Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Nyarlathotep and Tin-man
If we are talking about building 7, 2 floors were bombproof for the NYC emergency management. Perhaps the free fall was fast enough to destroy those 2 floors and then again perhaps not. Bombs and free falls will have different results. If the 2 bunkers were bomb proof can a demolition bring it down and how much stronger do those demolition bombs have to be? So many questions but I have no answer. I still believe there are loopholes on both sides of the fence. I'll wait to see what the new verdict is and then examine the new evidence.
Ahem... don't mind me!
*sneaks up to Cog and Tin Man with a huge reel of tin foil*
Nothing to see here....
@Random Re: "*sneaks up to Cog and Tin Man with a huge reel of tin foil*"
....*pointing to hat and body*... Hey, save your foil. I got this covered already... *chuckle*...
How does altering a heat source, alter the temperature at which a separate material melts? That would be like saying: if you use pine wood in your wood stove, it makes the water boil at 75 degrees centigrade instead of 100 centigrade. It don't work that way. That is how crazy 9-11 "truthers" are. As far as I can tell, all of their claims are more or less like this. Just good enough to fool the people who already want to believe.
If you find yourself wanting to believe something: you should be more critical of the claim, not less. Confirmation bias can be insidious.
@Nyarlathotep: Even if building 7 was damaged by fire. It would NEVER collapse at free fall speed into its own basement. That, like the collapse of the other two buildings, just makes no sense at all. The only way we know of to get steel framed buildings like these to collapse in the exact way these buildings collapsed is by using controlled demolitions. These collapses defy all that has previously been known about steel building structural fires. The facts are all there supporting controlled demolition.
None of the buildings that day collapsed into their own basement. And what "speed" do you expect objects to fall at near the surface of the Earth? Can you be precise?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The structures of those buildings were unique; you're in apples and oranges territory.
/e They were essentially supported by bundled enormous columns in the center of the buildings. As any child knows, when metal gets hot, it loses strength pretty rapidly. Soon it can't support its own weight, and the building collapses towards the failed supports; towards the center of the building. Which is very similar to what happens when a building is brought down by explosives. You cut all the supports in the center first to cause the building to collapse inward. That is why it looked like a controlled demolition to the people who wanted to believe it was an inside job.
The question you ought to be asking is: how did I (Nyar) know that was bullshit in like 2 seconds; when apparently you were bamboozled enough by it to post it here? If I learned that I had swallowed such a lie; hook, line, and sinker; I'd be doing some self reflection to figure out why. That is what I recommend.
@Nyarlathotep: " The European Scientific Journal " I did thank you for your correction. I did not look up the source and have heard this many times. I took it for true. I found the original article and posted a link but my post is gone. Some scientific newspaper who published it with disclaimers "This is not the usual stuff we print." etc.... You were correct regarding the journal.
I am waiting for the investigation prior to changing my mind. The evidence seems to be with the 9/11 truthers.
@Nyarlathotep: Even if building 7 was damaged by fire. It would NEVER collapse at free fall speed into its own basement. That, like the collapse of the other two buildings, just makes no sense at all. The only way we know of to get steel framed buildings like these to collapse in the exact way these buildings collapsed is by using controlled demolitions. These collapses defy all that has previously been known about steel building structural fires. The facts are all there supporting controlled demolition.
THERMITE:
"When you put surfer into thermite, it makes the metal melt at a lower temperature, so instead of melting at 1558 degrees, it melts aproximately 988 degrees and you get sulfidation and oxidation in the attacked steel."
This is not simply heat but chemical corrosion combined with heat. This does indeed cause the metal to melt at a lower temperature.
"Scientists go on to say in the FIMA that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 are very unusual events.
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=0lDdBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=%E2...
RE: "How does altering a heat source, alter the temperature at which a separate material melts?" You combine the heat with a highly corrosive element like thermite in an Exothermic reaction.
You do realize that is a quote/link to a pseudoscience book, right? Surely you know that book was written by an apologist, and it's primary claim is that science has proven god exists? What made you think I would take anything seriously that appeared in such a text?
/e For instance, the title and first sentence of the section you quoted to me reads:
I assume that is a reference to the Beast from the book of Revelations.
@Nyarlathotep: And that's the rub. I just don't agree. The buildings were dropped with controlled demolitions IMO and the evidence supports the conclusion.
The ground section was made to withstand the structural failure of the two top sections. The middle section was built to withstand the structural failure of the top section.
I remain unconvinced that jet fuel and flame retardant office structures were the cause of the collapse. I don't see it.
Cool. But don't sniff the glue of the 9-11 "truthers". They are idiots, plain an simple. Look at the non-sense you've repeated from them in just this thread. Get new material, because the stuff coming from the truthers is fucking insane.
