Josh's Adventures in Loose Change land

[Josh Redstone]

*I write this fully aware that someone from the LC boards will probably come and read it, and use it against me.

Josh's Adventures in Loose Change land (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15932&st=0&#entry7549895)

I invite everyone to come take an objective look at my time there - three posts in and I got my first warning for just posing some questions for discussion......oh, and I did state very clearly I wasn't there for trouble.

......so, who thinks I'll be getting my badge any time soon? ;)

[DavidJames]

*I write this fully aware that someone from the LC boards will probably come and read it, and use it against me.

Josh's Adventures in Loose Change land (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15932&st=0&#entry7549895)

I invite everyone to come take an objective look at my time there - three posts in and I got my first warning for just posing some questions for discussion......oh, and I did state very clearly I wasn't there for trouble.

......so, who thinks I'll be getting my badge any time soon? ;)You've already been warned and roxdog is monitoring this thread, so yes, your badge is being stiched as we speak. :D

Hey roxie - why don't you confront the NYPD directly, in person, instead of being a chickensh!t hiding in an Internet forum, big tough guy.

[T.A.M.]

Nice rebuttal to that guys very weak attempt to show you that "it was 100% CD". I wish I had of been there, I would have torn him a new one with a rebuttal.

From naznaz at LC Forum:

About the ''proof'' of 9/11 conspiracy you was not able to find here is one that I think pretty much prooves without a shadow of a doubt that it was a controlled demolition. I will explain it step by step so you can understand...

the anticipation is killing me...


1. Government says buildings collapsed because the fire of the fuel and furniture weakened the steel structure of the World Trade Center.


No, govt, via NIST report, says it was a combination of (1) Office Fires over 8-10 floors in size, started by the jet fuel and maintained via the building contents, (2) Removal of 60% or more of the "Spray on" Fireproofing from the interior of the building via the jet impacts, and (3) severing of many of the exterior and interior steel columns, as well as other impact damage, from the jet impacts, that all contributed to the collapse of the towers. All of this, and the towers still stood for almost an hour in one case, and more than an hour in the other case.


2. So they are saying the steel bent and the building collapsed because it could no longer withstand the weight of the top floors.


If you are speaking of the steel at the floors of impact, yes, the fires weakened the steel, and in the cases of the steel that was not severed by the impact, yes it bent, and sagged from the weight above.


(OK so far most people with no scientific knowledge or knowledge of how the buildings were constructed will agree)

I would say that most people, knowledge or not, would agree so far, with my rebuttal, and with elements of the original argument.


3. At ground zero (the bottom of where the buildings collapsed) there were massive pools of molten steel. This molten steel had temperatures of over 1000 degrees for weeks after 9/11! What melted this steel?

(1) define "massive". (2) No verifiable evidence of molten "Steel" has ever been shown through expert testimony or physically collected evidence. Molten "Metal" has been described by a number of witnesses, none of which have the expertese to determine which metal, from visual inspection alone.(3) how many weeks?


4. Burning kerosine (jet fuel) even when burning at optimal temperature (but was'nt because of the black smoke which meant an oxygen deprived fire) does not reach the tempeature required to melt steel. In fact its optimal burning temperature is nowhere near the temperature to melt steel.


While I appreciate your attempt to minimize the inflammatory effect of calling it "Jet Fuel", by calling it "Kerosine", lets call it what it was, an leave it at "Jet Fuel" since this is where it came from.

Define optimal Temperature wrt your reference here?

Black smoke can be seen with oxygen deprived fires, but also with fires that burn various other materials that produce "black smoke" on combustion. Its presence in a burning SKYSCRAPER, means nothing.

See my reference above to what NIST said caused the collapse, and you will see, once again, that there was much more that Jet Fuel burning. The Fuel is believed by THE EXPERTS to have only been the ignitor of the fires, which were then sustained by the contents of the buildings. These "contents" burn at much higher temps, more than high enough to decrease the strength of the steel.



5. We can conclude it was thereofre not fire from the fuel or furninture that melted this steel. You cannot change the laws of physics, this is fact. If you think otherwize why don't you try jumping out of a window to see if you can fly like superman?

No you only spoke to the jet fuel, so you can conclude nothing about these fires, as both Jet Fuel and building contents were involved, and you only addressed the fuel.

