thing I notice is that this quote: "The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground." is utter nonsense and easily disproven... the perimeter does NOT transmit the vertical load to the ground.
The perimeter columns were built to withstand lateral load from the wind, not the vertical gravity load of the structure. That was provided by the 47 enormous box columns in the core.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_C...The_Twin_Towers
QUOTE
"What the towers may have lacked in architectural aestheticism, they made up for with engineering innovation. To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 ft (63.4 m) wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes all the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure. With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and lightweight shell for structural integrity, Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size."
Somehow we have to believe that 47 huge box columns failed in a perfectly symmetrical manner in the exact same fashion in both towers, even though the second tower was hit a glancing angular blow which would have had negligible impact damage to the core and lost most of the jet fuel in an external fireball. (We don't even mention the far more bizarre case of WTC7. Hey, the 911 Commission didn't either, so we're in good company)
Let me put this very simply. The notion that a 100 ton plane with 10000 gallons of kerosene could completely collapse a 500,000 ton steel frame building, over-engineered to withstand hurricanes, airliner crashes, and more, in less than an HOUR, is total, absurd, fantasy. Nobody in their right mind would believe this stuff if we hadn't been exposed to an overwhelming, emotionally manipulative magic show 5 years ago, and beaten with it ever since.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "What the towers may have lacked in architectural aestheticism, they made up for with engineering innovation. To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 ft (63.4 m) wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes all the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure. With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and lightweight shell for structural integrity, Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size." |
Somehow we have to believe that 47 huge box columns failed in a perfectly symmetrical manner in the exact same fashion in both towers, even though the second tower was hit a glancing angular blow which would have had negligible impact damage to the core and lost most of the jet fuel in an external fireball. (We don't even mention the far more bizarre case of WTC7. Hey, the 911 Commission didn't either, so we're in good company)
Let me put this very simply. The notion that a 100 ton plane with 10000 gallons of kerosene could completely collapse a 500,000 ton steel frame building, over-engineered to withstand hurricanes, airliner crashes, and more, in less than an HOUR, is total, absurd, fantasy. Nobody in their right mind would believe this stuff if we hadn't been exposed to an overwhelming, emotionally manipulative magic show 5 years ago, and beaten with it ever since.
The second thing I notice is that it was written by a Prof of Civil Engineering & Material Science, and a grad student. Why not a structual engineer?
Below is the list of people who peer reviewed the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://scitation.aip.org/emo/
QUOTE
The third thing I notice is that it was apparently published on Sept 13th, 2001. They threw this together in two days.
And it has yet to be refutted by another peer reviewed paper.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The third thing I notice is that it was apparently published on Sept 13th, 2001. They threw this together in two days. |
And it has yet to be refutted by another peer reviewed paper.
The fourth thing I notice is that this quote: "The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground." is utter nonsense and easily disproven... the perimeter does NOT transmit the vertical load to the ground.
You're confusing something here. In a 110 story building made of steel perimeter columns and inner Core columns, both the outer and inner columns hold vertical load. The perimeter column did not take the whole buildings load but it does hold load unless the perimeter columns are in the weightlessness of space. The outer column's weight was not 100% transfered to the core through the trusses were they. But I do know the core held most of the vertical load. That's not in debate.
Had you gone on this would have been made clear to you...
QUOTE
With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and
One was not created to be without the other. That's why the core was seen still standing a few seconds after collapse. Without the perimeter it was doomed to collapse itself regardless of how much vertical load it could take.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and lightweight shell for structural integrity , Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size. This method of construction also meant that the twin towers had the world's highest load-bearing walls. |
One was not created to be without the other. That's why the core was seen still standing a few seconds after collapse. Without the perimeter it was doomed to collapse itself regardless of how much vertical load it could take.
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 07:47 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:38 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:17 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 04:12 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 8 2006, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneiby
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
Professor Jones - Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
2. One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level cutting thermite-analog developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.--
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Would that be sulphur producing office furniture NIST says is there?
Just thought I would point out what Professor Jones was actually asking.
I note that heavy duty rubber damping pads were 'connecting' adjacent floor beam-end steel surfaces AND outer/inner beam-face steel surfaces.
I note too that the 'vulcanising' of such large quantities of rubber to such 'heavy duty' toughness would have involved the inclusion of great quantities of SULPHUR in order to produce the resulting 'tough' vulcanised rubber compound.
The high temperatures would have set these alight and they would have reacted in their 'burning' state with the steel. The sulphur would have acted as a catalyst (much like it does in 'gunpowder' formulations).
The point of a catalyst is that very little of the catalyst material ITSELF is consumed as it continues to catalyse a PROGRESSIVE combustion of the Iron for LONGER periods (especially in the rubble pile) than if the sulphur itself was consumed as a ONE-OFF contributor instead of a CONTINUING contributor to the 'catalysed' steel 'burning' process.
The question as to both the source and the effect of the SULPHUR in the rubble mix is thus at least partially answered. Of course there are ALSO ample sources of sulphur in many furniture and equipment plastics formulations and 'construction' adhesives and 'building' compounds too.
And who knows how much 'existing' sulphur contamination and 'embrittlement' of the steel might already have occurred due to accumulated 'seepage' into the steel over time from acid rain/environment. And even as sulphur already IN the ORIGINAL steel as forged (remember that some steel also CONTAINS some sulphur as a 'too costly to remove' IMPURITY).
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
I will assume that the other sources of sulphur also existed in WTC7 equally as wideapread as in the towers.
questioner?
QUOTE (newton+Feb 9 2006, 01:30 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:17 PM)
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
hey, dude. i'm civil. despite your 'virtual onslaught'(and may i emphasize the 'virtual' part of that) of ad hominemary.
i don't pretend. i am human, and can be wrong or confused, but i don't 'pretend' stuff.
that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?
that is a 're-creation'(meaning highly paid shills having fun with big budget pyro games).
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter coloumns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
next.
Civil is objective. You can be uncivil without cursing. I just prefer to be overt about it.
QUOTE
"that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?"
If you are trying to find out how the person died from a knife wound yes. I don't need the exact knife to cut your carotid artery to see if you bleed to death. What you're doing is saying the dead guy died from a heart attack because you don't have the exact knife which caused the slit on his neck. Heh!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?" |
If you are trying to find out how the person died from a knife wound yes. I don't need the exact knife to cut your carotid artery to see if you bleed to death. What you're doing is saying the dead guy died from a heart attack because you don't have the exact knife which caused the slit on his neck. Heh!
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter columns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then? Is there a bomb which pulls perimeter columns in before blowing up? Did the CIA put machines to pull the columns in? The ONLY way they could have pulled in like they did was HEAT on the STEEL which WEAKENED the TRUSSES till they BOWED and PULLED IN THE COLUMNS! PERIOD!
well, questioner, the quick answer is that this infamous steel is from tower seven, which did not have the dampeners.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 9 2006, 01:30 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:17 PM)
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
hey, dude. i'm civil. despite your 'virtual onslaught'(and may i emphasize the 'virtual' part of that) of ad hominemary.
i don't pretend. i am human, and can be wrong or confused, but i don't 'pretend' stuff.
that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?
that is a 're-creation'(meaning highly paid shills having fun with big budget pyro games).
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter coloumns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
next.
newton, do you realise what you just said in the bold part of your post?
You effectively said that the wind was fanning the fires to high temperatures like in a blast furnace space between 'concrete insulated' floors above and below.
This is the same thing that happens in runaway bushfires where the fire-created winds create a blast furnace effect EVEN IN OPEN AIR.
So how much hotter would the partially enclosed and effectively well-insulated fires be burning due to your forced ventilation.
You also should realise that your admission that there was plenty of air for the fires goes against the usual CT claim that the fires were 'starved' and 'cool'.
How do you reconcile these things, newton?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 9 2006, 02:00 AM)
Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then? Is there a bomb which pulls perimeter columns in before blowing up? Did the CIA put machines to pull the columns in? The ONLY way they could have pulled in like they did was HEAT on the STEEL which WEAKENED the TRUSSES till they BOWED and PULLED IN THE COLUMNS! PERIOD!
like i said before. timed erosion coupled with explosions on key points.
the columns were not pulled in, but rather PUSHED by the leaning weight of the tower, as the core steel was weakened by chemical erosion, possibly using a heat activated compund.
once the deformation became obvious to the demolishers(who were obviously observing in real time), they pushed the plunger, and let gravity do the bulk of the work.
i couldn't view this perimeter column video. i'm running an older OS, and no .avi for me. the nist picture, however, looks like a photoshop job.
despite all that, the big problem with the official lie hasn't changed. tower seven.
period exclamation question mark
like i said before. timed erosion coupled with explosions on key points.
the columns were not pulled in, but rather PUSHED by the leaning weight of the tower, as the core steel was weakened by chemical erosion, possibly using a heat activated compund.
once the deformation became obvious to the demolishers(who were obviously observing in real time), they pushed the plunger, and let gravity do the bulk of the work.
i couldn't view this perimeter column video. i'm running an older OS, and no .avi for me. the nist picture, however, looks like a photoshop job.
despite all that, the big problem with the official lie hasn't changed. tower seven.
period exclamation question mark
QUOTE (how's that again?+Feb 9 2006, 02:06 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 9 2006, 01:30 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:17 PM)
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
hey, dude. i'm civil. despite your 'virtual onslaught'(and may i emphasize the 'virtual' part of that) of ad hominemary.
i don't pretend. i am human, and can be wrong or confused, but i don't 'pretend' stuff.
that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?
that is a 're-creation'(meaning highly paid shills having fun with big budget pyro games).
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter coloumns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
next.
newton, do you realise what you just said in the bold part of your post?
You effectively said that the wind was fanning the fires to high temperatures like in a blast furnace space between 'concrete insulated' floors above and below.
This is the same thing that happens in runaway bushfires where the fire-created winds create a blast furnace effect EVEN IN OPEN AIR.
So how much hotter would the partially enclosed and effectively well-insulated fires be burning due to your forced ventilation.
You also should realise that your admission that there was plenty of air for the fires goes against the usual CT claim that the fires were 'starved' and 'cool'.
How do you reconcile these things, newton?
the candle that burns twice as hot burns half as long. that's how.
QUOTE (questioner?+Feb 9 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 07:47 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:38 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:17 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 04:12 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 8 2006, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneiby
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
Professor Jones - Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
2. One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level cutting thermite-analog developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.--
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Would that be sulphur producing office furniture NIST says is there?
Just thought I would point out what Professor Jones was actually asking.
I note that heavy duty rubber damping pads were 'connecting' adjacent floor beam-end steel surfaces AND outer/inner beam-face steel surfaces.
I note too that the 'vulcanising' of such large quantities of rubber to such 'heavy duty' toughness would have involved the inclusion of great quantities of SULPHUR in order to produce the resulting 'tough' vulcanised rubber compound.
The high temperatures would have set these alight and they would have reacted in their 'burning' state with the steel. The sulphur would have acted as a catalyst (much like it does in 'gunpowder' formulations).
The point of a catalyst is that very little of the catalyst material ITSELF is consumed as it continues to catalyse a PROGRESSIVE combustion of the Iron for LONGER periods (especially in the rubble pile) than if the sulphur itself was consumed as a ONE-OFF contributor instead of a CONTINUING contributor to the 'catalysed' steel 'burning' process.
The question as to both the source and the effect of the SULPHUR in the rubble mix is thus at least partially answered. Of course there are ALSO ample sources of sulphur in many furniture and equipment plastics formulations and 'construction' adhesives and 'building' compounds too.
And who knows how much 'existing' sulphur contamination and 'embrittlement' of the steel might already have occurred due to accumulated 'seepage' into the steel over time from acid rain/environment. And even as sulphur already IN the ORIGINAL steel as forged (remember that some steel also CONTAINS some sulphur as a 'too costly to remove' IMPURITY).
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
I will assume that the other sources of sulphur also existed in WTC7 equally as wideapread as in the towers.
questioner?
Newton,
I see you put yourself out there, page after page. I've done some coaching in my day and I've learned how to spot character and spirit. You take the heat and stand your ground. You have qualities that are above and beyond this place. Weather or not, you are on the cutting edge of each and every discussion is not my concern. I'm certainly not. You have a self taught, home made approach that those who oppose you, misunderstand as a deficit. We've all seen how effective asymmetrical warfare can be. Keep making your points and raising their blood pressure.
I see you put yourself out there, page after page. I've done some coaching in my day and I've learned how to spot character and spirit. You take the heat and stand your ground. You have qualities that are above and beyond this place. Weather or not, you are on the cutting edge of each and every discussion is not my concern. I'm certainly not. You have a self taught, home made approach that those who oppose you, misunderstand as a deficit. We've all seen how effective asymmetrical warfare can be. Keep making your points and raising their blood pressure.
QUOTE (questioner?+Feb 9 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 07:47 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:38 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 8 2006, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:17 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 04:12 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 8 2006, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneiby
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
Professor Jones - Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
2. One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level cutting thermite-analog developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.--
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Would that be sulphur producing office furniture NIST says is there?
Just thought I would point out what Professor Jones was actually asking.
I note that heavy duty rubber damping pads were 'connecting' adjacent floor beam-end steel surfaces AND outer/inner beam-face steel surfaces.
I note too that the 'vulcanising' of such large quantities of rubber to such 'heavy duty' toughness would have involved the inclusion of great quantities of SULPHUR in order to produce the resulting 'tough' vulcanised rubber compound.
The high temperatures would have set these alight and they would have reacted in their 'burning' state with the steel. The sulphur would have acted as a catalyst (much like it does in 'gunpowder' formulations).
The point of a catalyst is that very little of the catalyst material ITSELF is consumed as it continues to catalyse a PROGRESSIVE combustion of the Iron for LONGER periods (especially in the rubble pile) than if the sulphur itself was consumed as a ONE-OFF contributor instead of a CONTINUING contributor to the 'catalysed' steel 'burning' process.
The question as to both the source and the effect of the SULPHUR in the rubble mix is thus at least partially answered. Of course there are ALSO ample sources of sulphur in many furniture and equipment plastics formulations and 'construction' adhesives and 'building' compounds too.
And who knows how much 'existing' sulphur contamination and 'embrittlement' of the steel might already have occurred due to accumulated 'seepage' into the steel over time from acid rain/environment. And even as sulphur already IN the ORIGINAL steel as forged (remember that some steel also CONTAINS some sulphur as a 'too costly to remove' IMPURITY).
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
I will assume that the other sources of sulphur also existed in WTC7 equally as wideapread as in the towers.
questioner?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Schneiby I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched. |
Certainly... here's ONE... (an eroded A-36 wide-flange beam turned to the appearance of swiss cheese).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
Ironically, thats exactly what this shows. Steel exposed to high temperatures. Heh!
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
Professor Jones - Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
2. One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level cutting thermite-analog developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.--
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Would that be sulphur producing office furniture NIST says is there?
Just thought I would point out what Professor Jones was actually asking.
I note that heavy duty rubber damping pads were 'connecting' adjacent floor beam-end steel surfaces AND outer/inner beam-face steel surfaces.
I note too that the 'vulcanising' of such large quantities of rubber to such 'heavy duty' toughness would have involved the inclusion of great quantities of SULPHUR in order to produce the resulting 'tough' vulcanised rubber compound.
The high temperatures would have set these alight and they would have reacted in their 'burning' state with the steel. The sulphur would have acted as a catalyst (much like it does in 'gunpowder' formulations).
The point of a catalyst is that very little of the catalyst material ITSELF is consumed as it continues to catalyse a PROGRESSIVE combustion of the Iron for LONGER periods (especially in the rubble pile) than if the sulphur itself was consumed as a ONE-OFF contributor instead of a CONTINUING contributor to the 'catalysed' steel 'burning' process.
The question as to both the source and the effect of the SULPHUR in the rubble mix is thus at least partially answered. Of course there are ALSO ample sources of sulphur in many furniture and equipment plastics formulations and 'construction' adhesives and 'building' compounds too.
And who knows how much 'existing' sulphur contamination and 'embrittlement' of the steel might already have occurred due to accumulated 'seepage' into the steel over time from acid rain/environment. And even as sulphur already IN the ORIGINAL steel as forged (remember that some steel also CONTAINS some sulphur as a 'too costly to remove' IMPURITY).
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
I will assume that the other sources of sulphur also existed in WTC7 equally as wideapread as in the towers.
questioner?
well, questioner, the quick answer is that this infamous steel is from tower seven, which did not have the dampeners.
Thank you newton. But I would have liked a more informative answer from someone.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Thanks again, newton.
I won't be able to interact further until tomorrow. Good night.
questioner?