/e oh and adding sulfur to thermite doesn't change the melting point of other objects. Melting points are determined by the lattice of the solid. Adding a chemical to your thermite ain't going to change that; what you are repeating is pseudoscience.
@Cognostic
90+ percent of the jet fuel was burned within seconds of impact. And compared to the size and scale of the buildings, there really was not all that much jet fuel. Planes fly with just enough fuel to do the trip + some buffer for emergency, planes almost never take off with a full load of fuel. Like gasoline, when jet fuel is "aerosolized" by impact it spreads out quickly into a "mist" of vapors that is HIGHLY HIGHLY flammable. Even with something as combustible as jet fuel, it is all about the oxygen ratio.
Put a bunch of gasoline in an empty gallon milk jug (filling it completely full to the brim) and drop a match. What happens? Explosion? Nope. The top may light on fire, but be more like a candle then an explosion. Now take a tiny bit of gasoline put it in a spray gun that shoots it out in a tiny mist, and wham you got a flamethrower when you apply an open flame.
"Flame retardant materials" Now if you want to find a grand conspiracy, I would look there. Most flame retardant materials are not really flame retardant at all, they just delay initial ignition by a 10-50% or so and release toxic fumes as they do so. And they certainly are not rated for the type of fire that occured in the twin towers a heat so intense even human bodies were "fuel" for the fire.
Also there was no precedent to the twin towers collapse. As we all know this has never occurred before in buildings of this scale, engineers that know what they are talking about have examined the twin tower collapse, the unique structure of the twin towers actually sealed it's fate for this type of collapse, while like many other large steel and concrete buildings that relies on it's elevator shaft core for most of the structure support, the twin towers also relied to some extent on the structural rigidity of it's outside structures. Structures setup in a way that allowed expansion in the heat to bend. And we all know fires are a gruesome but effective way to bring down structures, even concrete and steel ones.
And any engineer can tell you if it fails at any one point, the extreme forces of a single collapse of floors will set off near instant collapse of additional floors, due forces being multiplied exponentially. (Ever jump on a weight scale and see the number bounce up to "max" briefly?) Especially when the structure is compromised as it was due to the fire these are forces that can set off total collapse. It is possible to overbuild/engineer the structure to withstand some collapse, (as evidence by a large commercial plane hitting the building dead on and the building still standing.) But not when the structural integrity is so compromised due to a sustained intense multi floor fire where everything ignited due to the extreme heat of the initial collision. (Evidenced by other plane not hitting the building dead on, but yet both buildings still collapsed.
The fire and heat was extremely intense. People of sound mind and not suicidal just an hour before, jumped knowingly to their deaths to escape the flames and intense heat that had these people trapped.
We all know heat rises, the hottest part of a fire? The area directly above it. If the planes hit the very top of the buildings, there is a good chance the buildings would have never collapsed. The heat would of gone up to the sky instead of cooking the floors and their structural rigidity of the floors above.
Examine the evidence we all have. Large commercial planes hit the buildings, the buildings burned and smoldered, and then collapsed later. The planes did not bring the buildings down, the intense sustained hour long fire resulting from the plane impact did. (102 minutes for north tower.)
The other buildings did not really pancake, like a succesful controlled demolition would look like. Here is a picture for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#/media/...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@LogicFTW: Put a bunch of gasoline in an empty gallon milk jug (filling it completely full to the brim) and drop a match.
DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!
I actually did as a kid, I was a bit of a pyromaniac as a kid. Well it was not a gallon milk jug, instead it was a 20 oz pepsi bottle. I was wanting a large fireball, and got little more than a candle. (I was lucky I waited long enough for the gasoline vapors to mostly disperse before I tried lighting it.) I actually had to drop 4 matches before it finally landed in the right spot and "caught on fire."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aXhlf-6dlU
I'm just convinced by speeches like this.
Truncated from RationalWiki:
The 9/11 Truth Drinking Game:
-----------------------------
Common keywords and phrases
Examples: "controlled demolition," "unanswered questions," "I'm just asking questions," "no wreckage at the Pentagon" etc.
You will quickly die of alcohol poisoning if you use booze. For these, take 1 shot of your non-alcoholic beverage of choice, and score 1 point.
-----------------------------
If the Truther mentions or cites Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Take 1 shot of either your favorite well brand or Pabst Blue Ribbon and score 5 points.
(the quoted link is to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website)
-----------------------------
2x bonus if the Truther invokes Richard "Box Boy" Gage.
(the quoted link is to a speech by Richard Gage)
-----------------------------
If the Truther mentions thermite or nanothermite as the way one or more WTC buildings were destroyed
Take 2 shots of your favorite well brand or your favorite domestic beer and score 10 points.
@ Cog
You scored pretty high, imo. But there is room for improvement, namely: you would need to blamed 9/11 attack on the Jews, as that is what most of the remaining points seem to require.
