Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastr

[Parker2112]

gulli.com: Did anybody who is not involved in the Truther movement double-check your studies? Like independent blasters or producers of Nano Thermite?
Dr. Niels Harrit: The paper was peer-reviewed as it is routinely done with scientific publications.
gulli.com: Who did this peer-reviews? Can you explain at least which kind of people it has been? Officials from your university?
Dr. Niels Harrit: The referees are anonymous. They are not officials from my university. No one at my university knows more about this than I do. The University is not responsible for the research. Only the authors are.

[Parker2112]

And you obviously didn't read the blog. The dude is fairly predisposed to believe anything but the NIST report. That he's pointing this out is fairly damning, dude.

Was the blog peer reviewed? :nope Cant trust it at all.

[Parker2112]

Can you show me any peers who have since published papers critical of this paper in a scientific journal?

Stephen Jones seems to be saying the paper was refereed, and that it is up to peers to show him to be a fraud.

[Wild Cobra]

Cosmic-It is really annoying when a poster brings engineering facts & logic to a conspiracy theory thread…
LOL...

True. They just can't stand the truth and logic.

[TeyshaBlue]

Can you show me any peers who have since published papers critical of this paper in a scientific journal?

Stephen Jones seems to be saying the paper was refereed, and that it is up to peers to show him to be a fraud.

Sure. I can just say they are anonymous. Seems to meet your criteria.

[Wild Cobra]

You aren't addressing what they found. The scientists finding nano particles in the WTC dust, I mean.
Asked and answered in other threads. One probable reason for this is the mixing of iron oxide (rust) and particulate aluminum (airplane) mixing together. That basic therite Those two materials.

[Parker2112]

Sure. I can just say they are anonymous. Seems to meet your criteria.

then show the article at least. but wait, there is none. :nope

As for the anonymous peers, lets pin down whether or not that is an accepted practice or not before we carry on.

[Wild Cobra]

Can you show me any peers who have since published papers critical of this paper in a scientific journal?

Stephen Jones seems to be saying the paper was refereed, and that it is up to peers to show him to be a fraud.
Maybe it's to laughable to spend time on...

[Wild Cobra]

as far as I know, they are talking about nano aluminum and iron oxide, with potentially other compounds in the mix.
Yet they don't give a breakdown of the other materials, proving they are full of shit.

[Parker2112]

WHAT IS A REFEREED/PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE

With some exceptions a refereed article is one that is blind reviewed and has two external reviewers. The blind review requirement and the use of external reviewers are consistent with the research criteria of objectivity and of knowledge.

The use of a blind review process means that the author of the manuscript is not made known to the reviewers. With the large number of reviewers and journals, it is also likely that the name of the reviewers for a particular manuscript is not made known to the author. Thus, creating a double blind review process. Since the author and reviewers are frequently unknown, the manuscript is judged on its merits rather than on the reputation of the author and/or the author's influence on the reviewers.

The use of two (2) reviewers permits specialists familiar with research similar to that presented in the paper to judge whether the paper makes a contribution to the advancement of knowledge. When two reviewers are used it provides a broader perspective for evaluating the research. This perspective is further widened by the discussion between the editor and reviewers in seeking to reconcile these perspectives.

In contrast to these criteria, some journals that have attained a reputation for quality do not use either a blind review process or external reviewers. The most notable is Harvard Business Review that uses an editorial review process. Its reputation for quality results from its readership whose continual subscription attests to its quality.

In addition to these criteria, some researchers include the journal's acceptance rate in their definition of a refereed journal. However, the method of calculating acceptance rates varies among journals. Some journals use all manuscripts received as a base for computing this rate. Other journals allow the editor to choose which papers are sent to reviewers and calculate the acceptance rate on those that are reviewed that is less than the total manuscripts received. Also, many editors do not maintain accurate records on this data and provide only a rough estimate.

Furthermore, the number of people associated with a particular area of specialization influences the acceptance rate. If only a few people can write papers in an area, it tends to increase the journal's acceptance rate.