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 9 2006, 02:22 AM)
Newton,
I see you put yourself out there, page after page. I've done some coaching in my day and I've learned how to spot character and spirit. You take the heat and stand your ground. You have qualities that are above and beyond this place. Weather or not, you are on the cutting edge of each and every discussion is not my concern. I'm certainly not. You have a self taught, home made approach that those who oppose you, misunderstand as a deficit. We've all seen how effective asymmetrical warfare can be. Keep making your points and raising their blood pressure.
Heh! I guess if the president can claim thick headedness as a virtue so can newton.
I see you put yourself out there, page after page. I've done some coaching in my day and I've learned how to spot character and spirit. You take the heat and stand your ground. You have qualities that are above and beyond this place. Weather or not, you are on the cutting edge of each and every discussion is not my concern. I'm certainly not. You have a self taught, home made approach that those who oppose you, misunderstand as a deficit. We've all seen how effective asymmetrical warfare can be. Keep making your points and raising their blood pressure.
Heh!
I guess if the president can claim thick headedness as a virtue so can newton.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 9 2006, 02:15 AM)
QUOTE (how's that again?+Feb 9 2006, 02:06 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 9 2006, 01:30 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 07:17 PM)
Newton, why did you pretend I didn't post this? It ISN'T a controlled experiment. It's the actual STEEL. A36 structural Steel to be exact. The ACTUAL steel from the WTC. Try again...
It says temperatures must have been up to 1000 C or 1,800 F to cause this effect.
The columns didn't have to do anything other than weaken a bit. They proved the temps to be high enough to weaken this steel. It's the trusses which pulled the columns in. THAT'S what the NIST said!
hey, dude. i'm civil. despite your 'virtual onslaught'(and may i emphasize the 'virtual' part of that) of ad hominemary.
i don't pretend. i am human, and can be wrong or confused, but i don't 'pretend' stuff.
that's the same type of steel. so, if someone is stabbed with a knife, any knife will do as evidence?
that is a 're-creation'(meaning highly paid shills having fun with big budget pyro games).
not a good one AT ALL, though. where are the adjacent perimeter coloumns which act as heat sinks? where is the shear AIR VOLUME and ventilation characteristics of an acre of open space some 80-100 stories in the air?
we can ALL agree by the shape of the smoke plumes from the towers, that there was some serious ventilation going on, no? that smoke is not going up, it is going sideways at a sharp angle, read, WIND.
next.
newton, do you realise what you just said in the bold part of your post?
You effectively said that the wind was fanning the fires to high temperatures like in a blast furnace space between 'concrete insulated' floors above and below.
This is the same thing that happens in runaway bushfires where the fire-created winds create a blast furnace effect EVEN IN OPEN AIR.
So how much hotter would the partially enclosed and effectively well-insulated fires be burning due to your forced ventilation.
You also should realise that your admission that there was plenty of air for the fires goes against the usual CT claim that the fires were 'starved' and 'cool'.
How do you reconcile these things, newton?
the candle that burns twice as hot burns half as long. that's how.
Whoa man! Did you just say that the fires would have burned twice as hot as CTers say? Sounds like it.
And by the way, that planeload of fuel and office furniture (which ALONE would have burned at least as hot as in the Feb 1975 fires which Sentinel admitted burned very hot indeed) adds up to ONE WHOPPING BIG CANDLE, no?
And in case you missed it, the fires were raging for an hour at least in that enclosed blast furnace like space 'fanned' as you say. Not QUICK either, no?
You have to get ALL these things straight BEFORE you can even PRETEND to be a logical thinker, heh?
Stop pretending to maturity, too. Your parade of posting faux pas keeps revealing your self-evident immaturity and latent idiocy.
What a 'thinker'! Uselessly impotent and elegantly stupid with it. Foxx would be proud, no?
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 9 2006, 03:59 AM)
Loose Change 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...&q=loose+change
Enjoy!
That video is filled with lies exposed here long ago.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...&q=loose+change
Enjoy!
That video is filled with lies exposed here long ago.
'THEY' asked for 'one picture'... Just ONE. It was provided, and NOW they seek ways to dismiss the one picture they asked for 
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
------------------------
Posted by Common Schnensable: Feb 8 2006, 4:34 pm
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=62243
Reply from a fellow disinformationist...
Reply from a fellow disinformationist...
Another great post adoucette!
--------------------
Or possibly... "Amazing Sentient Super-Sonic Jet-Fuel Thermobaric Fuel-Air Undergound Explosions" which lasted for weeks afterward."
Or maybe it was JUST 'acid rain' !!!
Please evacuate ALL buildings in the northeast american continent UNTIL such time as we PROVE 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause.
--------------------------------
Or possibly... "Amazing Sentient Super-Sonic Jet-Fuel Thermobaric Fuel-Air Undergound Explosions" which lasted for weeks afterward."
Or maybe it was JUST 'acid rain' !!!
Please evacuate ALL buildings in the northeast american continent UNTIL such time as we PROVE 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause.
--------------------------------
Originally posted by 'arthur'
Any evidence of Aluminum Slag boys?
Well, 'arthur' I haven't found ANY evidence of 'aluminum slag' yet, (and would NOT expect to find any).
Iron slag... Yes ---- Aluminum slag ??? No.
Here's a photo of some 'suspected' iron slag (as can be easily determined from the rust-colour).
Of course we would need a sample from this evidence to determine that this was iron slag.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/slag.jpg
------------------------
But then IF this effect was 'caused' by the Amazing Underground Fires we would need to investigate ALL the witnesses who reported 'rivers' of molten metal running below GZ for weeks after the attacks ...
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
-----------------------
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
-----------------------
Originally posted by the Schneiby-Dooby-Doo
Electrical equipment shorting makes noise.
We're STILL waiting for evidence that ANY transformers were in the areas that fire-fighters reported 'flashes'... have you forgotten ... or just trying to avoid justifying your speculation ???
-----------------------
Oh Yeah... Back to the Amazing Bowling Ball Anology
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
----------------------------
Oh Yeah... Back to the Amazing Bowling Ball Anology
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
----------------------------
Originally posted by 'Guest' questioner
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
Valid point. Anyone have evidence to submit that the vulcanized rubber in the damping pads 'could have caused' the sulphur input? Apart from such evidence, this source seems about as 'Likely' as 'acid rain' (to me)
------------------------------
Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
----------------------------
Foxx
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
------------------------
Posted by Common Schnensable: Feb 8 2006, 4:34 pm
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=62243
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Legendary Don Quixote
Ever notice how CT'ers like to compliment each other?
Ever notice how CT'ers like to compliment each other?
Reply from a fellow disinformationist...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by the Legendary Don Quixote Ever notice how CT'ers like to compliment each other? |
Reply from a fellow disinformationist...
Another great post adoucette!
--------------------
QUOTE
by 'Common'...VERY common sense
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Or possibly... "Amazing Sentient Super-Sonic Jet-Fuel Thermobaric Fuel-Air Undergound Explosions" which lasted for weeks afterward."
Or maybe it was JUST 'acid rain' !!!
Please evacuate ALL buildings in the northeast american continent UNTIL such time as we PROVE 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause.
--------------------------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by 'Common'...VERY common sense Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there. |
Or possibly... "Amazing Sentient Super-Sonic Jet-Fuel Thermobaric Fuel-Air Undergound Explosions" which lasted for weeks afterward."
Or maybe it was JUST 'acid rain' !!!
Please evacuate ALL buildings in the northeast american continent UNTIL such time as we PROVE 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause.
--------------------------------
Originally posted by 'arthur'
Any evidence of Aluminum Slag boys?
Well, 'arthur' I haven't found ANY evidence of 'aluminum slag' yet, (and would NOT expect to find any).
Iron slag... Yes ---- Aluminum slag ??? No.
Here's a photo of some 'suspected' iron slag (as can be easily determined from the rust-colour).
Of course we would need a sample from this evidence to determine that this was iron slag.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/slag.jpg
------------------------
But then IF this effect was 'caused' by the Amazing Underground Fires we would need to investigate ALL the witnesses who reported 'rivers' of molten metal running below GZ for weeks after the attacks ...
QUOTE
Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
-----------------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11? |
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
-----------------------
Originally posted by the Schneiby-Dooby-Doo
Electrical equipment shorting makes noise.
We're STILL waiting for evidence that ANY transformers were in the areas that fire-fighters reported 'flashes'... have you forgotten ... or just trying to avoid justifying your speculation ???
-----------------------
QUOTE
Originally posted by anti-sensable
Yes, the mother of all sledge hammers were at work that day.
Yes, the mother of all sledge hammers were at work that day.
Oh Yeah... Back to the Amazing Bowling Ball Anology
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
----------------------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by anti-sensable Yes, the mother of all sledge hammers were at work that day. |
Oh Yeah... Back to the Amazing Bowling Ball Anology
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
----------------------------
Originally posted by 'Guest' questioner
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
Valid point. Anyone have evidence to submit that the vulcanized rubber in the damping pads 'could have caused' the sulphur input? Apart from such evidence, this source seems about as 'Likely' as 'acid rain' (to me)
------------------------------
QUOTE
by Schneiby-Sense
Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then?
Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then?
Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
----------------------------
Foxx
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 9 2006, 04:03 AM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 9 2006, 03:59 AM)
Loose Change 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...&q=loose+change
Enjoy!
That video is filled with lies exposed here long ago.
hey, there's an echo on the physorg forums
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...&q=loose+change
Enjoy!
That video is filled with lies exposed here long ago.
hey, there's an echo on the physorg forums
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 9 2006, 12:25 AM)
'THEY' asked for 'one picture'... Just ONE. It was provided, and NOW they seek ways to dismiss the one picture they asked for
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
------------------------
Posted by Common Schnensable: Feb 8 2006, 4:34 pm
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=62243
Reply from a fellow disinformationist...
Reply from a fellow disinformationist...
Another great post adoucette!
--------------------
Or possibly... "Amazing Sentient Super-Sonic Jet-Fuel Thermobaric Fuel-Air Undergound Explosions" which lasted for weeks afterward."
Or maybe it was JUST 'acid rain' !!!
Please evacuate ALL buildings in the northeast american continent UNTIL such time as we PROVE 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause.
--------------------------------
Or possibly... "Amazing Sentient Super-Sonic Jet-Fuel Thermobaric Fuel-Air Undergound Explosions" which lasted for weeks afterward."
Or maybe it was JUST 'acid rain' !!!
Please evacuate ALL buildings in the northeast american continent UNTIL such time as we PROVE 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause.
--------------------------------
Originally posted by 'arthur'
Any evidence of Aluminum Slag boys?
Well, 'arthur' I haven't found ANY evidence of 'aluminum slag' yet, (and would NOT expect to find any).
Iron slag... Yes ---- Aluminum slag ??? No.
Here's a photo of some 'suspected' iron slag (as can be easily determined from the rust-colour).
Of course we would need a sample from this evidence to determine that this was iron slag.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/slag.jpg
------------------------
But then IF this effect was 'caused' by the Amazing Underground Fires we would need to investigate ALL the witnesses who reported 'rivers' of molten metal running below GZ for weeks after the attacks ...
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
-----------------------
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
-----------------------
Originally posted by the Schneiby-Dooby-Doo
Electrical equipment shorting makes noise.
We're STILL waiting for evidence that ANY transformers were in the areas that fire-fighters reported 'flashes'... have you forgotten ... or just trying to avoid justifying your speculation ???
-----------------------
Oh Yeah... Back to the Amazing Bowling Ball Anology
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
----------------------------
Oh Yeah... Back to the Amazing Bowling Ball Anology
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
----------------------------
Originally posted by 'Guest' questioner
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
Valid point. Anyone have evidence to submit that the vulcanized rubber in the damping pads 'could have caused' the sulphur input? Apart from such evidence, this source seems about as 'Likely' as 'acid rain' (to me)
------------------------------
Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
----------------------------
Foxx
That's because that piece isn't melted, fool.
And Thermite doesn't leave Iron Slag, it leaves melted steel and aluminum slag.
Your picture of "iron slag" looks remarkably like two pieces of WTC concrete with truss pieces "pancaked" together.
Sheesh.
Arthur
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
------------------------
Posted by Common Schnensable: Feb 8 2006, 4:34 pm
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=62243
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Legendary Don Quixote
Ever notice how CT'ers like to compliment each other?
Ever notice how CT'ers like to compliment each other?
Reply from a fellow disinformationist...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by the Legendary Don Quixote Ever notice how CT'ers like to compliment each other? |
Reply from a fellow disinformationist...
Another great post adoucette!
--------------------
QUOTE
by 'Common'...VERY common sense
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Or possibly... "Amazing Sentient Super-Sonic Jet-Fuel Thermobaric Fuel-Air Undergound Explosions" which lasted for weeks afterward."
Or maybe it was JUST 'acid rain' !!!
Please evacuate ALL buildings in the northeast american continent UNTIL such time as we PROVE 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause.
--------------------------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by 'Common'...VERY common sense Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there. |
Or possibly... "Amazing Sentient Super-Sonic Jet-Fuel Thermobaric Fuel-Air Undergound Explosions" which lasted for weeks afterward."
Or maybe it was JUST 'acid rain' !!!
Please evacuate ALL buildings in the northeast american continent UNTIL such time as we PROVE 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause.
--------------------------------
Originally posted by 'arthur'
Any evidence of Aluminum Slag boys?
Well, 'arthur' I haven't found ANY evidence of 'aluminum slag' yet, (and would NOT expect to find any).
Iron slag... Yes ---- Aluminum slag ??? No.
Here's a photo of some 'suspected' iron slag (as can be easily determined from the rust-colour).
Of course we would need a sample from this evidence to determine that this was iron slag.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/slag.jpg
------------------------
But then IF this effect was 'caused' by the Amazing Underground Fires we would need to investigate ALL the witnesses who reported 'rivers' of molten metal running below GZ for weeks after the attacks ...
QUOTE
Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
-----------------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11? |
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
-----------------------
Originally posted by the Schneiby-Dooby-Doo
Electrical equipment shorting makes noise.
We're STILL waiting for evidence that ANY transformers were in the areas that fire-fighters reported 'flashes'... have you forgotten ... or just trying to avoid justifying your speculation ???
-----------------------
QUOTE
Originally posted by anti-sensable
Yes, the mother of all sledge hammers were at work that day.
Yes, the mother of all sledge hammers were at work that day.
Oh Yeah... Back to the Amazing Bowling Ball Anology
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
----------------------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by anti-sensable Yes, the mother of all sledge hammers were at work that day. |
Oh Yeah... Back to the Amazing Bowling Ball Anology
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
----------------------------
Originally posted by 'Guest' questioner
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
Valid point. Anyone have evidence to submit that the vulcanized rubber in the damping pads 'could have caused' the sulphur input? Apart from such evidence, this source seems about as 'Likely' as 'acid rain' (to me)
------------------------------
QUOTE
by Schneiby-Sense
Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then?
Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then?
Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
----------------------------
Foxx
That's because that piece isn't melted, fool.
And Thermite doesn't leave Iron Slag, it leaves melted steel and aluminum slag.
Your picture of "iron slag" looks remarkably like two pieces of WTC concrete with truss pieces "pancaked" together.
Sheesh.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 9 2006, 02:00 AM)
Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then? Is there a bomb which pulls perimeter columns in before blowing up? Did the CIA put machines to pull the columns in?
This exemplifies a main error made by CTers (or should I say one of the MANY errors). They wildly list things that they don't understand about the collapses, as if this somehow supports their idea that explosives were used. Instead, it just offers evidence of their lack of knowledge about the collapses.
I've been following this thread since almost the beginning (see my post back on page 27) - at this point I keep reading because:
A) It's amusing. Kind of like reality TV, with great characters and people losing their tempers.
It's instructive - teaches me the types of arguments that fail (due to inherent logic errors or incomprehensible complexity) and, on rare occasion, those that succeed.
It seems that the root of the problem is that CTers had an initial gut feeling watching the collapse - they believed on their first viewing the explosives had been used. Just like most humans, they then set out to defend their opinion to the death. Ignoring logic and expert opinions is to them infinitely preferable to admitting that their first instincts were wrong. All the talk of calculating numbers, steel statistics, etc. came AFTER everyone's position was chosen.
This exemplifies a main error made by CTers (or should I say one of the MANY errors). They wildly list things that they don't understand about the collapses, as if this somehow supports their idea that explosives were used. Instead, it just offers evidence of their lack of knowledge about the collapses.
I've been following this thread since almost the beginning (see my post back on page 27) - at this point I keep reading because:
A) It's amusing. Kind of like reality TV, with great characters and people losing their tempers.
It's instructive - teaches me the types of arguments that fail (due to inherent logic errors or incomprehensible complexity) and, on rare occasion, those that succeed.It seems that the root of the problem is that CTers had an initial gut feeling watching the collapse - they believed on their first viewing the explosives had been used. Just like most humans, they then set out to defend their opinion to the death. Ignoring logic and expert opinions is to them infinitely preferable to admitting that their first instincts were wrong. All the talk of calculating numbers, steel statistics, etc. came AFTER everyone's position was chosen.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 8 2006, 01:34 PM)
I would like him or anyone who subscribes to this to produce ONE photo of a column half eaten away by this effect. Surely there would be ONE photo of a steel beam which wasn't completely powderized. It's already unbelievable but I hope no one is going to suggest the powderization either ate the column completely or it left it untouched.
First of all the picture you came up with isn't of a column. Second of all it only proves high heat as the link I showed proves.
That still applies.
As for the rest of your mumblings...
Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.
My best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustibles, 60% metal and other non-combustible items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.
There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents.
You should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newbie and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).
What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.
A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. But it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.
While a 600GJ bomb would take out ten blocks in any direction, the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theories (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that heat STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”
All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. It was also pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. This force was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. The STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.
Now, for the program:
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
#!/usr/bin/perl
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for 2 WTC)
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step
$p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far
$a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant)
$t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories)
$mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section
$rfc = 110 – $fc;# initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors
while($rfc > 0) {
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula
print(“Impact velocity for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v2, “n”);
$p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact
print(“Impulse delivered for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $p, “n”);
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact
print(“Impact kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1, “n”);
$fc++; # increment falling floor count
$mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print(“Velocity after impact for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v3, “n”);
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact
print(“Remaining kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke2, “n”);
$de += $ke1 – $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total
print(“The kinetic energy dissipated for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1 – $ke2, ”
n”);
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula
print(“The time spent collapsing story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $t1, “n”);
$t += $t1; # add step time to running total
$rfc—; # decrement remaining floor count
}
print(“The total time was ”, $t, “n”);
print(“The total energy dissipated during the collapse was ”, $de, “n”);
print(“The remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse was ”, $ke2, “n”
);
**END PROGRAM**
It’s a perl, you can download perl for just about anything from www.perl.org or somewhere they point. If you’re going to get involved in CS, somewhere you’re going to encounter perl, and now’s as good a time to learn it as any. I highly recommend the O’Reilly Press perl book which happens to be by the inventors of the language. Just so you can muddle your way through and derive the equations from the code above, * is multiplication, ** is raising to a power (and don’t forget that a fractional power is a root; so **0.5 is the square-root operation). The rest of the symbols are obvious, and the parentheses work the same way as they do in standard math notation. You should be aware that the single = in most languages simply ASSIGNS the value of what’s on the right to the thing on the left; usually, you’re required to put a single variable on the left of an =. The double == TESTS whether one value is equal to another, returning 1 or TRUE if it is, and 0 or FALSE if it is not.
Schneibster
First of all the picture you came up with isn't of a column. Second of all it only proves high heat as the link I showed proves.
QUOTE
Sorry, nice try but the FEMA report where that photo came from gives another explaination which has yet to be scientifically challenged...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Now look for a semi powderized column which would be predicted if you and metamars are correct.
That still applies.
As for the rest of your mumblings...
Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.
My best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustibles, 60% metal and other non-combustible items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.
There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents.
You should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newbie and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).
What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.
A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. But it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.
While a 600GJ bomb would take out ten blocks in any direction, the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theories (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that heat STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”
All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. It was also pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. This force was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. The STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.
Now, for the program:
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
#!/usr/bin/perl
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for 2 WTC)
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step
$p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far
$a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant)
$t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories)
$mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section
$rfc = 110 – $fc;# initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors
while($rfc > 0) {
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula
print(“Impact velocity for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v2, “n”);
$p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact
print(“Impulse delivered for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $p, “n”);
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact
print(“Impact kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1, “n”);
$fc++; # increment falling floor count
$mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print(“Velocity after impact for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v3, “n”);
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact
print(“Remaining kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke2, “n”);
$de += $ke1 – $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total
print(“The kinetic energy dissipated for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1 – $ke2, ”
n”);
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula
print(“The time spent collapsing story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $t1, “n”);
$t += $t1; # add step time to running total
$rfc—; # decrement remaining floor count
}
print(“The total time was ”, $t, “n”);
print(“The total energy dissipated during the collapse was ”, $de, “n”);
print(“The remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse was ”, $ke2, “n”
);
**END PROGRAM**
It’s a perl, you can download perl for just about anything from www.perl.org or somewhere they point. If you’re going to get involved in CS, somewhere you’re going to encounter perl, and now’s as good a time to learn it as any. I highly recommend the O’Reilly Press perl book which happens to be by the inventors of the language. Just so you can muddle your way through and derive the equations from the code above, * is multiplication, ** is raising to a power (and don’t forget that a fractional power is a root; so **0.5 is the square-root operation). The rest of the symbols are obvious, and the parentheses work the same way as they do in standard math notation. You should be aware that the single = in most languages simply ASSIGNS the value of what’s on the right to the thing on the left; usually, you’re required to put a single variable on the left of an =. The double == TESTS whether one value is equal to another, returning 1 or TRUE if it is, and 0 or FALSE if it is not.
Schneibster
QUOTE (Hidden_Tiger+Feb 9 2006, 04:36 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 9 2006, 02:00 AM)
Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then? Is there a bomb which pulls perimeter columns in before blowing up? Did the CIA put machines to pull the columns in?
This exemplifies a main error made by CTers (or should I say one of the MANY errors). They wildly list things that they don't understand about the collapses, as if this somehow supports their idea that explosives were used. Instead, it just offers evidence of their lack of knowledge about the collapses.
I've been following this thread since almost the beginning (see my post back on page 27) - at this point I keep reading because:
A) It's amusing. Kind of like reality TV, with great characters and people losing their tempers.
It's instructive - teaches me the types of arguments that fail (due to inherent logic errors or incomprehensible complexity) and, on rare occasion, those that succeed.
It seems that the root of the problem is that CTers had an initial gut feeling watching the collapse - they believed on their first viewing the explosives had been used. Just like most humans, they then set out to defend their opinion to the death. Ignoring logic and expert opinions is to them infinitely preferable to admitting that their first instincts were wrong. All the talk of calculating numbers, steel statistics, etc. came AFTER everyone's position was chosen.
Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.
Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.
The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.
In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.
Origins and the experiment
In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns, then removing them from a board, then putting them back in, and so forth. Subjects rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave.
However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the subject was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some subjects were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks, those in the $1 group showed a much greater propensity to embellish in favor of the experiment when asked to lie about the tasks. Experimenters theorized that when paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, which the experimenters claim explains their lesser willingness to lie favoring the tasks in the experiment.
The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by literally changing their attitude in a process akin to autobrainwashing in order really to believe that they found the tasks enjoyable.
Put simply, the experimenters concluded that human beings, when asked to lie without being given sufficient justification, will convince themselves that the lie they are asked to tell is the truth. Only when sufficient justification is given, researchers speculated, are human beings able to resist having their mind instantly reprogrammed by any request that they lie.
Festinger further tested his theory on observations of counterintuitive belief persistence of most members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Conspiracy Central.com Faux said: Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
There is a description of this as a eutectic action that lowered the melting point of the steel.
There is a description of this as a eutectic action that lowered the melting point of the steel.
QUOTE
by 'Common'...VERY common sense
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Or possibly... "Amazing Sentient Super-Sonic Jet-Fuel Thermobaric Fuel-Air Undergound Explosions" which lasted for weeks afterward."
Or maybe it was JUST 'acid rain' !!!
Please evacuate ALL buildings in the northeast american continent UNTIL such time as we PROVE 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause.
--------------------------------
Seems much more likely that debris burned for weeks rather than thermite. Unless there was tons of thermite present. I have seen no evidence that there was a huge quantity of thermite present Foxx. Have you?
As for evacuating all buildings , you deliberately misrepresent what is said to have happened here. In the presence of sulfur and a relatively hot fire, the steel was eroded. So it would not be necessary to evacuate any building unless there is a fire.
They do that anyway Foxx. One of the failures of the emergency response to 9/11 in Manhattan was not requiring an evac of the towers. The theory at the time was to fight the fire in place and only evacuate those floors that were involved in the fire because the fire exits were not designed to actually handle a full evacuation. One of the lessons of 9/11 is that in a high rise fire the building should be evacuated.
Not that it is likely to be a problem in the future given that people will have the memory of those buildings in mind when fire breaks out in a high rise.
I asked once where that photo was taken and how we know it was from the WTC. Did I miss the reply?
Now it seems that this hardened 'slag' is in quite the rectangular shape with a few wires or twisted rods attached to it. Would not hardened slag be a more of a solidified pool and would not a smaller diameter wire or rod also melt if in contact with molten(as in melted) steel?
how odd!!
-----------------------
I asked once where that photo was taken and how we know it was from the WTC. Did I miss the reply?
Now it seems that this hardened 'slag' is in quite the rectangular shape with a few wires or twisted rods attached to it. Would not hardened slag be a more of a solidified pool and would not a smaller diameter wire or rod also melt if in contact with molten(as in melted) steel?
how odd!!
-----------------------
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneiby-Dooby-Doo
Electrical equipment shorting makes noise.
We're STILL waiting for evidence that ANY transformers were in the areas that fire-fighters reported 'flashes'... have you forgotten ... or just trying to avoid justifying your speculation ???
-----------------------
Transformers, light fixtures, monitors falling off desks, conduit snapping and pulling cable connections apart.
I have said it before and I guess I have to say it again. Analogy is lost on Foxx.
I have said it before and I guess I have to say it again. Analogy is lost on Foxx.
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'Guest' questioner
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
Valid point. Anyone have evidence to submit that the vulcanized rubber in the damping pads 'could have caused' the sulfur input? Apart from such evidence, this source seems about as 'Likely' as 'acid rain' (to me)
------------------------------
Also asked was if there was any diesel fuel in WTC7 Foxx. Did you miss that part?
there was of course and in fact the generators that were supplied by the fuel had of course been run many times since their installation. Seems no matter how good the ventilation is , when a diesel generator is running you can smell the exhaust and its sulfurous constituents. There was also a loading area within the building through which many vehicles passed during the building's lifetime, all of which spewed exhaust.
You were shown the photographic evidence of such and NOW you seek ways to dismiss the pictures. How, (I'll be diplomatic) ironic a thing for you to do , given the quote of yours at the top of this post.
Conspiracy Central.com Faux said: Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
I see NO 'evidence' in the above which supports the 'official story'.
The 'composite' picture (above) is as 'suspect' as the Pentagon security cam images delivered to CNN - (Which the Pentagon absolutely denies they provided to CNN ???).
Nothing to see here, folks... just move along, now... don't waste time here.
This exemplifies a main error made by CTers (or should I say one of the MANY errors). They wildly list things that they don't understand about the collapses, as if this somehow supports their idea that explosives were used. Instead, it just offers evidence of their lack of knowledge about the collapses.
I've been following this thread since almost the beginning (see my post back on page 27) - at this point I keep reading because:
A) It's amusing. Kind of like reality TV, with great characters and people losing their tempers.
It's instructive - teaches me the types of arguments that fail (due to inherent logic errors or incomprehensible complexity) and, on rare occasion, those that succeed.It seems that the root of the problem is that CTers had an initial gut feeling watching the collapse - they believed on their first viewing the explosives had been used. Just like most humans, they then set out to defend their opinion to the death. Ignoring logic and expert opinions is to them infinitely preferable to admitting that their first instincts were wrong. All the talk of calculating numbers, steel statistics, etc. came AFTER everyone's position was chosen.
Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.
Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.
The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.
In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.
Origins and the experiment
In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns, then removing them from a board, then putting them back in, and so forth. Subjects rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave.
However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the subject was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some subjects were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks, those in the $1 group showed a much greater propensity to embellish in favor of the experiment when asked to lie about the tasks. Experimenters theorized that when paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, which the experimenters claim explains their lesser willingness to lie favoring the tasks in the experiment.
The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by literally changing their attitude in a process akin to autobrainwashing in order really to believe that they found the tasks enjoyable.
Put simply, the experimenters concluded that human beings, when asked to lie without being given sufficient justification, will convince themselves that the lie they are asked to tell is the truth. Only when sufficient justification is given, researchers speculated, are human beings able to resist having their mind instantly reprogrammed by any request that they lie.
Festinger further tested his theory on observations of counterintuitive belief persistence of most members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
QUOTE
I said: Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I said: Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then? |
Conspiracy Central.com Faux said: Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
By the way, I remember reading in one of the NIST reports where they explain how this picture was made.
Apparently it was from the same camera but it was from two shots taken a few seconds apart. They put the two together to make this composite shot.
Arthur
Apparently it was from the same camera but it was from two shots taken a few seconds apart. They put the two together to make this composite shot.
Arthur
QUOTE
'THEY' asked for 'one picture'... Just ONE. It was provided, and NOW they seek ways to dismiss the one picture they asked for
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
------------------------
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg
------------------------
There is a description of this as a eutectic action that lowered the melting point of the steel.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 'THEY' asked for 'one picture'... Just ONE. It was provided, and NOW they seek ways to dismiss the one picture they asked for http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/melted02.jpg ------------------------ |
There is a description of this as a eutectic action that lowered the melting point of the steel.
QUOTE
by 'Common'...VERY common sense
Yeah, it could have been thermite but it also could have been office furniture. The NIST proved that office furniture can reach 1,200 degrees. With the absence of a single shred of thermite being used I guess that leaves the office furniture which we KNOW was there.
Or possibly... "Amazing Sentient Super-Sonic Jet-Fuel Thermobaric Fuel-Air Undergound Explosions" which lasted for weeks afterward."
Or maybe it was JUST 'acid rain' !!!
Please evacuate ALL buildings in the northeast american continent UNTIL such time as we PROVE 'acid rain' WAS NOT the cause.
--------------------------------
Seems much more likely that debris burned for weeks rather than thermite. Unless there was tons of thermite present. I have seen no evidence that there was a huge quantity of thermite present Foxx. Have you?
As for evacuating all buildings , you deliberately misrepresent what is said to have happened here. In the presence of sulfur and a relatively hot fire, the steel was eroded. So it would not be necessary to evacuate any building unless there is a fire.
They do that anyway Foxx. One of the failures of the emergency response to 9/11 in Manhattan was not requiring an evac of the towers. The theory at the time was to fight the fire in place and only evacuate those floors that were involved in the fire because the fire exits were not designed to actually handle a full evacuation. One of the lessons of 9/11 is that in a high rise fire the building should be evacuated.
Not that it is likely to be a problem in the future given that people will have the memory of those buildings in mind when fire breaks out in a high rise.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'arthur'
Any evidence of Aluminum Slag boys?
Well, 'arthur' I haven't found ANY evidence of 'aluminum slag' yet, (and would NOT expect to find any).
Iron slag... Yes ---- Aluminum slag ??? No.
Here's a photo of some 'suspected' iron slag (as can be easily determined from the rust-colour).
Of course we would need a sample from this evidence to determine that this was iron slag.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/slag.jpg
------------------------
Originally posted by 'arthur'
Any evidence of Aluminum Slag boys?
Well, 'arthur' I haven't found ANY evidence of 'aluminum slag' yet, (and would NOT expect to find any).
Iron slag... Yes ---- Aluminum slag ??? No.
Here's a photo of some 'suspected' iron slag (as can be easily determined from the rust-colour).
Of course we would need a sample from this evidence to determine that this was iron slag.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/slag.jpg
------------------------
I asked once where that photo was taken and how we know it was from the WTC. Did I miss the reply?
Now it seems that this hardened 'slag' is in quite the rectangular shape with a few wires or twisted rods attached to it. Would not hardened slag be a more of a solidified pool and would not a smaller diameter wire or rod also melt if in contact with molten(as in melted) steel?
how odd!!
-----------------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE Originally posted by 'arthur' Any evidence of Aluminum Slag boys? Well, 'arthur' I haven't found ANY evidence of 'aluminum slag' yet, (and would NOT expect to find any). Iron slag... Yes ---- Aluminum slag ??? No. Here's a photo of some 'suspected' iron slag (as can be easily determined from the rust-colour). Of course we would need a sample from this evidence to determine that this was iron slag. http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/slag.jpg ------------------------ |
I asked once where that photo was taken and how we know it was from the WTC. Did I miss the reply?
Now it seems that this hardened 'slag' is in quite the rectangular shape with a few wires or twisted rods attached to it. Would not hardened slag be a more of a solidified pool and would not a smaller diameter wire or rod also melt if in contact with molten(as in melted) steel?
how odd!!