As for your silliness afterwards, I will not lower myself to address it.


6. When a building collapsed, its steel does not melt. Even people without scientific knowledge know this.

Not sure the relevance of this, unless you are very vaguely and obtusely referring to the effect of friction of the collapse on the steel. In this case, friction was a factor on heating some steel, but its relivance to the collapse is nil. Otherwise, I have no idea what the above comment is suppose to mean.

Once again, Noone said the steel melted (as in turned to liquid) prior to collapse. The earlier reports of this have long since been refuted, so just drop it.


7. So what explains this molten steel? If you did your so called research you will know the corrupt 9/11 commission offers no explanation for this. So how can you possibly believe the government's explanation if they dont even consider or explain this molten steel?

They also didnt address alien macrolasers hitting the WTCs. Why? No evidence of such. No credible evidence of molten STEEL, and also no evidence that if it did exist, that it would have any impact on the cause of the COLLAPSE of the towers. As a result, no mention of it by the 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans of the Commission.


8. One explossive substance can melt steel : thermate, which was discovered in the molten steel by a university professor.

LOL. Thermate can cut through Steel, but it does so in a unique way, and it does not cause pools of molten steel. A welders torch can melt steel also. Any fire hot enough, can melt steel, but the point is moot, as there is no SOLID EVIDENCE of melted STEEL from the WTC site.


What more proof do you need?

A whole F&*King lot more than provided above.

TAM

[Josh Redstone]

Hmmm, my post here has been placed for all to see on the LC forums......meh, that's okay :)
I am trying to stay in their good graces over there......feel free to copy and paste all you want roxdogg, I've got nothing to hide ;)

[T.A.M.]

they are all gutless cowards anyway. Not only are they afraid to come over to debate at the "ooh scary and evil" JREF, but they will not allow any such debate or opinion deviating from the streamed thought of LC mantra at their own forum. Stress not young one, they will ban you regardless of what is or isnt posted here...it is only a matter of time.

TAM

[rwguinn]

T.A.M. :
How do you get "Massive amounts" of "molten steel" at "temperatures of over 1000 degrees " , yet fires of 1000 C didn't elt the steel...

Oh--I see, he didn't say HOW MUCH OVER 1000 degrees it was...:bwall

[T.A.M.]

His argument is weak at a macroscopic level, so I didnt even bother to look at his minutia.

TAM

[CurtC]

8. One explossive substance can melt steel : thermate, which was discovered in the molten steel by a university professor.LOL. Thermate can cut through Steel, but it does so in a unique way, and it does not cause pools of molten steel. A welders torch can melt steel also.
You neglected to point out that thermite is not an explosive. But with so much idiocy to address, it's not surprising you missed a few opportunities.

[Josh Redstone]

You neglected to point out that thermite is not an explosive. But with so much idiocy to address, it's not surprising you missed a few opportunities.

Since I wasn't intending on the thread being a debate about the specifics of the colllapse, I didn't make a big deal when I addressed this and it wasn't aknowledged. Besides, if you're going to argue that thermite did it, then all the accounts of explosions and seeing bombs become meaningless.

However, I have recieved a real warning for my remarks in this very thread.
I wasn't aware that remarks on another seperate forum could merit a warning (and I am a moderator on another website, I know how the rules should work).

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe over at LC they don't really ban you just because you don't agree with their rules or theories....because that would be like.....like a dictatorship......hhhhmmm......:rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

OMG are you serious...lol

That is the first time I have EVER heard of someone getting a warning about their status on site A, for comments made on site B. This takes their retardedness to a whole new level.

TAM:jaw-dropp

[Bell]

OMG are you serious...lol

That is the first time I have EVER heard of someone getting a warning about their status on site A, for comments made on site B. This takes their retardedness to a whole new level.

TAM:jaw-dropp

I signed up at JDX's Pilots for Troof forum as 'Russell Casse' (as a nod to Shrinker's picture, see below). I told about this in our JDX thread, and got banned within minutes. My username also was changed to BellJREFTroll. I had not made a single post!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/36174504033371510.jpg

[T.A.M.]

lol

All I have to say, is the more you bother them, the less time they have to convert the poor fencesitters and naive of the world.

TAM

[Sanamas]

That's all quite funny. Especially since here at a "close minded dogmantic" skeptics forum, many of the least liked members, whether trolls, woos, or just anti-skepticism in general, have hundreds or thousands of posts.

[T.A.M.]

Christophera - 991 posts since May 2006

[StoneWT]

Gawd, warnings for posts on a different forum? This is asinine even by their usual...umm...'standards'. The funny thing is that some nut at the LC board posted this topic over there and is using it against you. Umm, the joker responsible is spreading your material when most would never have read it otherwise. Stupidity, insanity, or poor nutrition based on too much SPAM and government cheese?

[Josh Redstone]

Gawd, warnings for posts on a different forum? This is asinine even by their usual...umm...'standards'. The funny thing is that some nut at the LC board posted this topic over there and is using it against you.


Really? I haven't come accross it yet, but I'm not really that surprised. I'd drop by, but I have a feeling that everyone is reading this thread anyway.

[VBU2C5]

If I hear that "black smoke oxygen deprived fires" B.S. one more time, or the firemen saying they needed 2 lines to get control of the small pockets of fire, I am going to SCREAM!
What do they think was burning in there, acetylene? Oh, and last I heard all you needed to be a fireman, was strength, bravery, courage and tenacity, not X-Ray vision, there was no way the fireman knew what was going on several floors above.

[Hellbound]

You neglected to point out that thermite is not an explosive. But with so much idiocy to address, it's not surprising you missed a few opportunities.

Just to add to this, you shoudl also have pointed out that explosives very rarely will melt steel...unless you're talking about something like a nuclear flash. Explosives do damage primarily through shock...heat is a very, very small portion of the damage. Think about firecrackers, for that matter. Not even enough heat from their explosion to singe the paper they're wrapped in.

[Oliver]

Progress. Thank you very much, Josh.

[Josh Redstone]

Progress. Thank you very much, Josh.

I'm kind of surprised I'm not banned yet....but I haven't been that active and according to one of the mods, I'm not being that big of a 'turd.'

Say, are we interested (as a forum) in diplomatic relations with these guys?

[Oliver]

I'm kind of surprised I'm not banned yet....but I haven't been that active and according to one of the mods, I'm not being that big of a 'turd.'

Say, are we interested (as a forum) in diplomatic relations with these guys?

We could "Poll it".

[Mancman]

The error returned was:

Sorry, you are not permitted to use this board


Yet my username does not say 'banned' beneath it. Meh.

[Almo]

Well, I was going to say something over there in Josh's thread, but they have finally banned me. I said so little (11 posts), and was never argumentative. Ever. I got 25% warn, and now I can't post. Those guys truly are morons of the greatest magnitude.

ETA: and I bet they use this post to say why I'm banned, or some garbage like that. Did any of you who saw my posts think I was being excessively argumentative?

ETA: Oh yeah. Not banned. Just like the dude above, my posting priviledges have been removed.

ETA: That's all quite funny. Especially since here at a "close minded dogmantic" skeptics forum, many of the least liked members, whether trolls, woos, or just anti-skepticism in general, have hundreds or thousands of posts.

Yeah. What Sanamas said.

[eeyore1954]

I thought this was an interesting reply to you


Josh
1. Yes, I'm with you so far..like I just said, not only the government, but other professoinals and experts agree as well.....


the Decider
it is about 60 / 40.... and lets not forget what happens if they contest the official story....


I would think the ratio in the scientific community is more like 99.5 to .5.
It is certainly an overwhelming %.

[Oliver]

We could "Poll it".

Shall we? :rolleyes:

[R.Mackey]

I would think the ratio in the scientific community is more like 99.5 to .5.
It is certainly an overwhelming %.
Speaking scientifically, the percentage of scientists who are in the Denier camp is smaller than the margin of polling error... :D

Hey Loosers, tell you what -- I'll cite this, but only after you cite that "60/40" crap.

[eeyore1954]

More intersting information from Sayan


I don't agree , but just for the fun let's say you're right. Now explain to me how a weakening struture CAN collapse faster than gravity ??? PURELY IMPOSSIBLE. Make some research on it , ask any scientist you want. To resume , a natural collapse would have needed at least 5 seconds more to achieve. Laws of physics are inviolable. Only demolition can bring it down so fast.





