critical thinking about September 11, 2001

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Reputable?? You?? Gaffney, you're a con-man, a liar and a leach.

As a historian, you're clueless, sloppy with the facts with an eccentric view of history. French??

As a 'scientific' commentator, you don't have the knowledge of a schoolboy, yet boast about your claims otherwise.

Basically, you're delusional and a sick puppy making money from 911 by spouting nonsense from your bathroom.

When even the Troofers think you're a fraud and a liar because your claims are demonstrably fake, you've reached rock bottom.

Stop digging!

FIFY

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Labeling just shields you from facing the truth that the world can no longer sustain the lifestyles of the uber-rich, and it is suicide to try and continue to do so. It's a form of denial. Pathetic, really.

This is a total non-sequitur. There aren't even nearly that many "uber-rich" to remotely assert that their lifestyles are straining the world. This is just out there. What are you talking about?


Who am I labeling? If it's "labeling" to call someone who ideologically lifts from Marxism and hangs out with them in their conferences, then it is with someone who does the same with the Nazis.

In other words, the economy would be rolling along just fine if not for these greedy bastards hiding their wealth.

I've had liberals call me a liar when I say people will just hide their money.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

This is a total non-sequitur. There aren't even nearly that many "uber-rich" to remotely assert that their lifestyles are straining the world. This is just out there. What are you talking about?


Who am I labeling? If it's "labeling" to call someone who ideologically lifts from Marxism and hangs out with them in their conferences, then it is with someone who does the same with the Nazis.




I've had liberals call me a liar when I say people will just hide their money.

How many there are is meaningless. It's the amount of assets that so few control. Unsustainable. Period. In fact, it is madness. We protect ourselves from the insanity of it all by pretending to have everything well labeled and under our rational control (ergo your desperate grasp onto the labels of "Marxist" and "liberal"), when in fact the absurdity of the situation makes a mockery of our pretense to rational thought. The economy of the world is teetering on the edge while the mega rich hide more than twice the resources of the GDP of the United States. But we should be worried about the Marxists.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

How many there are is meaningless. It's the amount of assets that so few control. Unsustainable. Period. In fact, it is madness. We protect ourselves from the insanity of it all by pretending to have everything well labeled and under our rational control (ergo your desperate grasp onto the labels of "Marxist" and "liberal"), when in fact the absurdity of the situation makes a mockery of our pretense to rational thought. The economy of the world is teetering on the edge while the mega rich hide more than twice the resources of the GDP of the United States. But we should be worried about the Marxists.

I was referring to gaf's citations and their circle of associations.

What does X percentage of assets have to do with that, let alone with this sustainability you refer to?

If you understood that Marxism is applied to all human relations and understand further the implications of disrupting human relations by imposing Marxist class conflict theory, perhaps you'd see the problem. I'm not grasping, let alone desperately. I'm explaining. I've stated before that as a former Marxist, I see this crap all too often. Any time, anywhere, you see the oppressor/oppressed paradigm, you see Marxism. It is Marxist class conflict theory. Bourgeoisie oppressors vs the proletariat victims. Not only are no other explanations given for why the have-nots dont have, alternative explanations aren't even sought out or explored. Does it mean those saying and doing this are Marxists themselves? Of course not. It does mean they've internalized the garbage and need to be more critical of what they're picking up from others.

What we call modern liberalism is heavily influenced by Marxist thought. These beliefs didn't just pop out of a vacuum.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

What we call modern liberalism is heavily influenced by Marxist thought. These beliefs didn't just pop out of a vacuum.

"Marxism" is a word used to push buttons and eliminate any chance of serious discussion.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

This is a total non-sequitur. There aren't even nearly that many "uber-rich" to remotely assert that their lifestyles are straining the world. This is just out there. What are you talking about?


Who am I labeling? If it's "labeling" to call someone who ideologically lifts from Marxism and hangs out with them in their conferences, then it is with someone who does the same with the Nazis.




I've had liberals call me a liar when I say people will just hide their money.

Trillions are already offshore, hidden away to avoid taxes....have been for decades. There is a cult of greed in our societies that has been growing rapidly since the industrial revolution.

Low taxes, right or left wing governments? It makes no difference.
Greed crosses ideological lines, economic conditions and appears to have no limits.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Trillions are already offshore, hidden away to avoid taxes....have been for decades. There is a cult of greed in our societies that has been growing rapidly since the industrial revolution.

Low taxes, right or left wing governments? It makes no difference.
Greed crosses ideological lines, economic conditions and appears to have no limits.

And if you bring it up, the indoctrinated call you a Marxist. As Warren Buffett so elegantly put it, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

[defilade]

Burn baby Burn.....NEVER CAME down!! now that's a fire.... Must be Magic Steel Yeah, I believe the Official Story.. Not!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/wo...jing.html?_r=0

[DenverBrit]

Gaffney's monkey with another simplistic analysis.

Here, read the facts.

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7


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 ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by defilade

Burn baby Burn.....NEVER CAME down!! now that's a fire.... Must be Magic Steel Yeah, I believe the Official Story.. Not!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/wo...jing.html?_r=0

Did this building also suffer major structural damage due to impact with a large commercial jet?

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And if you bring it up, the indoctrinated call you a Marxist. As Warren Buffett so elegantly put it, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

I don't know what it will take for the country to wake up to the fact that greed is concentrating huge amounts of wealth and influence in the hands of a relative few.

Buffet understands only too well what's going on......bloody Marxist whistle-blower.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Gaffney's monkey with another simplistic analysis.

Here, read the facts.

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7


ANALYSIS

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html

Hilarious.

Brit cites the FEMA paper -- which was an appendix to the FEMA report on the WTC collapse -- without comprehending its significance. Yes the FEMA study of WTC-7 steel confirmed that steel had melted -- evaporated in fact.

But not because of burning jet fuel or building fires. This is what Brit fails to comprehend.

If you read the FEMA analysis you will see that the FEMA scientists were at a loss to explain what they had found.

It is highly significant that NIST ignored their research. Which should have been a starting point for the NIST investigation. But there is no mention of the FEMA paper in the 10,000 page NIST report on the WTC collapse, released in 2005.

The materials scientists who did the FEMA paper are today among the many experts who dispute the official story.

The evaporated steel is consistent with the use of explosives.

Thanks Brit. I have posted the FEMA paper many times on this board
-- but no one in here listens. In your ignorance you have helped advance the cause of 9/11 truth.
MHG

[DenverBrit]

Gaffney, get a grip. You're spouting nonsense again.

Another of your NIST rants and distortion of the scientific facts.

There was no mystery to the eutectic mixture found at WTC7. It's only a mystery to Troofers as they circle jerk around the same discredited theories and fabricated mysteries.

This is well known and proven science, not a fairy tale of troofer weirdness.

Here's an explanation that you probably won't understand as it isn't in "Trooferspeak."

Sulfur Dioxide gas (e.g., from decomposing Gypsum wallboard) spontaneously reacts (combines) with iron metal (cold or hot), turning it into iron sulfides and iron oxides (i.e. burning the iron). The sulfides introduced into iron (sulfidation) by exposure of iron to Sulfur Dioxide gas have been used by humans (blacksmiths) for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have been understood in chemical terms for centuries, but apparently, such chemistry is not understood by BYU Professor Jones.

"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)"

For hundreds of years, Blacksmiths took advantage of this well-known property of sulfur dioxide by "welding" iron parts together over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron at its surface.
Sulfur Dioxide gas can be released by the burning of ANY ORGANIC substance, including wood, paper, flesh, fabrics, and especially plastics (carpets), and rubber (rubber is "vulcanized" by adding sulfur to it). Sulfur Dioxide gas, has a distinct impact on the nose, and is a respiratory irritant, because it forms sulfurous acid when it combines with water or moisture in the human body. Sulfur Dioxide can be further oxidized to form sulfuric acid (when added to water). High concentrations of Sulfurous fumes emanating from the piles at Ground Zero have been documented, and have been identified as a probable cause of respiratory ailments suffered by many rescue workers and cleanup crews. "One of the America's top air-quality scientists test the air around Ground Zero and tells NBC's Lisa Myers and the NBC Investigative Team he was shocked to find alarming levels of sulfuric acid and fine particles more than three weeks after the attack. (MSNBC, October 29, 2003)" http://www.asthmamoms.com/worldtrade...ticles2003.htm

Professor Jones demonstrates his ignorance of the basic "Blacksmith" chemistry of sulfidation-by-S02-from-fire with his following oblivious or dishonest statements: "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. ... While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. ... Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job."

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

[nyuk nyuk]

In a debate similar to this, I once had a Truther illiterate insist to me that there was no photographic evidence of jet engines in the ground and fuselage debris of United 93 and he linked me to this retarded Truther site and said, "This is all the pictures there are."

I found every picture he was seeking and then some. Where?

Wikipedia.

[defilade]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Did this building also suffer major structural damage due to impact with a large commercial jet?

Why no! and WTC7 didn't either.. They initial blow from the plane didn't take down WTC1-2. the Official Story is "OFFICE FIRES" Got it fruity?

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by defilade

Why no! and WTC7 didn't either.. They initial blow from the plane didn't take down WTC1-2. the Official Story is "OFFICE FIRES" Got it fruity?

Lone Bolt was a bit sloppy. What he meant to say was "Did this building also suffer major structural damage due to impact with a large commercial jet or from debris from the collapse of another building?"

As has already been discussed in this very thread, WTC7 took major structural damage from the fall of WTC1&2.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Gaffney, get a grip. You're spouting nonsense again.

Another of your NIST rants and distortion of the scientific facts.

There was no mystery to the eutectic mixture found at WTC7. It's only a mystery to Troofers as they circle jerk around the same discredited theories and fabricated mysteries.

This is well known and proven science, not a fairy tale of troofer weirdness.

Here's an explanation that you probably won't understand as it isn't in "Trooferspeak."

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

You are an idiot.

You posted the solid work of the scientists who produced the FEMA paper -- documenting the eutectic phenomenon. So far so good.

Then you post an interpretation of their work by some disinfo site --- which is total BS. No way the gypsum magically did what they claim. Hogwash.

I suggest you email the three materials scientists themselves and ask them to explain the significance of what they found in their own words. The contact info is given at the link you posted.

You will discover that they stand by what they wrote in the FEMA paper that you failed to read. They cannot explain the phenomenon n terms of the official story.

The eutectic phenomenon is consistent with the use of thermate -- a type of thermite. The addition of sodium lowers the melting point of steel -- which greatly speeds up the reaction.

The debunking 9/11 site you keep citing is pure disinfo.

It's so typical. Stupid Americans will believe anything that affirms their beliefs -- allowing them to hold onto their precious comfort zone.

MHG

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The debunking 9/11 site you keep citing is pure disinfo.

Impotent little turds like you, who love to blame everyone but themselves for their own powerlessness, and invent all sorts of grand conspiracies for the ****ty state of their lives, always call the truth "disinfo".

The idea that you'd have to grow a pair is just too psychologically jarring for you to accept.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Impotent little turds like you, who love to blame everyone but themselves for their own powerlessness, and invent all sorts of grand conspiracies for the ****ty state of their lives, always call the truth "disinfo".

The idea that you'd have to grow a pair is just too psychologically jarring for you to accept.

Gafffeny makes the same claim for any site/source that disagrees with his bull**** and fabricated fantasies.

What a pathetic little gnome he is.

[mhgaffney]

Did Brit go to the source? Did he contact the three scientists directly?

Of course not. That would require an ounce of effort --

[W*GS]

Here's what gaffe claims is the support of a NIST or FEMA or other scientist:

"Ring ring"
NIST scientist: "Hello?"
gaffe: "I'm Mark Gaffney and I'm doing some research and I've figured out that the earth is pretty much a sphere. Is that correct?"
NIST scientist: "Yes, it is."
gaffe: "Thanks!"

How gaffe reports it:

"I contacted a NIST scientist and they verified my analysis."

We call shenanigans, gaffe.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You are an idiot.

You posted the solid work of the scientists who produced the FEMA paper -- documenting the eutectic phenomenon. So far so good.

Then you post an interpretation of their work by some disinfo site --- which is total BS. No way the gypsum magically did what they claim. Hogwash.

I suggest you email the three materials scientists themselves and ask them to explain the significance of what they found in their own words. The contact info is given at the link you posted.

You will discover that they stand by what they wrote in the FEMA paper that you failed to read. They cannot explain the phenomenon n terms of the official story.

The eutectic phenomenon is consistent with the use of thermate -- a type of thermite. The addition of sodium lowers the melting point of steel -- which greatly speeds up the reaction.

The debunking 9/11 site you keep citing is pure disinfo.

It's so typical. Stupid Americans will believe anything that affirms their beliefs -- allowing them to hold onto their precious comfort zone.

MHG

Same response you give for any info that disagrees with your paranoid delusions.
Sulfur not only comes from gypsum, but from about every other material present in a typical office building.
A list of which you carefully avoid quoting....in typical troofer fashion, when it doesn't fit your paranoid delusions .

Sulfur Dioxide gas can be released by the burning of ANY ORGANIC substance, including wood, paper, flesh, fabrics, and especially plastics (carpets), and rubber (rubber is "vulcanized" by adding sulfur to it).

Show where FEMA claimed it was a 'demolition' or gave any hint that the sulfur was from thermite? They didn't, I've read their conclusions.

Idiot troofers like you distorted their findings and came up with that nonsense, and it's been debunked over and over.
Of course anyone introducing 'reality' into your grubby little world is an 'agent of disinformation.'
Even fellow troofers, who criticize your extremism, dishonesty and unbelievable leaps of logic are labelled the same.

You're a charlatan protecting your grubby attempts to make money from 911 victims. You should be ****ing ashamed.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

"Marxism" is a word used to push buttons and eliminate any chance of serious discussion.

So the word never fits, anywhere, regardless of the ideology being expressed at the time?

Every time I've mentioned the word, I've explained in what manner it fits the context and how the philosophy has spread like stink to every major aspect of social interaction. Critical theory is heavily what it is, and it is heavily present in certain soft sciences such as sociology. Open any sociology textbook and you'll find out that 2 of the founders of the field were Marxists, with one being Marx himself, and the third being a Socialist. You think that hard-left viewpoint actually has no impact on the field and that it is clean of taint from Marxist philosophical influence?!

Christ, dude.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Did Brit go to the source? Did he contact the three scientists directly?

Of course not. That would require an ounce of effort --

Post the part of their report that makes the demolition or thermite claim.

Of course you can't, because only idiot troofers like you made that absurd leap.

But go ahead, grow a pair and post their conclusions.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Did Brit go to the source? Did he contact the three scientists directly?

Of course not. That would require an ounce of effort --

How many scientists did YOU contact directly?