-----------------------
QUOTE
Originally posted by the Schneiby-Dooby-Doo
Electrical equipment shorting makes noise.
We're STILL waiting for evidence that ANY transformers were in the areas that fire-fighters reported 'flashes'... have you forgotten ... or just trying to avoid justifying your speculation ???
-----------------------
Transformers, light fixtures, monitors falling off desks, conduit snapping and pulling cable connections apart.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Originally posted by anti-sensable
Yes, the mother of all sledge hammers were at work that day.
Oh Yeah... Back to the Amazing Bowling Ball Anology
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
----------------------------
Originally posted by anti-sensable
Yes, the mother of all sledge hammers were at work that day.
Oh Yeah... Back to the Amazing Bowling Ball Anology
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
----------------------------
I have said it before and I guess I have to say it again. Analogy is lost on Foxx.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE Originally posted by anti-sensable Yes, the mother of all sledge hammers were at work that day. Oh Yeah... Back to the Amazing Bowling Ball Anology http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1 ---------------------------- |
I have said it before and I guess I have to say it again. Analogy is lost on Foxx.
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'Guest' questioner
Question: Did WTC7 also have much 'vulcanised rubber' pads and compounds in its makeup?
Valid point. Anyone have evidence to submit that the vulcanized rubber in the damping pads 'could have caused' the sulfur input? Apart from such evidence, this source seems about as 'Likely' as 'acid rain' (to me)
------------------------------
Also asked was if there was any diesel fuel in WTC7 Foxx. Did you miss that part?
there was of course and in fact the generators that were supplied by the fuel had of course been run many times since their installation. Seems no matter how good the ventilation is , when a diesel generator is running you can smell the exhaust and its sulfurous constituents. There was also a loading area within the building through which many vehicles passed during the building's lifetime, all of which spewed exhaust.
QUOTE
QUOTE
by Schneiby-Sense
Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then?
Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
by Schneiby-Sense
Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then?
Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
You were shown the photographic evidence of such and NOW you seek ways to dismiss the pictures. How, (I'll be diplomatic) ironic a thing for you to do , given the quote of yours at the top of this post.
Fox,
Your trying to use logic, truth, physics and reality on a bunch of little kids. They can't get it.
Your trying to use logic, truth, physics and reality on a bunch of little kids. They can't get it.
QUOTE (steve1957+Feb 9 2006, 05:10 AM)
Fox,
Your trying to use logic, truth, physics and reality on a bunch of little kids. They can't get it.
Actually Foxx is attempting to use all of the tactics he accuses others of using, sophistry, ad hominem attacks, fictional senarios with no backing of evidence and selectively using anything that in any way, no matter how tiny, can be twisted to conform to a preconcieved idea. All this driven purely by a dislike, nay, a hate for the present administration of the USA.
As bad as Foxx is though steve1957, you are worse.
Your trying to use logic, truth, physics and reality on a bunch of little kids. They can't get it.
Actually Foxx is attempting to use all of the tactics he accuses others of using, sophistry, ad hominem attacks, fictional senarios with no backing of evidence and selectively using anything that in any way, no matter how tiny, can be twisted to conform to a preconcieved idea. All this driven purely by a dislike, nay, a hate for the present administration of the USA.
As bad as Foxx is though steve1957, you are worse.
QUOTE (steve1957+Feb 9 2006, 05:10 AM)
Fox,
Your trying to use logic, truth, physics and reality on a bunch of little kids. They can't get it.
Yeah... well I'm not prepared to waste my time refuting, what has already been refuted so many times before.
The Yid claims 'analogy' is 'lost' on Foxx.
Right...
The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy is valid ?...
Yid & Coastal propose.... The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy
"Drop a weight from a height of twice the height of the towers on those... and SEE if the tower DOESN'T collapse through "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" on 'itself'."
"Signs... Signs... Everywhere are signs"...
(with apologies to the 5-Man Electrical Band)
YID, your analogy (& the BZ theory) is akin to dropping an asteroid onto the towers.
Pfffftttt.
Your trying to use logic, truth, physics and reality on a bunch of little kids. They can't get it.
Yeah... well I'm not prepared to waste my time refuting, what has already been refuted so many times before.
The Yid claims 'analogy' is 'lost' on Foxx.
Right...
The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy is valid ?...
Yid & Coastal propose.... The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy
"Drop a weight from a height of twice the height of the towers on those... and SEE if the tower DOESN'T collapse through "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" on 'itself'."
"Signs... Signs... Everywhere are signs"...
(with apologies to the 5-Man Electrical Band)
YID, your analogy (& the BZ theory) is akin to dropping an asteroid onto the towers.
Pfffftttt.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 9 2006, 04:52 AM)
QUOTE
I said: Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I said: Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then? |
Conspiracy Central.com Faux said: Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
I see NO 'evidence' in the above which supports the 'official story'.
The 'composite' picture (above) is as 'suspect' as the Pentagon security cam images delivered to CNN - (Which the Pentagon absolutely denies they provided to CNN ???).
Nothing to see here, folks... just move along, now... don't waste time here.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 9 2006, 01:49 AM)
Yeah... well I'm not prepared to waste my time refuting, what has already been refuted so many times before.
Translation
All my carefully crafted lies have been exposed here so I guess its time to find a new forum where I can find others like galdur to profess their love for me.
pfffffttttt
Arthur
Translation
All my carefully crafted lies have been exposed here so I guess its time to find a new forum where I can find others like galdur to profess their love for me.
pfffffttttt
Arthur
QUOTE (steve1957+Feb 9 2006, 05:10 AM)
Fox,
Your trying to use logic, truth, physics and reality on a bunch of little kids. They can't get it.
Foxx1957? Perhaps.
If not, then with friends like steve1957, Foxx REALLY don't need any 'opponents'. What would UFO/CTers know of logic, truth, physics and reality? It's a contradiction in terms.
Steve1957 proves the opposition's point for them in this area.
How idiotic and totally WITHOUT any Physics at all are these UFO/CT arguments becoming? Could their craniums enclose any more 'empty air' than did the floors and walls of the WTC towers?
Looks like their case, such as it was trying to be, IS COLLAPSING FASTER THAN FREE-FALL!
Get it? Without the physics they demand from others, but which they can't deliver themselves, these UFO/CTers fall on their faces faster than free-fall!
Your trying to use logic, truth, physics and reality on a bunch of little kids. They can't get it.
Foxx1957? Perhaps.
If not, then with friends like steve1957, Foxx REALLY don't need any 'opponents'. What would UFO/CTers know of logic, truth, physics and reality? It's a contradiction in terms.
Steve1957 proves the opposition's point for them in this area.
How idiotic and totally WITHOUT any Physics at all are these UFO/CT arguments becoming? Could their craniums enclose any more 'empty air' than did the floors and walls of the WTC towers?
Looks like their case, such as it was trying to be, IS COLLAPSING FASTER THAN FREE-FALL!
Get it? Without the physics they demand from others, but which they can't deliver themselves, these UFO/CTers fall on their faces faster than free-fall!
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 9 2006, 06:07 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 9 2006, 01:49 AM)
Yeah... well I'm not prepared to waste my time refuting, what has already been refuted so many times before.
Translation
All my carefully crafted lies have been exposed here so I guess its time to find a new forum where I can find others like galdur to profess their love for me.
pfffffttttt
Arthur
Truth will outlive lies, adou-baba.
Much like Schneibsters 'death-threats' and 'lawsuits' do NOT 'confront' me; your boogie-woogie means nothing to me.
Why don't you quit 'pretending', and get back to discussing the real issues?
What about that 'suspect' composite picture of 'inward-bowing'...?
What about the Pentagons denial that 'they' provided the 'security-cam' images to CNN?
Please try to explain the oxymoron... "Disproportionate Progressive" in the term 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse'...
The 'NEW' engineering term to describe the 'unexplainable' which has ONLY occured 3 times in engineering history (ALL on the same day within a few city blocks) ???
Sorry.... I must have missed the connection between Steve1957 and UFO's ???
Please explain.
Just another 'straw-man' attack when you have nothing else.
Conspiracy Central.com Faux said: Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
I see NO 'evidence' in the above which supports the 'official story'.
The 'composite' picture (above) is as 'suspect' as the Pentagon security cam images delivered to CNN - (Which the Pentagon absolutely denies they provided to CNN ???).
Nothing to see here, folks... just move along, now... don't waste time here.
The NIST is going to doctor photos from the worlds most photographed and videoed event... Are you hearing yourself? As if this wouldn't be easy to uncover if they did.
Pure ConspiracyCenteral.com OBSURDIY. Heh!
Translation
All my carefully crafted lies have been exposed here so I guess its time to find a new forum where I can find others like galdur to profess their love for me.
pfffffttttt
Arthur
Truth will outlive lies, adou-baba.
Much like Schneibsters 'death-threats' and 'lawsuits' do NOT 'confront' me; your boogie-woogie means nothing to me.
Why don't you quit 'pretending', and get back to discussing the real issues?
What about that 'suspect' composite picture of 'inward-bowing'...?
What about the Pentagons denial that 'they' provided the 'security-cam' images to CNN?
Please try to explain the oxymoron... "Disproportionate Progressive" in the term 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse'...
The 'NEW' engineering term to describe the 'unexplainable' which has ONLY occured 3 times in engineering history (ALL on the same day within a few city blocks) ???
QUOTE (steve1957+Feb 9 2006, 05:10 AM)
Fox,
Your trying to use logic, truth, physics and reality on a bunch of little kids. They can't get it.
actually, it's a one-ch of little kids,
i forget sometimes, too. cheers, shnieb. good job.
Your trying to use logic, truth, physics and reality on a bunch of little kids. They can't get it.
actually, it's a one-ch of little kids,
i forget sometimes, too. cheers, shnieb. good job.
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'Guest-Schneiby'
Foxx1957? Perhaps.
If not, then with friends like steve1957, Foxx REALLY don't need any 'opponents'. What would UFO/CTers know of logic, truth, physics and reality? It's a contradiction in terms.
Foxx1957? Perhaps.
If not, then with friends like steve1957, Foxx REALLY don't need any 'opponents'. What would UFO/CTers know of logic, truth, physics and reality? It's a contradiction in terms.
Sorry.... I must have missed the connection between Steve1957 and UFO's ???
Please explain.
Just another 'straw-man' attack when you have nothing else.
What about the conspiracy theory that Arthur, Yesitdid and shobster (Tactical PSYOP Team) are supporting that is so unbelievable they have to free the alleged terrorist:
World's first Sept 11 convict released in Germany
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060207/ts_afp/usattacksgermany
World's first Sept 11 convict released in Germany
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060207/ts_afp/usattacksgermany
Yeah, reasonwhy... I have been following that case... but... he's ONLY 'freed' subject to appeal.
I doubt he'll go down - in the end he'll be just 'expelled' back to africa...{like Mzoudi}...
so much for 'tying' the 'official story' into a fabric of truth.
I doubt he'll go down - in the end he'll be just 'expelled' back to africa...{like Mzoudi}...
so much for 'tying' the 'official story' into a fabric of truth.
To those interested in the Schneibster lawsuit
(which he claimed was to be soon revealed)...
I have received nothing from the Schneiby legal team...
(I am 'terrified' by his bs that 'it' is coming soon) Pfffftttt
surprised ?
No wonder he is posting under 'puppet-names'.
After his psychotic breakdown and Mr. Hyde threats... he needs to divorce himself from that 'personality', but he'll be back soon posting that he has been away for a while, (and hasn't been following the thread at all)
Schneibster - get help.
(which he claimed was to be soon revealed)...
I have received nothing from the Schneiby legal team...
(I am 'terrified' by his bs that 'it' is coming soon)
Pffffttttsurprised ?
No wonder he is posting under 'puppet-names'.
After his psychotic breakdown and Mr. Hyde threats... he needs to divorce himself from that 'personality', but he'll be back soon posting that he has been away for a while, (and hasn't been following the thread at all)
Schneibster - get help.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 9 2006, 06:02 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 9 2006, 04:52 AM)
QUOTE
I said: Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I said: Again, How did the perimeter columns get pulled in then? |
Conspiracy Central.com Faux said: Sorry, but I haven't seen ANY 'Solid Evidence' that they WERE.
What have you seen that I have not?
I see NO 'evidence' in the above which supports the 'official story'.
The 'composite' picture (above) is as 'suspect' as the Pentagon security cam images delivered to CNN - (Which the Pentagon absolutely denies they provided to CNN ???).
Nothing to see here, folks... just move along, now... don't waste time here.
The NIST is going to doctor photos from the worlds most photographed and videoed event... Are you hearing yourself? As if this wouldn't be easy to uncover if they did.
Pure ConspiracyCenteral.com OBSURDIY. Heh!
Turns out Allen Murabayashi is a WELL KNOWN Photographer living 3 blocks from WTC tower.
Surprising that he hasn't objected to the way NIST "photoshopped" his pictures.
While researching him, I did come across this from NIST with pictures we haven't seen and research details not presented before:
Thought it was interesting (a glimse of a work in progress) though Foxx et all will be dissappointed it doesn't have a section on how the "Cover Up" is progressing or when the "Shill Training Classes" would be scheduled.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_...se_Analysis.pdf
Arthur
Surprising that he hasn't objected to the way NIST "photoshopped" his pictures.
While researching him, I did come across this from NIST with pictures we haven't seen and research details not presented before:
Thought it was interesting (a glimse of a work in progress) though Foxx et all will be dissappointed it doesn't have a section on how the "Cover Up" is progressing or when the "Shill Training Classes" would be scheduled.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_...se_Analysis.pdf
Arthur
Remember, these people believe a magician in a cave suspended all the laws of physics on 9/11 in order to cause the buildings to collapse in a manner that defies all logic and reason.
But these are the same people that believe OJ Simpson was innocent and that Mark Furman planted the bloody glove, they also believe that Saddam did 9/11 and that we're justified into going into Iraq.
When you pin them down into mathematics they'll try to convince you 2 + 2 = 5, and then when you expose they lie and deny and pretend they never said it.
Problem is, you just can't reason with a bunch of teeny bopper, bratty kids. They know no shame or remorse about the things they say and do, because they have no conscience, and when you talk about having a conscience mind, and sense of morality to tell the truth, they call it a religious thing, bible nut to want to be honest, and so to try and act like grown ups they reject anything that happens to be truthful and only post BS.
It's almost funny to watch these little morons turn everything upside down and backwards, as they seem to think they're getting way with it, pulling the wool over people's eyes, but anyone with common sense, not that (anti-common sense) on this board, knows these little brats are nothing more than bratty little punks playing on the Internet, when they should be doing there homework.
They can't be more than 11 or 12 at the most.
But these are the same people that believe OJ Simpson was innocent and that Mark Furman planted the bloody glove, they also believe that Saddam did 9/11 and that we're justified into going into Iraq.
When you pin them down into mathematics they'll try to convince you 2 + 2 = 5, and then when you expose they lie and deny and pretend they never said it.
Problem is, you just can't reason with a bunch of teeny bopper, bratty kids. They know no shame or remorse about the things they say and do, because they have no conscience, and when you talk about having a conscience mind, and sense of morality to tell the truth, they call it a religious thing, bible nut to want to be honest, and so to try and act like grown ups they reject anything that happens to be truthful and only post BS.
It's almost funny to watch these little morons turn everything upside down and backwards, as they seem to think they're getting way with it, pulling the wool over people's eyes, but anyone with common sense, not that (anti-common sense) on this board, knows these little brats are nothing more than bratty little punks playing on the Internet, when they should be doing there homework.
They can't be more than 11 or 12 at the most.
QUOTE (steve1957+Feb 9 2006, 02:10 PM)
Remember, these people believe a magician in a cave suspended all the laws of physics on 9/11 in order to cause the buildings to collapse in a manner that defies all logic and reason.
But these are the same people that believe OJ Simpson was innocent and that Mark Furman planted the bloody glove, they also believe that Saddam did 9/11 and that we're justified into going into Iraq.
When you pin them down into mathematics they'll try to convince you 2 + 2 = 5, and then when you expose they lie and deny and pretend they never said it.
Problem is, you just can't reason with a bunch of teeny bopper, bratty kids. They know no shame or remorse about the things they say and do, because they have no conscience, and when you talk about having a conscience mind, and sense of morality to tell the truth, they call it a religious thing, bible nut to want to be honest, and so to try and act like grown ups they reject anything that happens to be truthful and only post BS.
It's almost funny to watch these little morons turn everything upside down and backwards, as they seem to think they're getting way with it, pulling the wool over people's eyes, but anyone with common sense, not that (anti-common sense) on this board, knows these little brats are nothing more than bratty little punks playing on the Internet, when they should be doing there homework.
They can't be more than 11 or 12 at the most.
Say what you want, I'm not a convicted con man.
But these are the same people that believe OJ Simpson was innocent and that Mark Furman planted the bloody glove, they also believe that Saddam did 9/11 and that we're justified into going into Iraq.
When you pin them down into mathematics they'll try to convince you 2 + 2 = 5, and then when you expose they lie and deny and pretend they never said it.
Problem is, you just can't reason with a bunch of teeny bopper, bratty kids. They know no shame or remorse about the things they say and do, because they have no conscience, and when you talk about having a conscience mind, and sense of morality to tell the truth, they call it a religious thing, bible nut to want to be honest, and so to try and act like grown ups they reject anything that happens to be truthful and only post BS.
It's almost funny to watch these little morons turn everything upside down and backwards, as they seem to think they're getting way with it, pulling the wool over people's eyes, but anyone with common sense, not that (anti-common sense) on this board, knows these little brats are nothing more than bratty little punks playing on the Internet, when they should be doing there homework.
They can't be more than 11 or 12 at the most.
Say what you want, I'm not a convicted con man.
Why is it so shocking to people that after two hours of a intense fire, that spans 10 - 30 floors of a skyscraper, that the load bearing elements of one of the largest buildings in the world (read: more mass sitting above the fire) that the load bearing elements to weaken enough the the load forced the load bearing to fold. The steel doesn't have to completely deteriorate, it just need to weaken enough that it cant hold up the thousands of tons of mass above it.
I know its not unheard that after a fire, tall buildings could collapse. In the 80s or early 90s, there was a fire in a much much smaller skyscraper in Philadelphia, that burned less floors. The fire weakened the building so much, the building was in danger for collapse (even during the fire), so much that they had to tear it down after the fire was put out. If this 30 or 40 story building with only 7 or 8 floors that burned (less floors above the fire), and not started by jet fuel, could have collapsed, then i think its pretty easy to believe the WTC buildings could collapse.
bin Laden came from a family of architectural engineers, and even he admitted he knew that doing that with the planes would at least collapse the upper parts of the buildings.
Pardon my spelling and typing, I'm tired.
I know its not unheard that after a fire, tall buildings could collapse. In the 80s or early 90s, there was a fire in a much much smaller skyscraper in Philadelphia, that burned less floors. The fire weakened the building so much, the building was in danger for collapse (even during the fire), so much that they had to tear it down after the fire was put out. If this 30 or 40 story building with only 7 or 8 floors that burned (less floors above the fire), and not started by jet fuel, could have collapsed, then i think its pretty easy to believe the WTC buildings could collapse.
bin Laden came from a family of architectural engineers, and even he admitted he knew that doing that with the planes would at least collapse the upper parts of the buildings.
Pardon my spelling and typing, I'm tired.
Osama is the name. Bin Laden means "son of Laden". Don't curse his father. He is probably regretting him more than you.
[QUOTE/]
Thank you newton. But I would have liked a more informative answer from someone.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Thanks again, newton.
I won't be able to interact further until tomorrow. Good night.
questioner?[/QUOTE]
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Thank you newton. But I would have liked a more informative answer from someone.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Thanks again, newton.
I won't be able to interact further until tomorrow. Good night.
questioner?[/QUOTE]
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Throughout history, [reason] has been mans only true savior. - Common Sense ™
“All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual
reality, he possesses only through the State. For his spiritual reality
consists in this, that his own essence - Reason - is objectively
present to him, that it possesses objective immediate existence for
him. . . . For Truth is the unity of the universal and subjective will;
and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its
universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine Idea
as it exists on earth. We have in it, therefore, the object of history in
Page 8 of Occult Government 20
http://www.markswatson.com/occultgov.html 2/8/2006
a more definite shape than before; that in which Freedom obtains objectivity. For Law is the objectivity of
the Spirit . . . Only that will which obeys law, is free; for it obeys itself - it is independent and so free.” -
Hegel
“All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual
reality, he possesses only through the State. For his spiritual reality
consists in this, that his own essence - Reason - is objectively
present to him, that it possesses objective immediate existence for
him. . . . For Truth is the unity of the universal and subjective will;
and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its
universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine Idea
as it exists on earth. We have in it, therefore, the object of history in
Page 8 of Occult Government 20
http://www.markswatson.com/occultgov.html 2/8/2006
a more definite shape than before; that in which Freedom obtains objectivity. For Law is the objectivity of
the Spirit . . . Only that will which obeys law, is free; for it obeys itself - it is independent and so free.” -
Hegel
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 9 2006, 03:36 PM)
Throughout history, [reason] has been mans only true savior. - Common Sense ™
“All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual
reality, he possesses only through the State. For his spiritual reality
consists in this, that his own essence - Reason - is objectively
present to him, that it possesses objective immediate existence for
him. . . . For Truth is the unity of the universal and subjective will;
and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its
universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine Idea
as it exists on earth. We have in it, therefore, the object of history in
Page 8 of Occult Government 20
http://www.markswatson.com/occultgov.html 2/8/2006
a more definite shape than before; that in which Freedom obtains objectivity. For Law is the objectivity of
the Spirit . . . Only that will which obeys law, is free; for it obeys itself - it is independent and so free.” -
Hegel
"My hope [is] that we have not labored in vain, and that our experiment will still prove that men can be governed by reason." --Thomas Jefferson to George Mason, 1791. ME 8:124
"I have so much confidence in the good sense of man, and his qualifications for self-government, that I am never afraid of the issue where reason is left free to exert her force." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte Diodati, 1789. Papers 15:326
"I am satisfied the good sense of the people is the strongest army our government can ever have, and that it will not fail them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1786. ME 6:31
"Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon set things to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786. ME 6:25
"It is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles; and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1786. ME 6:10
"[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1797. ME 9:379
"We believed that men, enjoying in ease and security the full fruits of their own industry, enlisted by all their interests on the side of law and order, habituated to think for themselves and to follow their reason as their guide, would be more easily and safely governed than with minds nourished in error and vitiated and debased... by ignorance, indigence and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820. ME 15:284
"The idea of establishing a government by reasoning and agreement, [the monarchists] publicly ridiculed as an Utopian project, visionary and unexampled." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1797. ME 1:419
"It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127
"Our people in a body are wise because they are under the unrestrained and unperverted operation of their own understandings." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:324
"This blessed country of free inquiry and belief has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, 1822. ME 15:385
Reason and Truth
"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33
"[God has bestowed] reason... as the umpire of truth." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:197
"Truth and reason are eternal. They have prevailed. And they will eternally prevail; however, in times and places they may be overborne for a while by violence, military, civil, or ecclesiastical." --Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Knox, 1810. ME 12:360
"Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known and seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547
Actions Based on Reason
"Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429
"The opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
"I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:350
"Our opinions are not voluntary. Every man's own reason must be his oracle." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1813. ME 13:225
"Everyone, certainly, must form his judgment on the evidence accessible to himself." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811. ME 13:26
"I am, myself, generally disposed to indulge and to follow reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Martin, 1813. ME 13:383
"A patient pursuit of facts, and cautious combination and comparison of them, is the drudgery to which man is subjected by his Maker, if he wishes to attain sure knowledge." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VI, 1782. ME 2:97
"When we see two facts accompanying one another for a long time, we are apt to suppose them related as cause and effect." --Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1815. ME 14:319
"We certainly are not to deny whatever we cannot account for. A thousand phenomena present themselves daily which we cannot explain; but where facts are suggested bearing no analogy with the laws of nature as yet known to us, their verity needs proofs proportioned to their difficulty. A cautious mind will weigh well the opposition of the phenomenon to everything hitherto observed, the strength of the testimony by which it is supported, and the errors and misconceptions to which even our senses are liable." --Thomas Jefferson to Daniel Salmon, 1808. ME 11:441
"Proof is the duty of the affirmative side. A negative cannot be positively proved." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55
"The proof of a negative can only be presumptive." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:206
"What has no meaning admits no explanation." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Smyth, 1825. ME 16:101
"By analyzing too minutely we often reduce our subject to atoms, of which the mind loses its hold." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Everett, 1823. ME 15:414
Fearlessly Follow Reason and Truth
"Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:258 Papers 12:15
"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:85
"It is surely time for men to think for themselves, and to throw off the authority of names so artificially magnified." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1820. ME 15:258
"If [my] opinions are sound, they will occur to others, and will prevail by their own weight, without the aid of names." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:70
"It is not the name, but the thing which is essential." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on the Tonnage Payable, 1791. ME 3:292
"Lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:261
"In a republican nation whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance." --Thomas Jefferson to David Harding, 1824. ME 16:30
"Nothing is so desirable to me as that after mankind shall have been abused by such gross falsehoods as to events while passing, their minds should at length be set to rights by genuine truth. And I can conscientiously declare that as to myself, I wish that not only no act but no thought of mine should be unknown." --Thomas Jefferson to James Main, 1808. ME 12:175
"There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1826. ME 16:179
"There is not a truth on earth which I fear or would disguise. But secret slanders cannot be disarmed, because they are secret." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1806. ME 11:94
Moving Beyond Ignorance
"Old heads as well as young may sometimes be charged with ignorance and presumption. The natural course of the human mind is certainly from credulity to skepticism." --Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar, 1807. ME 11:248
"Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." --Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar, 1807. ME 11:243
"I think it is Montaigne who has said, that ignorance is the softest pillow on which a man can rest his head." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, 1794. ME 9:280
"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." --Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822. ME 15:409
"It was more in our spirit to let things come to rights by the plain dictates of common sense than by the practice of any artifices." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1800. ME 19:120
"I can never fear that things will go far wrong where common sense has fair play." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1786. ME 6:20
"I have great confidence in the common sense of mankind in general." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
Reason Must Look Ahead
"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800. ME 10:148
"I am for encouraging the progress of science in all its branches, and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the human mind by stories of raw-head and bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, and to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality and every other science were in the highest perfection in the ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be decided more perfect than what was established by our forefathers." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
The Advance of Truth and Science
"I am not myself apt to be alarmed at innovations recommended by reason. That dread belongs to those whose interests or prejudices shrink from the advance of truth and science." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1814. ME 14:103
"Where thought is free in its range, we need never fear to hazard what is good in itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Olgilvie, 1811. ME 13:68
"One of the questions... on which our parties took different sides was on the improvability of the human mind in science, in ethics, in government, etc. Those who advocated reformation of institutions pari passu with the progress of science maintained that no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, denied improvement and advocated steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our fathers, which they represented as the consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance... [They predicted that] freedom of inquiry... will produce nothing more worthy of transmission to posterity than the principles, institutions and systems of education received from their ancestors... [But we] possess... too much science not to see how much is still ahead of [us], unexplained and unexplored. [Our] own consciousness must place [us] as far before our ancestors as in the rear of our posterity." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. (*) ME 13:254
"What an effort... of bigotry in politics and religion have we gone through! The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power and priestcraft. All advances in science were proscribed as innovations. They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1801. ME 10:228
"I join [with others] in branding as cowardly the idea that the human mind is incapable of further advance. This is precisely the doctrine which the present despots of the earth are inculcating and their friends here re-echoing and applying especially to religion and politics: 'that it is not probable that anything better will be discovered than what was known to our fathers.' We are to look backwards, then, and not forwards for the improvement of science and to find it amidst feudal barbarisms and the fires of Spital-fields. But thank heaven the American mind is already too much opened to listen to these impostures; and while the art of printing is left to us, science can never be retrograde. What is once acquired of real knowledge can never be lost." --Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799.
Reason, Truth and Government
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:222
"Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1817. ME 15:116
"I am... against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
"Every man's reason [is] his own rightful umpire. This principle, with that of acquiescence in the will of the majority, will preserve us free and prosperous as long as they are sacredly observed." --Thomas Jefferson to John F. Watson, 1814. ME 14:136
"I hold it... certain, that to open the doors of truth and to fortify the habit of testing everything by reason are the most effectual manacles we can rivet on the hands of our successors to prevent their manacling the people with their own consent." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:34
"Nor was it uninteresting to the world that an experiment should be fairly and fully made whether freedom of discussion, unaided by power, is not sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth: whether a government conducting itself in the true spirit of its constitution with zeal and purity and doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should witness can be written down by falsehood and defamation. The experiment has been tried; [we] have witnessed the scene; our fellow citizens have looked on, cool and collected. They saw the latent source from which these outrages proceeded; they gathered around their public functionaries, and when the Constitution called them to the decision by suffrage, they pronounced their verdict, honorable to those who had served them and consolatory to the friend of man who believes he may be intrusted with his own affairs." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381
"If virtuous, [the government] need not fear the fair operation of attack and defense. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting the truth, either in religion, law, or politics." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:406
"The Indian chief said he did not go to war for every petty injury by itself, but put it into his pouch, and when that was full, he then made war. Thank Heaven, we have provided a more peaceable and rational mode of redress." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:446
"We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of them will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm, not of bigotry, not of Jesuitism. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both. We are destined to be a barrier against the return of ignorance and barbarism." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816. ME 15:58
"[Let us] go on in doing with [the] pen what in other times was done with the sword, [and] show that reformation is more practicable by operating on the mind than on the body of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1792. FE 6:88
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:319
“All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual
reality, he possesses only through the State. For his spiritual reality
consists in this, that his own essence - Reason - is objectively
present to him, that it possesses objective immediate existence for
him. . . . For Truth is the unity of the universal and subjective will;
and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its
universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine Idea
as it exists on earth. We have in it, therefore, the object of history in
Page 8 of Occult Government 20
http://www.markswatson.com/occultgov.html 2/8/2006
a more definite shape than before; that in which Freedom obtains objectivity. For Law is the objectivity of
the Spirit . . . Only that will which obeys law, is free; for it obeys itself - it is independent and so free.” -
Hegel
"My hope [is] that we have not labored in vain, and that our experiment will still prove that men can be governed by reason." --Thomas Jefferson to George Mason, 1791. ME 8:124
"I have so much confidence in the good sense of man, and his qualifications for self-government, that I am never afraid of the issue where reason is left free to exert her force." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte Diodati, 1789. Papers 15:326
"I am satisfied the good sense of the people is the strongest army our government can ever have, and that it will not fail them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1786. ME 6:31
"Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon set things to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786. ME 6:25
"It is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles; and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1786. ME 6:10
"[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1797. ME 9:379
"We believed that men, enjoying in ease and security the full fruits of their own industry, enlisted by all their interests on the side of law and order, habituated to think for themselves and to follow their reason as their guide, would be more easily and safely governed than with minds nourished in error and vitiated and debased... by ignorance, indigence and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820. ME 15:284
"The idea of establishing a government by reasoning and agreement, [the monarchists] publicly ridiculed as an Utopian project, visionary and unexampled." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1797. ME 1:419
"It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127
"Our people in a body are wise because they are under the unrestrained and unperverted operation of their own understandings." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:324
"This blessed country of free inquiry and belief has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, 1822. ME 15:385
Reason and Truth
"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33
"[God has bestowed] reason... as the umpire of truth." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:197
"Truth and reason are eternal. They have prevailed. And they will eternally prevail; however, in times and places they may be overborne for a while by violence, military, civil, or ecclesiastical." --Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Knox, 1810. ME 12:360
"Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known and seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547
Actions Based on Reason
"Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429
"The opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
"I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:350
"Our opinions are not voluntary. Every man's own reason must be his oracle." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1813. ME 13:225
"Everyone, certainly, must form his judgment on the evidence accessible to himself." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811. ME 13:26
"I am, myself, generally disposed to indulge and to follow reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Martin, 1813. ME 13:383
"A patient pursuit of facts, and cautious combination and comparison of them, is the drudgery to which man is subjected by his Maker, if he wishes to attain sure knowledge." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VI, 1782. ME 2:97
"When we see two facts accompanying one another for a long time, we are apt to suppose them related as cause and effect." --Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1815. ME 14:319
"We certainly are not to deny whatever we cannot account for. A thousand phenomena present themselves daily which we cannot explain; but where facts are suggested bearing no analogy with the laws of nature as yet known to us, their verity needs proofs proportioned to their difficulty. A cautious mind will weigh well the opposition of the phenomenon to everything hitherto observed, the strength of the testimony by which it is supported, and the errors and misconceptions to which even our senses are liable." --Thomas Jefferson to Daniel Salmon, 1808. ME 11:441
"Proof is the duty of the affirmative side. A negative cannot be positively proved." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55
"The proof of a negative can only be presumptive." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:206
"What has no meaning admits no explanation." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Smyth, 1825. ME 16:101
"By analyzing too minutely we often reduce our subject to atoms, of which the mind loses its hold." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Everett, 1823. ME 15:414
Fearlessly Follow Reason and Truth
"Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:258 Papers 12:15
"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:85
"It is surely time for men to think for themselves, and to throw off the authority of names so artificially magnified." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1820. ME 15:258
"If [my] opinions are sound, they will occur to others, and will prevail by their own weight, without the aid of names." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:70
"It is not the name, but the thing which is essential." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on the Tonnage Payable, 1791. ME 3:292
"Lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:261
"In a republican nation whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance." --Thomas Jefferson to David Harding, 1824. ME 16:30
"Nothing is so desirable to me as that after mankind shall have been abused by such gross falsehoods as to events while passing, their minds should at length be set to rights by genuine truth. And I can conscientiously declare that as to myself, I wish that not only no act but no thought of mine should be unknown." --Thomas Jefferson to James Main, 1808. ME 12:175
"There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1826. ME 16:179
"There is not a truth on earth which I fear or would disguise. But secret slanders cannot be disarmed, because they are secret." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1806. ME 11:94
Moving Beyond Ignorance
"Old heads as well as young may sometimes be charged with ignorance and presumption. The natural course of the human mind is certainly from credulity to skepticism." --Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar, 1807. ME 11:248
"Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." --Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar, 1807. ME 11:243
"I think it is Montaigne who has said, that ignorance is the softest pillow on which a man can rest his head." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, 1794. ME 9:280
"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." --Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822. ME 15:409
"It was more in our spirit to let things come to rights by the plain dictates of common sense than by the practice of any artifices." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1800. ME 19:120
"I can never fear that things will go far wrong where common sense has fair play." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1786. ME 6:20
"I have great confidence in the common sense of mankind in general." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
Reason Must Look Ahead
"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800. ME 10:148
"I am for encouraging the progress of science in all its branches, and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the human mind by stories of raw-head and bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, and to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality and every other science were in the highest perfection in the ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be decided more perfect than what was established by our forefathers." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
The Advance of Truth and Science
"I am not myself apt to be alarmed at innovations recommended by reason. That dread belongs to those whose interests or prejudices shrink from the advance of truth and science." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1814. ME 14:103
"Where thought is free in its range, we need never fear to hazard what is good in itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Olgilvie, 1811. ME 13:68
"One of the questions... on which our parties took different sides was on the improvability of the human mind in science, in ethics, in government, etc. Those who advocated reformation of institutions pari passu with the progress of science maintained that no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, denied improvement and advocated steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our fathers, which they represented as the consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance... [They predicted that] freedom of inquiry... will produce nothing more worthy of transmission to posterity than the principles, institutions and systems of education received from their ancestors... [But we] possess... too much science not to see how much is still ahead of [us], unexplained and unexplored. [Our] own consciousness must place [us] as far before our ancestors as in the rear of our posterity." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. (*) ME 13:254
"What an effort... of bigotry in politics and religion have we gone through! The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power and priestcraft. All advances in science were proscribed as innovations. They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1801. ME 10:228
"I join [with others] in branding as cowardly the idea that the human mind is incapable of further advance. This is precisely the doctrine which the present despots of the earth are inculcating and their friends here re-echoing and applying especially to religion and politics: 'that it is not probable that anything better will be discovered than what was known to our fathers.' We are to look backwards, then, and not forwards for the improvement of science and to find it amidst feudal barbarisms and the fires of Spital-fields. But thank heaven the American mind is already too much opened to listen to these impostures; and while the art of printing is left to us, science can never be retrograde. What is once acquired of real knowledge can never be lost." --Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799.