@Nyar
Howdy. Hey, listen, just to maybe help put your mind at ease a bit, I do not consider myself to be any sort of "conspiracy theorist." I AM, however, a considerably skeptical and cynical guy, especially in regards to politicians, high-ranking government officials, and our "illustrious" government in general. In a nut shell, I don't trust any of those fuckers any further than I can throw my house. That being said, I am also very much aware there are some rather far-fetched "theories" floating around out there being pushed by individuals/groups that have their own agendas. (And, yes, I have heard some doozies.) Nevertheless, despite some of the "crazies" out there, one has to admit there have been things suggested that definitely cast considerable legitimate doubt over the "official story." Basically, I am not totally convinced by our government's version of the events. Bear in mind, I deployed three different times into a combat zone as a result of 9/11, and lost a few friends along the way. And although there is absolutely nothing I can do to change that one way or the other, it would just be nice (in a way) to know the actual truth. Realistically, though, I know that will never happen.
@Tin-Man
My opinions are similar to yours. Personally, I do not believe that there was an explosion or conspiracy to assist the terrorists. But I have not closed off the opinion that members of the law enforcement agencies had an inkling what would happen, and allowed it to play out. The building coming down was just a little extra icing on the cake.
For the same reason Pearl Harbor happened. The leaders in Washington knew a war was coming, and that they were up against an isolationist public opinion. What better way to swing public opinion quickly than to have something like that play out?
Here is an example how those mofos in Washington think. Eisenhower proposed an open border policy so that the US could overfly Russia to check on the state of their military. Of course Russia did not agree. But there was the space option, but legally a huge question mark. But the US space programs did not get the support they needed, and in 4th October 1957 (while Eisenhower was serving in office) Sputnik was launched. There was the legal precedent, Russia did it first. And of course, in a very short period of time the US caught up in rocket development and reconnaissance satellites have been observing Russia since then.
Eisenhower sacrificed the prestige of being in space first, but gained the permanent opportunity to use reconnaissance satellites.
On a side note, the Hubble Space telescope was just a development of the Keyhole class of reconnaissance satellites. Change how the mirror focuses, change the sensors, point it into space, and viola, Hubble.
@Nyarlathotep: DAMN JEWS!!! :-)
I want to see an investigation and I believe the evidence is there for controlled demolition. ( That's as far as I go.)
I know I've mentioned my Jewish roots but I swear I had nothing to do with it. I was in a different city ....lol.
I can't speak for the others.
All joking aside I too am curious to see the outcome of the new investigation. The original story has too many holes in it.
Does anyone recall the interview with New York's chief of the Fire department. Years before the collapse he was asked if a fire can bring down the towers under any circumstance including a plane crash and his reply was no. I have tried to find that interview and gave up after many days of research. At this point, without that evidence I know it is merely hearsay and I can't offer any proof. Just wondering if anyone else recalls that.
If you are referring to Vincent Dunn, why don't you read what he has to say on the matter.
I believe there is a subset of flat earthers who don't believe Australia exists. It's really a small amusement park and all the "citizens" are actors.
@ DF
Bloody hell, mate. You got us bang to rights. Every Australian is a member of Actors Equity including the Koalas and Drop Bears. The only holdouts are the bloomin' spiders. Wombats have their own division as the costumes are buggers to get in an out of.
The Great White sharks are all South African and just come down here on call.
Our Prime mInister is actually a Frill Necked Lizard and our Home Affairs Chief Fascist is actually a potato that we dressed up for Hallowe'en.
So lets throw another fake prawn on the barbie, use the "call that a knife?' to cut up the buffalo steak and sit around with our Kangaroo chums playing the didge watching the silly tourists enjoy the fake dawn.
@DF and Old Man
Wait.... Australia is an amusement park???... Hmmm.... So, uh, how long are the lines for the rides? Oh, and what are the usual park hours?
@ TM
Jeez cobber, there's no bleedin' hours you great galah....you just come on down, park yourself in the dunny and wait......that'll get you a ride....
A "dunny" is an outhouse right?
This is the first amusement park I ever heard of that I am actually a bit apprehensive to take the "rides."
Also I can see the need for seperation of labor on the Koala's since they all have chlamydia right?
@ Logic FTW
Yep, a dunny is a toilet...and you will get an interesting ride if you sit in a public dunny for a while, but I think that's a world wide phenomenon.
Yeh, koalas are bastards. I prefer a Chuditch as a house pet meself...but you gotta be careful around the Bunyip....
@Dancing Fool: I believe there is a subset of flat earthers who don't believe Australia exists.
Well that's just foolish. Without Australia to counterbalance the lands of the Northern Hemisphere, the whole globe would tip over and turn upside down.
Pages