You proof yourself highly uninformed. They found MOLTEN STEEL not molten aluminium. There's a big difference... You can even see it at visual verification. But doc Jones did extensive tests. He's a physician and have even study cold fusion. So I thinks HE KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE. Plus the aluminium melt faster , its true... But also cooled down VERY rapidly. In few hours , you can take it by hand. In WTC where talking about weeks !!



I love the he's a physician comment although I think that is probably just because English is not Sayan's native language. I hope he doesn't think he is a doctor and that qualifies him. The fact that he has studied cold fusion certainly should make him an expert at identifying molten steel from photographs. Certainly more so then say Dr Eagar who has a doctorate in I believe materials science from MIT worked in research at Bethlehem steel , has published scientific articles extensively on welding and is now a professor at MIT. etc.

Please ask him for me to document an example of demolition bringing down a building faster than gravity.

[tsig]

More intersting information from Sayan






I love the he's a physician comment although I think that is probably just because English is not Sayan's native language. I hope he doesn't think he is a doctor and that qualifies him. The fact that he has studied cold fusion certainly should make him an expert at identifying molten steel from photographs. Certainly more so then say Dr Eagar who has a doctorate in I believe materials science from MIT worked in research at Bethlehem steel , has published scientific articles extensively on welding and is now a professor at MIT. etc.

Please ask him for me to document an example of demolition bringing down a building faster than gravity.

I would love to move faster than gravity then I could escape earth.

do you have the recipie?

[Gravy]

I'm kind of surprised I'm not banned yet....but I haven't been that active and according to one of the mods, I'm not being that big of a 'turd.'

Say, are we interested (as a forum) in diplomatic relations with these guys?

Don't let those LC admins sell you short, Josh. You're an enormous turd. :D

I don't get the diplomatic relations thing. They've always been welcome to post here. Why should JREFers go begging? Personally, I'd only be interested in dealing with them if they had something new to discuss. The usual claims have been dealt with here ad nauseum.

[hellaeon]

Josh, sorry mate I tried to read and got to about the 4th response and just got angry and felt ill. I feel so dumb reading there replies. Even if you did watch all the videos they have and went there with the same post they would ban you eventually for something stupid. I really hate those idiots. Get a reality check loosers! How about you idiots ask 'any scientists' about your pet theories. @#$%EGFWEFG

[money]

More intersting information from Sayan


I love the he's a physician comment although I think that is probably just because English is not Sayan's native language. I hope he doesn't think he is a doctor and that qualifies him. The fact that he has studied cold fusion certainly should make him an expert at identifying molten steel from photographs. Certainly more so then say Dr Eagar who has a doctorate in I believe materials science from MIT worked in research at Bethlehem steel , has published scientific articles extensively on welding and is now a professor at MIT. etc.

Please ask him for me to document an example of demolition bringing down a building faster than gravity.

That Sayan thing has gotta be a parody... ?

[Gravy]

That Sayan thing has gotta be a parody... ?
Steven Jones will be needing a new angle soon. "Why, indeed, did cold fusion bring down the WTC buildings" sounds just about right.

[LashL]

Steven Jones will be needing a new angle soon. "Why, indeed, did cold fusion bring down the WTC buildings" sounds just about right.

Probably so. And that would be about revision #85 or so without ever referencing the changes in versions 1 through 84 ... funny way for a "scientist" to document his work, isn't it?

[tsig]

Steven Jones will be needing a new angle soon. "Why, indeed, did cold fusion bring down the WTC buildings" sounds just about right.

Cold fusion would account for it all.

It becomes clear.

[T.A.M.]

S. Jones is older than me, so the cold fusion class must have been dropped from the medical school curiculum before I got in...lol

TAM:D

[Cuddles]

Steven Jones will be needing a new angle soon. "Why, indeed, did cold fusion bring down the WTC buildings" sounds just about right.

But if the fusion was cold, where did the molten steel come from? Obviously there have been new advances in super-stealth-high-temperature-cold fusion.

[eeyore1954]

But if the fusion was cold, where did the molten steel come from? Obviously there have been new advances in super-stealth-high-temperature-cold fusion.


When cold fusion comes into contact with con fusion usually high temperatures occur at the least. Sort of like matter meeting antimatter.