Reason, Truth and Government
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:222
"Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1817. ME 15:116
"I am... against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
"Every man's reason [is] his own rightful umpire. This principle, with that of acquiescence in the will of the majority, will preserve us free and prosperous as long as they are sacredly observed." --Thomas Jefferson to John F. Watson, 1814. ME 14:136
"I hold it... certain, that to open the doors of truth and to fortify the habit of testing everything by reason are the most effectual manacles we can rivet on the hands of our successors to prevent their manacling the people with their own consent." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:34
"Nor was it uninteresting to the world that an experiment should be fairly and fully made whether freedom of discussion, unaided by power, is not sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth: whether a government conducting itself in the true spirit of its constitution with zeal and purity and doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should witness can be written down by falsehood and defamation. The experiment has been tried; [we] have witnessed the scene; our fellow citizens have looked on, cool and collected. They saw the latent source from which these outrages proceeded; they gathered around their public functionaries, and when the Constitution called them to the decision by suffrage, they pronounced their verdict, honorable to those who had served them and consolatory to the friend of man who believes he may be intrusted with his own affairs." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381
"If virtuous, [the government] need not fear the fair operation of attack and defense. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting the truth, either in religion, law, or politics." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:406
"The Indian chief said he did not go to war for every petty injury by itself, but put it into his pouch, and when that was full, he then made war. Thank Heaven, we have provided a more peaceable and rational mode of redress." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:446
"We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of them will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm, not of bigotry, not of Jesuitism. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both. We are destined to be a barrier against the return of ignorance and barbarism." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816. ME 15:58
"[Let us] go on in doing with [the] pen what in other times was done with the sword, [and] show that reformation is more practicable by operating on the mind than on the body of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1792. FE 6:88
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:319
QUOTE (steve1957+Feb 9 2006, 02:10 PM)
...But these are the same people that believe OJ Simpson was innocent and that Mark Furman planted the bloody glove...
OJ is guilty, but Furman (sic) planted the glove...
OJ is guilty, but Furman (sic) planted the glove...
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 9 2006, 03:58 PM)
QUOTE (steve1957+Feb 9 2006, 02:10 PM)
...But these are the same people that believe OJ Simpson was innocent and that Mark Furman planted the bloody glove...
OJ is guilty, but Furman (sic) planted the glove...
And the socks, both of them with DNA neatly placed in the middle of the room. As if someone took it out of the drawer and laid it down dead center. The drop of blood which went from the top of one sock to the next as if OJ didn't have a leg beween them. Sorry, I watched the whole trial and I'm convinced Furman planted that evidence. If you want to blame someone for letting OJ go it's Furman.
The LA police department was under investigation for this exact thing. Planting evidence.
OJ is guilty, but Furman (sic) planted the glove...
And the socks, both of them with DNA neatly placed in the middle of the room. As if someone took it out of the drawer and laid it down dead center. The drop of blood which went from the top of one sock to the next as if OJ didn't have a leg beween them. Sorry, I watched the whole trial and I'm convinced Furman planted that evidence. If you want to blame someone for letting OJ go it's Furman.
The LA police department was under investigation for this exact thing. Planting evidence.
QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Feb 9 2006, 03:05 PM)
[QUOTE/]
Thank you newton. But I would have liked a more informative answer from someone.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Thanks again, newton.
I won't be able to interact further until tomorrow. Good night.
questioner?[/QUOTE]
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Big resounding , yes there were diesel tanks, several of them in the WTC 7 and the twin towers had a large underground parking garage that would have had many vehicles complete with tanks of gasoline and rubber tires.
Next question.
Thank you newton. But I would have liked a more informative answer from someone.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Thanks again, newton.
I won't be able to interact further until tomorrow. Good night.
questioner?[/QUOTE]
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Big resounding , yes there were diesel tanks, several of them in the WTC 7 and the twin towers had a large underground parking garage that would have had many vehicles complete with tanks of gasoline and rubber tires.
Next question.
Common Sense Posted on Feb 9 2006, 03:54 PM
Common Sense is living in the last paradigm. Notice how all the quotes are pre-einstein, 18th and 19th century ?
Kant and Nietzsche come pretty close with their critiques of reason, but Uncle Al comes up with the goods....
Common Sense is living in the last paradigm. Notice how all the quotes are pre-einstein, 18th and 19th century ?
Kant and Nietzsche come pretty close with their critiques of reason, but Uncle Al comes up with the goods....
The `factor infinite and unknown' is the subconscious
Will. `On with the revel!' `Their words' -- the plausible
humbug of the newspapers and the churches. Forget it! Allons!
Marchons! It has been explained at length in a previous note
that `reason is a lie' by nature. We may here add certain
confirmations suggested by the `factor.' A and a (not-A)
together make up the Universe. As a is evidently `infinite
and unknown,' its equal and opposite A must be so no less.
Again, from any proposition S is P, reason deduces `S is not
p;' thus the apparent finitude and knowability of S is
deceptive, since it is in direct relation with p. No matter
what n may be, the number of the inductive numbers, is
unaltered by adding or subtracting it. There are just as many
odd numbers as there are numbers altogether. Our knowledge is
confined to statements of the relations between certain sets
of our own sensory impressions; and we are convinced by our
limitations that `a factor infinite and unknown' must be
concealed within the sphere of which we see but one minute
part of the surface. As to reason itself, what is more
certain than that its laws are only the conscious expression
of the limits imposed upon us by our animal nature, and that
to attribute universal validity, or even significance, to
them is a logical folly, the raving of our megalomania?
Experiment proves nothing; it is surely obvious that we are
obliged to correlate all observations with the physical and
mental structure whose truth we are trying to test. Indeed,
we can assume an `unreasonable' axiom, and translate the
whole of our knowledge into its terms, without fear of
stumbling over any obstacle. Reason is no more than a set or
rules developed by the race; it takes no account of anything
beyond sensory impressions and their reactions to various
parts of our being. There is no possible escape from the
vicious circle that we can register only the behaviour of our
own instrument. We conclude from the fact that it behaves at
all, that there must be `a factor infinite and unknown' at
work upon it. This being the case, we may be sure that our
apparatus is inherently incapable of discovering the truth
about anything, even in part. Let me illustrate. I see a
drop of water. Distrusting my eyes, I put it under the
microscope. Still in doubt, I photograph and enlarge the
slide. I compare my results with those of others. I check
them by cultivating the germs in the water, and injecting
them into paupers. But I have learnt nothing at all about
`the infinite and unknown,' merely producing all sorts of
different impressions according to the conditions in which
one observes it! More yet, all the instruments used have
been tested and declared `true' on the evidence of those very
eyes distrust of which drove me to the research. Modern
Science has at last grown out of the very-young-man
cocksureness of the 19th century. It is now admitted that
axioms themselves depend on definitions, and that Intuitive
Certainty is simply one trait of homo sapiens, like the ears
of the *** or the slime of the slug. That we reason as we do
merely proves that we cannot reason otherwise. We cannot move
the upper jaw; it does not follow that the idea of motion is
ridiculous. The limitation hints rather that there may be an
infinite variety of structures which the jaw cannot imagine.
The metric system is not the necessary mode of measurement.
It is the mark of a mind untrained to take its own processes
as valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute
truth. Our two eyes see an object in two aspects, and present
to our consciousness a third which agrees with neither, is
indeed, strictly speaking, not sensible to sight, but to
touch! Our senses declare some things at rest and others in
motion; our reason corrects the error, firstly by denying
that anything can exist unless it is in motion, secondly by
denying that absolute motion possesses any meaning at all.
At the time when this Book was written, official Science
angrily scouted the `factor infinite and unknown,' and clung
with pathetic faith to the idea that reason was the
touchstone of truth. In a single sentence, Aiwaz anticipates
the discoveries by which the greatest minds now incarnate
have made the last ten years memorable.
33. This is the only way to deal with reason. Reason is
like a woman; if you listen, you are lost; with a thick
stick, you have some sort of sporting chance. Reason leads
the philosopher to self-contradiction, the statesman to
doctrinaire follies; it makes the warrior lay down his arms,
and the lover cease to rave. What is so unreasonable as man?
The only Because in the lover's litany is Because I love you.
We want to skeleton syllogisms at our symposium of souls.
Philosophically, `Because is absurd.' There is no answer to
the question `Why.' The greatest thinkers have been sceptics
or agnostics: `omnia exeunt in mysterium,' and `summa
scientia nihil scire' are old commonplaces. In my essays
`Truth' (in Konx Om Pax), `The Soldier and the Hunchback,'
`Eleusis' and others, I have offered a detailed demonstration
of the self-contradictory nature of Reason. The cruz of the
whole proof may be summarized by saying that any possible
proposition must be equally true with its contradictory, as,
if not, the universe would no longer be in equilibrium. It is
no objection that to accept this is to destroy conventional
Logic, for that is exactly what it is intended to do. I may
also mention briefly one line of analysis. I ask `What is
(e.g.) a tree?' The dictionary defines this simple idea by
means of many complex ideas; obviously one gets in deeper
with every stroke one takes. The same applies to any `Why'
that may be posed. The one existing mystery disappears as a
consequence of innumerable antecedents, each equally
mysterious. To ask questions is thus evidently worse than a
waste of time, so far as one is looking for an answer. There
is also the point that any proposition S is P merely includes
P in the connotation of S, and is therefore not really a
statement of relation between two things, but an amendment of
the definition of one of them. `Some cats are black' only
means that our idea of a cat involves the liability to appear
black, and that blackness is consistent with those sets of
impressions which we recognize as characteristic of cats. All
ratiocination may be reduced to syllogistic form; hence, the
sole effect of the process is to make each term more complex.
Reason does not add to our knowledge; a filing system does
not increase one's correspondence directly, though by
arranging it one gets a better grasp of one's business. Thus
coordination of our impressions should help us to control
them; but to allow reason to rule us is as abject as to
expect the exactitude of our ledgers to enable us to dispense
with initiative on the one hand and actual transactions on
the other.
book of the law + commentary (1908)
In conclusion, reason is axiomatic. Reason is dead. Like the official conspiracy theory.
The NIST is going to doctor photos from the worlds most photographed and videoed event... Are you hearing yourself? As if this wouldn't be easy to uncover if they did.
Pure ConspiracyCenteral.com OBSURDIY. Heh!
Amazing, ain't it??
That's really all you need to know about Foxx.
Poor guy's gone round the bend.
QUOTE
"My hope [is] that we have not labored in vain, and that our experiment will still prove that men can be governed by reason." --Thomas Jefferson to George Mason, 1791. ME 8:124
"I have so much confidence in the good sense of man, and his qualifications for self-government, that I am never afraid of the issue where reason is left free to exert her force." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte Diodati, 1789. Papers 15:326
"I am satisfied the good sense of the people is the strongest army our government can ever have, and that it will not fail them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1786. ME 6:31
"Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon set things to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786. ME 6:25
"It is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles; and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1786. ME 6:10
"[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1797. ME 9:379
"We believed that men, enjoying in ease and security the full fruits of their own industry, enlisted by all their interests on the side of law and order, habituated to think for themselves and to follow their reason as their guide, would be more easily and safely governed than with minds nourished in error and vitiated and debased... by ignorance, indigence and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820. ME 15:284
"The idea of establishing a government by reasoning and agreement, [the monarchists] publicly ridiculed as an Utopian project, visionary and unexampled." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1797. ME 1:419
"It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127
"Our people in a body are wise because they are under the unrestrained and unperverted operation of their own understandings." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:324
"This blessed country of free inquiry and belief has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, 1822. ME 15:385
Reason and Truth
"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33
"[God has bestowed] reason... as the umpire of truth." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:197
"Truth and reason are eternal. They have prevailed. And they will eternally prevail; however, in times and places they may be overborne for a while by violence, military, civil, or ecclesiastical." --Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Knox, 1810. ME 12:360
"Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known and seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547
Actions Based on Reason
"Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429
"The opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
"I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:350
"Our opinions are not voluntary. Every man's own reason must be his oracle." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1813. ME 13:225
"Everyone, certainly, must form his judgment on the evidence accessible to himself." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811. ME 13:26
"I am, myself, generally disposed to indulge and to follow reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Martin, 1813. ME 13:383
"A patient pursuit of facts, and cautious combination and comparison of them, is the drudgery to which man is subjected by his Maker, if he wishes to attain sure knowledge." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VI, 1782. ME 2:97
"When we see two facts accompanying one another for a long time, we are apt to suppose them related as cause and effect." --Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1815. ME 14:319
"We certainly are not to deny whatever we cannot account for. A thousand phenomena present themselves daily which we cannot explain; but where facts are suggested bearing no analogy with the laws of nature as yet known to us, their verity needs proofs proportioned to their difficulty. A cautious mind will weigh well the opposition of the phenomenon to everything hitherto observed, the strength of the testimony by which it is supported, and the errors and misconceptions to which even our senses are liable." --Thomas Jefferson to Daniel Salmon, 1808. ME 11:441
"Proof is the duty of the affirmative side. A negative cannot be positively proved." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55
"The proof of a negative can only be presumptive." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:206
"What has no meaning admits no explanation." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Smyth, 1825. ME 16:101
"By analyzing too minutely we often reduce our subject to atoms, of which the mind loses its hold." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Everett, 1823. ME 15:414
Fearlessly Follow Reason and Truth
"Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:258 Papers 12:15
"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:85
"It is surely time for men to think for themselves, and to throw off the authority of names so artificially magnified." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1820. ME 15:258
"If [my] opinions are sound, they will occur to others, and will prevail by their own weight, without the aid of names." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:70
"It is not the name, but the thing which is essential." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on the Tonnage Payable, 1791. ME 3:292
"Lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:261
"In a republican nation whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance." --Thomas Jefferson to David Harding, 1824. ME 16:30
"Nothing is so desirable to me as that after mankind shall have been abused by such gross falsehoods as to events while passing, their minds should at length be set to rights by genuine truth. And I can conscientiously declare that as to myself, I wish that not only no act but no thought of mine should be unknown." --Thomas Jefferson to James Main, 1808. ME 12:175
"There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1826. ME 16:179
"There is not a truth on earth which I fear or would disguise. But secret slanders cannot be disarmed, because they are secret." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1806. ME 11:94
Moving Beyond Ignorance
"Old heads as well as young may sometimes be charged with ignorance and presumption. The natural course of the human mind is certainly from credulity to skepticism." --Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar, 1807. ME 11:248
"Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." --Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar, 1807. ME 11:243
"I think it is Montaigne who has said, that ignorance is the softest pillow on which a man can rest his head." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, 1794. ME 9:280
"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." --Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822. ME 15:409
"It was more in our spirit to let things come to rights by the plain dictates of common sense than by the practice of any artifices." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1800. ME 19:120
"I can never fear that things will go far wrong where common sense has fair play." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1786. ME 6:20
"I have great confidence in the common sense of mankind in general." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
Reason Must Look Ahead
"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800. ME 10:148
"I am for encouraging the progress of science in all its branches, and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the human mind by stories of raw-head and bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, and to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality and every other science were in the highest perfection in the ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be decided more perfect than what was established by our forefathers." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
The Advance of Truth and Science
"I am not myself apt to be alarmed at innovations recommended by reason. That dread belongs to those whose interests or prejudices shrink from the advance of truth and science." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1814. ME 14:103
"Where thought is free in its range, we need never fear to hazard what is good in itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Olgilvie, 1811. ME 13:68
"One of the questions... on which our parties took different sides was on the improvability of the human mind in science, in ethics, in government, etc. Those who advocated reformation of institutions pari passu with the progress of science maintained that no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, denied improvement and advocated steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our fathers, which they represented as the consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance... [They predicted that] freedom of inquiry... will produce nothing more worthy of transmission to posterity than the principles, institutions and systems of education received from their ancestors... [But we] possess... too much science not to see how much is still ahead of [us], unexplained and unexplored. [Our] own consciousness must place [us] as far before our ancestors as in the rear of our posterity." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. (*) ME 13:254
"What an effort... of bigotry in politics and religion have we gone through! The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power and priestcraft. All advances in science were proscribed as innovations. They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1801. ME 10:228
"I join [with others] in branding as cowardly the idea that the human mind is incapable of further advance. This is precisely the doctrine which the present despots of the earth are inculcating and their friends here re-echoing and applying especially to religion and politics: 'that it is not probable that anything better will be discovered than what was known to our fathers.' We are to look backwards, then, and not forwards for the improvement of science and to find it amidst feudal barbarisms and the fires of Spital-fields. But thank heaven the American mind is already too much opened to listen to these impostures; and while the art of printing is left to us, science can never be retrograde. What is once acquired of real knowledge can never be lost." --Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799.
Reason, Truth and Government
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:222
"Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1817. ME 15:116
"I am... against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
"Every man's reason [is] his own rightful umpire. This principle, with that of acquiescence in the will of the majority, will preserve us free and prosperous as long as they are sacredly observed." --Thomas Jefferson to John F. Watson, 1814. ME 14:136
"I hold it... certain, that to open the doors of truth and to fortify the habit of testing everything by reason are the most effectual manacles we can rivet on the hands of our successors to prevent their manacling the people with their own consent." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:34
"Nor was it uninteresting to the world that an experiment should be fairly and fully made whether freedom of discussion, unaided by power, is not sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth: whether a government conducting itself in the true spirit of its constitution with zeal and purity and doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should witness can be written down by falsehood and defamation. The experiment has been tried; [we] have witnessed the scene; our fellow citizens have looked on, cool and collected. They saw the latent source from which these outrages proceeded; they gathered around their public functionaries, and when the Constitution called them to the decision by suffrage, they pronounced their verdict, honorable to those who had served them and consolatory to the friend of man who believes he may be intrusted with his own affairs." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381
"If virtuous, [the government] need not fear the fair operation of attack and defense. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting the truth, either in religion, law, or politics." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:406
"The Indian chief said he did not go to war for every petty injury by itself, but put it into his pouch, and when that was full, he then made war. Thank Heaven, we have provided a more peaceable and rational mode of redress." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:446
"We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of them will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm, not of bigotry, not of Jesuitism. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both. We are destined to be a barrier against the return of ignorance and barbarism." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816. ME 15:58
"[Let us] go on in doing with [the] pen what in other times was done with the sword, [and] show that reformation is more practicable by operating on the mind than on the body of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1792. FE 6:88
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:319
"I have so much confidence in the good sense of man, and his qualifications for self-government, that I am never afraid of the issue where reason is left free to exert her force." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte Diodati, 1789. Papers 15:326
"I am satisfied the good sense of the people is the strongest army our government can ever have, and that it will not fail them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1786. ME 6:31
"Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon set things to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786. ME 6:25
"It is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles; and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1786. ME 6:10
"[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1797. ME 9:379
"We believed that men, enjoying in ease and security the full fruits of their own industry, enlisted by all their interests on the side of law and order, habituated to think for themselves and to follow their reason as their guide, would be more easily and safely governed than with minds nourished in error and vitiated and debased... by ignorance, indigence and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820. ME 15:284
"The idea of establishing a government by reasoning and agreement, [the monarchists] publicly ridiculed as an Utopian project, visionary and unexampled." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1797. ME 1:419
"It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127
"Our people in a body are wise because they are under the unrestrained and unperverted operation of their own understandings." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:324
"This blessed country of free inquiry and belief has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, 1822. ME 15:385
Reason and Truth
"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33
"[God has bestowed] reason... as the umpire of truth." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:197
"Truth and reason are eternal. They have prevailed. And they will eternally prevail; however, in times and places they may be overborne for a while by violence, military, civil, or ecclesiastical." --Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Knox, 1810. ME 12:360
"Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known and seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547
Actions Based on Reason
"Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429
"The opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
"I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:350
"Our opinions are not voluntary. Every man's own reason must be his oracle." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1813. ME 13:225
"Everyone, certainly, must form his judgment on the evidence accessible to himself." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811. ME 13:26
"I am, myself, generally disposed to indulge and to follow reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Martin, 1813. ME 13:383
"A patient pursuit of facts, and cautious combination and comparison of them, is the drudgery to which man is subjected by his Maker, if he wishes to attain sure knowledge." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VI, 1782. ME 2:97
"When we see two facts accompanying one another for a long time, we are apt to suppose them related as cause and effect." --Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1815. ME 14:319
"We certainly are not to deny whatever we cannot account for. A thousand phenomena present themselves daily which we cannot explain; but where facts are suggested bearing no analogy with the laws of nature as yet known to us, their verity needs proofs proportioned to their difficulty. A cautious mind will weigh well the opposition of the phenomenon to everything hitherto observed, the strength of the testimony by which it is supported, and the errors and misconceptions to which even our senses are liable." --Thomas Jefferson to Daniel Salmon, 1808. ME 11:441
"Proof is the duty of the affirmative side. A negative cannot be positively proved." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55
"The proof of a negative can only be presumptive." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:206
"What has no meaning admits no explanation." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Smyth, 1825. ME 16:101
"By analyzing too minutely we often reduce our subject to atoms, of which the mind loses its hold." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Everett, 1823. ME 15:414
Fearlessly Follow Reason and Truth
"Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:258 Papers 12:15
"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:85
"It is surely time for men to think for themselves, and to throw off the authority of names so artificially magnified." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1820. ME 15:258
"If [my] opinions are sound, they will occur to others, and will prevail by their own weight, without the aid of names." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:70
"It is not the name, but the thing which is essential." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on the Tonnage Payable, 1791. ME 3:292
"Lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:261
"In a republican nation whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance." --Thomas Jefferson to David Harding, 1824. ME 16:30
"Nothing is so desirable to me as that after mankind shall have been abused by such gross falsehoods as to events while passing, their minds should at length be set to rights by genuine truth. And I can conscientiously declare that as to myself, I wish that not only no act but no thought of mine should be unknown." --Thomas Jefferson to James Main, 1808. ME 12:175
"There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1826. ME 16:179
"There is not a truth on earth which I fear or would disguise. But secret slanders cannot be disarmed, because they are secret." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1806. ME 11:94
Moving Beyond Ignorance
"Old heads as well as young may sometimes be charged with ignorance and presumption. The natural course of the human mind is certainly from credulity to skepticism." --Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar, 1807. ME 11:248
"Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." --Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar, 1807. ME 11:243
"I think it is Montaigne who has said, that ignorance is the softest pillow on which a man can rest his head." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, 1794. ME 9:280
"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." --Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822. ME 15:409
"It was more in our spirit to let things come to rights by the plain dictates of common sense than by the practice of any artifices." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1800. ME 19:120
"I can never fear that things will go far wrong where common sense has fair play." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1786. ME 6:20
"I have great confidence in the common sense of mankind in general." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
Reason Must Look Ahead
"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800. ME 10:148
"I am for encouraging the progress of science in all its branches, and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the human mind by stories of raw-head and bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, and to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality and every other science were in the highest perfection in the ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be decided more perfect than what was established by our forefathers." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
The Advance of Truth and Science
"I am not myself apt to be alarmed at innovations recommended by reason. That dread belongs to those whose interests or prejudices shrink from the advance of truth and science." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1814. ME 14:103
"Where thought is free in its range, we need never fear to hazard what is good in itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Olgilvie, 1811. ME 13:68
"One of the questions... on which our parties took different sides was on the improvability of the human mind in science, in ethics, in government, etc. Those who advocated reformation of institutions pari passu with the progress of science maintained that no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, denied improvement and advocated steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our fathers, which they represented as the consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance... [They predicted that] freedom of inquiry... will produce nothing more worthy of transmission to posterity than the principles, institutions and systems of education received from their ancestors... [But we] possess... too much science not to see how much is still ahead of [us], unexplained and unexplored. [Our] own consciousness must place [us] as far before our ancestors as in the rear of our posterity." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. (*) ME 13:254
"What an effort... of bigotry in politics and religion have we gone through! The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power and priestcraft. All advances in science were proscribed as innovations. They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1801. ME 10:228
"I join [with others] in branding as cowardly the idea that the human mind is incapable of further advance. This is precisely the doctrine which the present despots of the earth are inculcating and their friends here re-echoing and applying especially to religion and politics: 'that it is not probable that anything better will be discovered than what was known to our fathers.' We are to look backwards, then, and not forwards for the improvement of science and to find it amidst feudal barbarisms and the fires of Spital-fields. But thank heaven the American mind is already too much opened to listen to these impostures; and while the art of printing is left to us, science can never be retrograde. What is once acquired of real knowledge can never be lost." --Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799.
Reason, Truth and Government
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:222
"Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1817. ME 15:116
"I am... against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
"Every man's reason [is] his own rightful umpire. This principle, with that of acquiescence in the will of the majority, will preserve us free and prosperous as long as they are sacredly observed." --Thomas Jefferson to John F. Watson, 1814. ME 14:136
"I hold it... certain, that to open the doors of truth and to fortify the habit of testing everything by reason are the most effectual manacles we can rivet on the hands of our successors to prevent their manacling the people with their own consent." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:34
"Nor was it uninteresting to the world that an experiment should be fairly and fully made whether freedom of discussion, unaided by power, is not sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth: whether a government conducting itself in the true spirit of its constitution with zeal and purity and doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should witness can be written down by falsehood and defamation. The experiment has been tried; [we] have witnessed the scene; our fellow citizens have looked on, cool and collected. They saw the latent source from which these outrages proceeded; they gathered around their public functionaries, and when the Constitution called them to the decision by suffrage, they pronounced their verdict, honorable to those who had served them and consolatory to the friend of man who believes he may be intrusted with his own affairs." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381
"If virtuous, [the government] need not fear the fair operation of attack and defense. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting the truth, either in religion, law, or politics." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:406
"The Indian chief said he did not go to war for every petty injury by itself, but put it into his pouch, and when that was full, he then made war. Thank Heaven, we have provided a more peaceable and rational mode of redress." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:446
"We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of them will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm, not of bigotry, not of Jesuitism. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both. We are destined to be a barrier against the return of ignorance and barbarism." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816. ME 15:58
"[Let us] go on in doing with [the] pen what in other times was done with the sword, [and] show that reformation is more practicable by operating on the mind than on the body of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1792. FE 6:88
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:319
Common Sense is living in the last paradigm. Notice how all the quotes are pre-einstein, 18th and 19th century ?
