Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - This Has Gotta Be Some Kind Of Joke ...

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

This Has Gotta Be Some Kind Of Joke ...
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:15 am Post subject:

mistermasan wrote:

you can trust popular mechanics just like people in the day trusted popular mechanics parent company: hearst.

you know hearst, right? the creator of "yellow journalism" and fabricated wars because wars sold copy?

The editor doesn't even have a scientific background.

PM has been debunked on numerous occasions.

Thanks for calling that to attention.

PM doesn't even touch the issue MM2 and I speak of, wonder why?

NIST doesn't touch it either.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject:

mistermasan wrote:

And your father's father's father's father once owned slaves. That must make you bad today.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject:

loose_ends wrote:

The editor doesn't even have a scientific background.

And Jones is a physicist, not a chemist. He's somewhat working out of his own field.

Quote:

PM has been debunked on numerous occasions.

Not that I've seen.

Quote:

PM doesn't even touch the issue MM2 and I speak of, wonder why?

NIST doesn't touch it either.

PM hasn't touched it yet.

I thought the NIST did? They say straight up the scene is so polluted the signatures for thermite could as easily be accounted for by false positives.

Anyway, we'll see how the debate plays out in science and engineering. He is a scientist. He's researched cold fusion. He knows something or another about controversial areas of science. I hope he's learned something from his cold fusion days. If his science is good, he should take his paper to a real scientific conference and present there. More than a few scientists would be happy to have him read his paper, if only for a chance to debate.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject:

So. Molten steel. Sure. Not a hoax. IGTG, I put my nickel down. The protocols of the elders of zion, hoax or real?

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

So. Molten steel. Sure. Not a hoax.

As reported by FEMA and JOM.

So why is the head engineer of NIST unaware of molten steel?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY

Surely, he must be aware of FEMA and JOM.

Is this real science MM2?

You self admittedly haven't done your homework on this issue.

That is fine, just be careful who you trust for your 'scientific' information.

p.s.

Debunking 9-11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

-David Ray Griffin

reviews:

Quote:

"David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods. This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations? International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen."-Bill Christison, (former senior official of the CIA.)

"Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed."-Howard Zinn,( author of A People's History of the United States.)

"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."-Paul Craig Roberts, (Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration.)

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject:

loose_ends wrote:

[.

PM has been debunked on numerous occasions.

.

Care to provide these numberous debunkings?

And not just op-eds please. Scientific peer-reviewed reports that have debunked PM. And since you say "numberous"...let's say about 4 or 5 will do.

Books don't count. Anybody can write a book and say X and Y happened so the conclusion must be Z.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Books don't count. Anybody can write a book and say X and Y happened so the conclusion must be Z.

like this 'book'?

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (Paperback)
by The Editors of Popular Mechanics (Author), John McCain (Foreword), David Dunbar (Editor), Brad Reagan (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X

I think you have mistaken PM for a scientific peer reviewed journal.

Quote:

Popular Mechanics is an American magazine devoted to science and technology. It was first published January 11, 1902 by H.H. Windsor, and has been owned since the 1950s by the Hearst Corporation There is also a Latin American edition that has been published for decades and a newly formed South African version available.

Popular Mechanics features regular sections on cars, trucks, science, technology, home how-to and outdoor adventures. A recurring column is "Jay Leno's Garage" featuring observations by the famed late-night talk show host and vehicle enthusiast. Chief competitors of Popular Mechanics are Popular Science, Wired, Scientific American, Car and Driver, Road & Track, This Old House, Family Handyman and American Woodworker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Mechanics

Clearly, it is a magazine and not a scientific peer-reviewed journal.

Are you sure you have done your homework?

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject:

The conservative:

Here is an example:

From PM's website
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

Quote:

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800� to 1500�F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750�F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength � and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

So PM claims steel DIDNT melt. It is crazy to think office fires melt steel, right? Even firefighters say building fires DO NOT melt steel.

Well, what does a peer reviewed scientific journal have to say about this?

(summary below, follow links to primary sources: JOM and FEMA)

Quote:

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html#ref1
(follow this link to primary sources: FEMA report and JOM)

also, NIST claims.

Quote:

NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F.

but if we look at JOM again;

Quote:

The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000�C�hardly sufficient to melt steel at

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith�s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500�C to 650�C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich�hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000�C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750�800�C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500�C are using imprecise terminology at best.

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

so peer review journals cite melted steel and temperatures not hot enough to melt steel in the kinds of fires experienced on 9-11. So where is the extra heat coming from to melt steel? PM doesnt address that question.

so again, I trust peer reviewed scientific journals like JOM.

Do you trust magazines and books like PM?

Looks like you are right, they CAN say whatever they want.

any other issues you would like to raise? feel free 'the conservative'.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject:

The Conservative:

Here PM attempting to 'debunk' Rosie O'Donnel

Quote:

The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren�t knocked down by planes�they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened�not melted�the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O�Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word �melted�: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html

not melted?

but what about the FEMA report, and the peer-reviewed scientific journal, JOM?

Quote:

so it seems, PM is full of shit and didn't do their research either.

yellow journalism. look it up on wikipedia.

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:16 am Post subject:

Ron Paul Interviewed By Glenn Beck on CNN 12-18-07 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZXWW4C2kpE http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/december2007/191207Message.htm

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe