[Peace-discuss] Occam?

Wed May 9 09:29:43 CDT 2007

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chuck Minne 
  To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 2:24 AM
  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Occam?

  In my view, you miss the point when you say the simplest explanation is explosives but that that is nullified by the conspiracy in the background. Look at it this way: You are an alien from another planet who knows all there is to know about earthly science, but on the other hand, nothing about how or why humans act the way they do - you know nothing of the human condition including motives, desires, or politics, just to name a few.

  Now you review the events of 9-11 based strictly on the physical evidence of what happened on 9-11 and thereafter. You are going to say explosives brought down the three buildings;

    False.

   it is not only the simplest explanation

    Wrong.

   but also the most scientifically logical.

    Nope.

   In fact, I am quite sure that if asked about the possibility that the fire was responsible, you would say that it was impossible for the fires to have made the buildings collapse the way that they did.

    Sorry, no.

  I suspect that Bill Ockham would agree with my hypothetical alien. Further, I suspect that any scientist, who studies the events of 9-11 without emotion interfering, also agrees.

    Then you'll have many cites from real scientists in the right fields, from non-9/11-k00ksites.

   In fact, I think it is safe to say that very large portions of the population of countries who don't have troops in Iraq also agree.

    Very large portions also agree on astrology and creationism.

  Now if you want to talk about the happenings before 9-11, that is an entirely different matter and truly has no bearing on what physically caused the buildings to collapse. I hesitate to go there, because it is truly unrelated to the physics and chemistry of 9-11. However, I would suggest that you study what the buildings' occupants had to say about the events in the buildings in the time leading up to 9-11 and you might reconsider your opinion that placing explosives was more complex than learning to fly airliners, then hijacking them in a very coordinated fashion,

    Um, not really coordinated, no.

   then eluding an air defense command that could instantly locate and escort a jet

    False

   containing a dead or dying golfer and crew, and finally hitting the buildings. I could go on and on about pre 9-11, but that is not physics and chemistry - and the laws of physics and chemistry were violated roughshod by the official explanation.

    No, I'm afraid not.

  Here is a simple example, and there are many.

  This is a photo of molten metal cascading out of the WTC. Thermite/thermate reacts with steel to create molten iron. But even the official story admits that the building never got even close to being hot enough to make molten iron. Therefore this can't be molten iron. But molten iron glows yellow. That is a problem.

  Well, they solved that problem by saying that this is molten aluminum. The problem is that molten aluminum never turns yellow but is always silver in color.

    Wrong.  Any substance at the right temperature will glow yellow.  Steel, aluminum, plastic, wood, water.  Any form of matter  at all.  See 'blackbody radiation' and 'color temperature'.  It's exactly this kind of hokey horsesh-t that infuses the entire 9/11 conspiracy movement.  Fact is, it's not even necessary for the aluminum to glow yellow.

   Read the following and you can imagine our pal Billy Ockham spinning in his grave. And even if it is a stream of burning carpet and computers, shouldn't we see at least a little silver, if it is truly aluminum?

    From ~1000 feet away?  Frankly, there could be plenty of it, in the very object in that crappy photo.

   Does anyone really think that this is a cascade of silver aluminum chock-full of burning carpet and computers to the point that no silver aluminum is visible at all?

    Now this is just stupid.  Prove to me none is visible.  In fact, just for fun, I'll claim that's what's in the dark band next to the yellow.  Now what?

   And if you think this is bad, consider Building 7: The commission virtually ignored what caused it to fall; and the explanations put forward by the apologists are a maze of complexity and mumbo-jumbo.

    Um, no.  They're normal for any large fire.

   But I digress; here is what NIST said about the molten aluminum with the impossible yellow glow:
 The National Institute of Standards and Technology report states:

  "NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum
  alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475
  degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular
  alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees
  Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to
  ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication
  that the material flowing from the tower was burning. 

   Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the
  molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially
  burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions
  and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning
  in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag
  formation on the surface"

  (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm ).

    Looks fine to me.  Where's the real problem?

  Perhaps you fall into the same category as those who prefer to see the laws of physics and chemistry violated than to admit to a truth that is almost too unpleasant to face.

    Don't they call this psychological transference?

   Sort of like the seven-year-old who doesn't want to admit that reindeers don't fly and a man dressed in red doesn't come down the chimney with presents. He realizes that he has been lied to by loving parents who just want to see him have fun and be happy.

  Well, we have been lied to by an evil government who just wants to us believe in Arab terrorism so they can continue their unspeakable atrocities. For you to accept that the molten metal is aluminum is to make a mockery out of truth,

    Utterly ridiculous assertion.  No physics backup whatsoever.

    BTW, for some reason, just about everyone I talk to would LOVE it if it were proven BushCo was responsible.  All this 'refusing to face unpleasant facts' is typical conspiracy nut rattleheaded BS.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070509/6d2663b3/attachment.htm