Kant and Nietzsche come pretty close with their critiques of reason, but Uncle Al comes up with the goods....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "My hope [is] that we have not labored in vain, and that our experiment will still prove that men can be governed by reason." --Thomas Jefferson to George Mason, 1791. ME 8:124 "I have so much confidence in the good sense of man, and his qualifications for self-government, that I am never afraid of the issue where reason is left free to exert her force." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte Diodati, 1789. Papers 15:326 "I am satisfied the good sense of the people is the strongest army our government can ever have, and that it will not fail them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1786. ME 6:31 "Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon set things to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786. ME 6:25 "It is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles; and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1786. ME 6:10 "[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1797. ME 9:379 "We believed that men, enjoying in ease and security the full fruits of their own industry, enlisted by all their interests on the side of law and order, habituated to think for themselves and to follow their reason as their guide, would be more easily and safely governed than with minds nourished in error and vitiated and debased... by ignorance, indigence and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441 "A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820. ME 15:284 "The idea of establishing a government by reasoning and agreement, [the monarchists] publicly ridiculed as an Utopian project, visionary and unexampled." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1797. ME 1:419 "It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127 "Our people in a body are wise because they are under the unrestrained and unperverted operation of their own understandings." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:324 "This blessed country of free inquiry and belief has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, 1822. ME 15:385 Reason and Truth "No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33 "[God has bestowed] reason... as the umpire of truth." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:197 "Truth and reason are eternal. They have prevailed. And they will eternally prevail; however, in times and places they may be overborne for a while by violence, military, civil, or ecclesiastical." --Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Knox, 1810. ME 12:360 "Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known and seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547 Actions Based on Reason "Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429 "The opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545 "I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:350 "Our opinions are not voluntary. Every man's own reason must be his oracle." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1813. ME 13:225 "Everyone, certainly, must form his judgment on the evidence accessible to himself." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811. ME 13:26 "I am, myself, generally disposed to indulge and to follow reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Martin, 1813. ME 13:383 "A patient pursuit of facts, and cautious combination and comparison of them, is the drudgery to which man is subjected by his Maker, if he wishes to attain sure knowledge." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VI, 1782. ME 2:97 "When we see two facts accompanying one another for a long time, we are apt to suppose them related as cause and effect." --Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1815. ME 14:319 "We certainly are not to deny whatever we cannot account for. A thousand phenomena present themselves daily which we cannot explain; but where facts are suggested bearing no analogy with the laws of nature as yet known to us, their verity needs proofs proportioned to their difficulty. A cautious mind will weigh well the opposition of the phenomenon to everything hitherto observed, the strength of the testimony by which it is supported, and the errors and misconceptions to which even our senses are liable." --Thomas Jefferson to Daniel Salmon, 1808. ME 11:441 "Proof is the duty of the affirmative side. A negative cannot be positively proved." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55 "The proof of a negative can only be presumptive." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:206 "What has no meaning admits no explanation." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Smyth, 1825. ME 16:101 "By analyzing too minutely we often reduce our subject to atoms, of which the mind loses its hold." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Everett, 1823. ME 15:414 Fearlessly Follow Reason and Truth "Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:258 Papers 12:15 "I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:85 "It is surely time for men to think for themselves, and to throw off the authority of names so artificially magnified." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1820. ME 15:258 "If [my] opinions are sound, they will occur to others, and will prevail by their own weight, without the aid of names." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:70 "It is not the name, but the thing which is essential." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on the Tonnage Payable, 1791. ME 3:292 "Lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:261 "In a republican nation whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance." --Thomas Jefferson to David Harding, 1824. ME 16:30 "Nothing is so desirable to me as that after mankind shall have been abused by such gross falsehoods as to events while passing, their minds should at length be set to rights by genuine truth. And I can conscientiously declare that as to myself, I wish that not only no act but no thought of mine should be unknown." --Thomas Jefferson to James Main, 1808. ME 12:175 "There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1826. ME 16:179 "There is not a truth on earth which I fear or would disguise. But secret slanders cannot be disarmed, because they are secret." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1806. ME 11:94 Moving Beyond Ignorance "Old heads as well as young may sometimes be charged with ignorance and presumption. The natural course of the human mind is certainly from credulity to skepticism." --Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar, 1807. ME 11:248 "Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." --Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar, 1807. ME 11:243 "I think it is Montaigne who has said, that ignorance is the softest pillow on which a man can rest his head." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, 1794. ME 9:280 "Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." --Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822. ME 15:409 "It was more in our spirit to let things come to rights by the plain dictates of common sense than by the practice of any artifices." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1800. ME 19:120 "I can never fear that things will go far wrong where common sense has fair play." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1786. ME 6:20 "I have great confidence in the common sense of mankind in general." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800. Reason Must Look Ahead "The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800. ME 10:148 "I am for encouraging the progress of science in all its branches, and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the human mind by stories of raw-head and bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, and to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality and every other science were in the highest perfection in the ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be decided more perfect than what was established by our forefathers." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78 The Advance of Truth and Science "I am not myself apt to be alarmed at innovations recommended by reason. That dread belongs to those whose interests or prejudices shrink from the advance of truth and science." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1814. ME 14:103 "Where thought is free in its range, we need never fear to hazard what is good in itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Olgilvie, 1811. ME 13:68 "One of the questions... on which our parties took different sides was on the improvability of the human mind in science, in ethics, in government, etc. Those who advocated reformation of institutions pari passu with the progress of science maintained that no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, denied improvement and advocated steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our fathers, which they represented as the consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance... [They predicted that] freedom of inquiry... will produce nothing more worthy of transmission to posterity than the principles, institutions and systems of education received from their ancestors... [But we] possess... too much science not to see how much is still ahead of [us], unexplained and unexplored. [Our] own consciousness must place [us] as far before our ancestors as in the rear of our posterity." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. (*) ME 13:254 "What an effort... of bigotry in politics and religion have we gone through! The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power and priestcraft. All advances in science were proscribed as innovations. They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1801. ME 10:228 "I join [with others] in branding as cowardly the idea that the human mind is incapable of further advance. This is precisely the doctrine which the present despots of the earth are inculcating and their friends here re-echoing and applying especially to religion and politics: 'that it is not probable that anything better will be discovered than what was known to our fathers.' We are to look backwards, then, and not forwards for the improvement of science and to find it amidst feudal barbarisms and the fires of Spital-fields. But thank heaven the American mind is already too much opened to listen to these impostures; and while the art of printing is left to us, science can never be retrograde. What is once acquired of real knowledge can never be lost." --Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799. Reason, Truth and Government "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:222 "Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1817. ME 15:116 "I am... against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78 "Every man's reason [is] his own rightful umpire. This principle, with that of acquiescence in the will of the majority, will preserve us free and prosperous as long as they are sacredly observed." --Thomas Jefferson to John F. Watson, 1814. ME 14:136 "I hold it... certain, that to open the doors of truth and to fortify the habit of testing everything by reason are the most effectual manacles we can rivet on the hands of our successors to prevent their manacling the people with their own consent." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:34 "Nor was it uninteresting to the world that an experiment should be fairly and fully made whether freedom of discussion, unaided by power, is not sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth: whether a government conducting itself in the true spirit of its constitution with zeal and purity and doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should witness can be written down by falsehood and defamation. The experiment has been tried; [we] have witnessed the scene; our fellow citizens have looked on, cool and collected. They saw the latent source from which these outrages proceeded; they gathered around their public functionaries, and when the Constitution called them to the decision by suffrage, they pronounced their verdict, honorable to those who had served them and consolatory to the friend of man who believes he may be intrusted with his own affairs." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381 "If virtuous, [the government] need not fear the fair operation of attack and defense. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting the truth, either in religion, law, or politics." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:406 "The Indian chief said he did not go to war for every petty injury by itself, but put it into his pouch, and when that was full, he then made war. Thank Heaven, we have provided a more peaceable and rational mode of redress." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:446 "We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of them will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm, not of bigotry, not of Jesuitism. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both. We are destined to be a barrier against the return of ignorance and barbarism." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816. ME 15:58 "[Let us] go on in doing with [the] pen what in other times was done with the sword, [and] show that reformation is more practicable by operating on the mind than on the body of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1792. FE 6:88 "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:319 |
Common Sense is living in the last paradigm. Notice how all the quotes are pre-einstein, 18th and 19th century ?
Kant and Nietzsche come pretty close with their critiques of reason, but Uncle Al comes up with the goods....
The `factor infinite and unknown' is the subconscious
Will. `On with the revel!' `Their words' -- the plausible
humbug of the newspapers and the churches. Forget it! Allons!
Marchons! It has been explained at length in a previous note
that `reason is a lie' by nature. We may here add certain
confirmations suggested by the `factor.' A and a (not-A)
together make up the Universe. As a is evidently `infinite
and unknown,' its equal and opposite A must be so no less.
Again, from any proposition S is P, reason deduces `S is not
p;' thus the apparent finitude and knowability of S is
deceptive, since it is in direct relation with p. No matter
what n may be, the number of the inductive numbers, is
unaltered by adding or subtracting it. There are just as many
odd numbers as there are numbers altogether. Our knowledge is
confined to statements of the relations between certain sets
of our own sensory impressions; and we are convinced by our
limitations that `a factor infinite and unknown' must be
concealed within the sphere of which we see but one minute
part of the surface. As to reason itself, what is more
certain than that its laws are only the conscious expression
of the limits imposed upon us by our animal nature, and that
to attribute universal validity, or even significance, to
them is a logical folly, the raving of our megalomania?
Experiment proves nothing; it is surely obvious that we are
obliged to correlate all observations with the physical and
mental structure whose truth we are trying to test. Indeed,
we can assume an `unreasonable' axiom, and translate the
whole of our knowledge into its terms, without fear of
stumbling over any obstacle. Reason is no more than a set or
rules developed by the race; it takes no account of anything
beyond sensory impressions and their reactions to various
parts of our being. There is no possible escape from the
vicious circle that we can register only the behaviour of our
own instrument. We conclude from the fact that it behaves at
all, that there must be `a factor infinite and unknown' at
work upon it. This being the case, we may be sure that our
apparatus is inherently incapable of discovering the truth
about anything, even in part. Let me illustrate. I see a
drop of water. Distrusting my eyes, I put it under the
microscope. Still in doubt, I photograph and enlarge the
slide. I compare my results with those of others. I check
them by cultivating the germs in the water, and injecting
them into paupers. But I have learnt nothing at all about
`the infinite and unknown,' merely producing all sorts of
different impressions according to the conditions in which
one observes it! More yet, all the instruments used have
been tested and declared `true' on the evidence of those very
eyes distrust of which drove me to the research. Modern
Science has at last grown out of the very-young-man
cocksureness of the 19th century. It is now admitted that
axioms themselves depend on definitions, and that Intuitive
Certainty is simply one trait of homo sapiens, like the ears
of the *** or the slime of the slug. That we reason as we do
merely proves that we cannot reason otherwise. We cannot move
the upper jaw; it does not follow that the idea of motion is
ridiculous. The limitation hints rather that there may be an
infinite variety of structures which the jaw cannot imagine.
The metric system is not the necessary mode of measurement.
It is the mark of a mind untrained to take its own processes
as valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute
truth. Our two eyes see an object in two aspects, and present
to our consciousness a third which agrees with neither, is
indeed, strictly speaking, not sensible to sight, but to
touch! Our senses declare some things at rest and others in
motion; our reason corrects the error, firstly by denying
that anything can exist unless it is in motion, secondly by
denying that absolute motion possesses any meaning at all.
At the time when this Book was written, official Science
angrily scouted the `factor infinite and unknown,' and clung
with pathetic faith to the idea that reason was the
touchstone of truth. In a single sentence, Aiwaz anticipates
the discoveries by which the greatest minds now incarnate
have made the last ten years memorable.
33. This is the only way to deal with reason. Reason is
like a woman; if you listen, you are lost; with a thick
stick, you have some sort of sporting chance. Reason leads
the philosopher to self-contradiction, the statesman to
doctrinaire follies; it makes the warrior lay down his arms,
and the lover cease to rave. What is so unreasonable as man?
The only Because in the lover's litany is Because I love you.
We want to skeleton syllogisms at our symposium of souls.
Philosophically, `Because is absurd.' There is no answer to
the question `Why.' The greatest thinkers have been sceptics
or agnostics: `omnia exeunt in mysterium,' and `summa
scientia nihil scire' are old commonplaces. In my essays
`Truth' (in Konx Om Pax), `The Soldier and the Hunchback,'
`Eleusis' and others, I have offered a detailed demonstration
of the self-contradictory nature of Reason. The cruz of the
whole proof may be summarized by saying that any possible
proposition must be equally true with its contradictory, as,
if not, the universe would no longer be in equilibrium. It is
no objection that to accept this is to destroy conventional
Logic, for that is exactly what it is intended to do. I may
also mention briefly one line of analysis. I ask `What is
(e.g.) a tree?' The dictionary defines this simple idea by
means of many complex ideas; obviously one gets in deeper
with every stroke one takes. The same applies to any `Why'
that may be posed. The one existing mystery disappears as a
consequence of innumerable antecedents, each equally
mysterious. To ask questions is thus evidently worse than a
waste of time, so far as one is looking for an answer. There
is also the point that any proposition S is P merely includes
P in the connotation of S, and is therefore not really a
statement of relation between two things, but an amendment of
the definition of one of them. `Some cats are black' only
means that our idea of a cat involves the liability to appear
black, and that blackness is consistent with those sets of
impressions which we recognize as characteristic of cats. All
ratiocination may be reduced to syllogistic form; hence, the
sole effect of the process is to make each term more complex.
Reason does not add to our knowledge; a filing system does
not increase one's correspondence directly, though by
arranging it one gets a better grasp of one's business. Thus
coordination of our impressions should help us to control
them; but to allow reason to rule us is as abject as to
expect the exactitude of our ledgers to enable us to dispense
with initiative on the one hand and actual transactions on
the other.
book of the law + commentary (1908)
In conclusion, reason is axiomatic. Reason is dead. Like the official conspiracy theory.
QUOTE (Sensable+Feb 9 2006, 01:28 PM)
The NIST is going to doctor photos from the worlds most photographed and videoed event... Are you hearing yourself? As if this wouldn't be easy to uncover if they did.
Pure ConspiracyCenteral.com OBSURDIY. Heh!
Amazing, ain't it??
That's really all you need to know about Foxx.
Poor guy's gone round the bend.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 9 2006, 02:41 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Feb 9 2006, 03:05 PM)
Thank you newton. But I would have liked a more informative answer from someone.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Big resounding , yes there were diesel tanks, several of them in the WTC 7 and the twin towers had a large underground parking garage that would have had many vehicles complete with tanks of gasoline and rubber tires.
Next question.
The tanks were HUGE and ran diesel under pressure up to the generators on the FIFTH floor.
It is very likely that the pressure system continued to provide fuel to the upper floors for some time, but I'm waiting for the NIST report for details on this aspect of the fire.
It was a 2,000 car parking garage. That's friggin HUGE and it wouldn't just have gasoline powered cars it would have trucks and diesel powered cars as well. Also each of them would have a battery filled with Sulfuric Acid.
Trying to figure out ALL of the things that were in the towers, including the shops in the plaza level is a fools errand though.
Arthur
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Big resounding , yes there were diesel tanks, several of them in the WTC 7 and the twin towers had a large underground parking garage that would have had many vehicles complete with tanks of gasoline and rubber tires.
Next question.
The tanks were HUGE and ran diesel under pressure up to the generators on the FIFTH floor.
It is very likely that the pressure system continued to provide fuel to the upper floors for some time, but I'm waiting for the NIST report for details on this aspect of the fire.
It was a 2,000 car parking garage. That's friggin HUGE and it wouldn't just have gasoline powered cars it would have trucks and diesel powered cars as well. Also each of them would have a battery filled with Sulfuric Acid.
Trying to figure out ALL of the things that were in the towers, including the shops in the plaza level is a fools errand though.
Arthur
OBSURDIY ?
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Feb 9 2006, 04:33 PM)
OBSURDIY ?
Thank you newton. But I would have liked a more informative answer from someone.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Thanks again, newton.
I won't be able to interact further until tomorrow. Good night.
questioner?
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Thankyou! Guest_Steve. I hadn't even thought about Gypsum.
The basic components of Gypsum "drywall" sheets are SULPHURIC ACID (H2SO4) with the usual Hydrogen replaced by Calcium (Ca)...with a PAPER outer surface!
Wow, what a brew that would make with any steel or other Sulphuric-acid-corrodable metals over long periods of time and humidity near the saltwater environment and after years of SALTY-rain and ACID-rain AND THEN the hot fires on 9/11)!
Thanks again Guest_Steve, I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to answer my questions. You have really helped me out!
QUOTE (Frater+)
Reason is like a woman; if you listen, you are lost
Arthur
Arthur
I guess it hits the nail on the head.
Saludos to you Arthur.
Saludos to you Arthur.
QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Feb 9 2006, 03:05 PM)
QUOTE (questioner?+)
Thank you newton. But I would have liked a more informative answer from someone.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Thanks again, newton.
I won't be able to interact further until tomorrow. Good night.
questioner?
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Thankyou! Guest_Steve. I hadn't even thought about Gypsum.
The basic components of Gypsum "drywall" sheets are SULPHURIC ACID (H2SO4) with the usual Hydrogen replaced by Calcium (Ca)...with a PAPER outer surface!
Wow, what a brew that would make with any steel or other Sulphuric-acid-corrodable metals over long periods of time and humidity near the saltwater environment and after years of SALTY-rain and ACID-rain AND THEN the hot fires on 9/11)!
Thanks again Guest_Steve, I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to answer my questions. You have really helped me out!
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 9 2006, 06:41 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Feb 9 2006, 03:05 PM)
QUOTE (QUESTIONER?+)
Thank you newton. But I would have liked a more informative answer from someone.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Thanks again, newton.
I won't be able to interact further until tomorrow. Good night.
questioner?
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Big resounding , yes there were diesel tanks, several of them in the WTC 7 and the twin towers had a large underground parking garage that would have had many vehicles complete with tanks of gasoline and rubber tires.
Next question.
Thanks to you too, yesitdid for also taking time to answer me. And Wow again! I wonder how many TONS of paint, fuel and grease and VULCANISED RUBBER would be added to the fires because of cars and services in the rubble fires? Gee, it's getting more COMPLICATED and AMAZING what was in there ALL ALONG and THEN during the fires too! Thanks, yesitdid!
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Thanks again, newton.
I won't be able to interact further until tomorrow. Good night.
questioner?
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Big resounding , yes there were diesel tanks, several of them in the WTC 7 and the twin towers had a large underground parking garage that would have had many vehicles complete with tanks of gasoline and rubber tires.
Next question.
Thanks to you too, yesitdid for also taking time to answer me. And Wow again! I wonder how many TONS of paint, fuel and grease and VULCANISED RUBBER would be added to the fires because of cars and services in the rubble fires? Gee, it's getting more COMPLICATED and AMAZING what was in there ALL ALONG and THEN during the fires too! Thanks, yesitdid!
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 9 2006, 08:32 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 9 2006, 02:41 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Feb 9 2006, 03:05 PM)
Thank you newton. But I would have liked a more informative answer from someone.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Big resounding , yes there were diesel tanks, several of them in the WTC 7 and the twin towers had a large underground parking garage that would have had many vehicles complete with tanks of gasoline and rubber tires.
Next question.
Until that is provided by that someone, can you just as quickly indicate whether ANY VULCANISED RUBBER and/or other sulphur containing construction and office adhesives and compounds etc were present in WTC7?
Also, were any sulphur containing Hydrocarbon FUELS like diesel present in either the Towers or WTC7 (either in the buildings or in the rubble fires after collapse)?
Gypsum wallboard (sheetrock) contains sulphur - Ca2(SO 4) + 2 H2O
Big resounding , yes there were diesel tanks, several of them in the WTC 7 and the twin towers had a large underground parking garage that would have had many vehicles complete with tanks of gasoline and rubber tires.
Next question.