Although the type of review process and use of external reviewers is one possible definition of a refereed article, it is not the only criteria. Judging the usefulness of a journal to the advancement of knowledge requires the reader to be familiar with many journals in their specialization and make their own evaluation.



http://www.unf.edu/library/guides/refereedarticle.html

[Parker2112]

looks like an accepted practice at first blush.

[Wild Cobra]

WHAT IS A REFEREED/PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE

---snip---
http://www.unf.edu/library/guides/refereedarticle.html
What's the likelihood the reviewers, being familiar with the topic, lean toward the conspiracy too?

[Parker2112]

times up for today. TB if you are interested I will pick this up later. just know I have no horse in this race.

[Wild Cobra]

Boom.
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

:p:
I'd say the four citizens that brought in the samples conspired to start a conspiracy theory.

[ChumpDumper]

I am telling you I only know what I saw in these. I have never investigated thermite. ever. I stumbled upon these interviews and I watched because I had heard the nano thermite particles had been found months back, but never heard anything else about it.

As for the premise that the only way to make an effetive argument is to come up with a complete picture of how demolition was carried out: this is bullshit. Chump is very good at this...prove it from a-z or shut up. But that is bs.

If this was carried out by a rogue faction within the govt/military, you WOULD NOT be able to trace their steps from A to Z. No way. So to argue this is bs.All I am asking to is an A to Z narrative using all the conspiracy theories you espouse.

No one has done so.

And they never will.

Because they know they are full of shit.

[ChumpDumper]

PS:

Thermite cutting steel looks like...
http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/9-11_thermite2.jpg

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/45_thermite2_2960.jpg

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkPkBj8yIHJxjsQkgAW_9rdUPAgoSg2 UWdv_1KBGMfbWR-xNUmkg

http://www.debunking911.com/moltenflow.jpgUh, picture two is 100% not thermite cutting steel.

You ruined your "cred."

[Parker2112]

Uh, picture two is 100% not thermite cutting steel.

You ruined your "cred."

didnt say it was. I said thats what it looks like. Which it does. I stand redeemed.

[Parker2112]

All I am asking to is an A to Z narrative using all the conspiracy theories you espouse.

No one has done so.

And they never will.

Because they know they are full of shit.

so a cop has to know exactly how a crime was committed, from a all the way to z, to say there was actually a crime?

Horseshit chump. You know better.

[ChumpDumper]

didnt say it was. I said thats what it looks like. Which it does. I stand redeemed.It looks like steel getting cut by not thermite.

Because that's what it is.

You are claiming things look like thermite reactions when they can easily be explained as other, much more likely things as clearly shown in picture two.


so a cop has to know exactly how a crime was committed, from a all the way to z, to say there was actually a crime?

Horseshit chump. You know better.A DA has to prove a theory of how a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

I reasonably doubt the shit out of this stupid superdupernanonachothermite theory.

[Parker2112]

We aren't trying to lock anybody up here chump. We dont have to know a to z in order to warrant a new investigation.

HHUUUUGGGGEEEEE difference.

And you know this....
http://beehivehairdresser.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/chris-tucker.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

so a cop has to know exactly how a crime was committed, from a all the way to z, to say there was actually a crime?

Horseshit chump. You know better.
Point is, there is no proof of a conspiracy. It's just a hypothesis, and a poor one at that, because none of the evidence is good.

[Wild Cobra]

Parker....

It's exceptionally bad on your part when Chump and I agree against you!

[Parker2112]

It looks like steel getting cut by not thermite.

Because that's what it is.

You are claiming things look like thermite reactions when they can easily be explained as other, much more likely things as clearly shown in picture two.

A DA has to prove a theory of how a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

I reasonably doubt the shit out of this stupid superdupernanonachothermite theory.

the fact that gellato isnt ice cream doesnt mean I cant say it looks like ice cream. The fact that stale sprite isnt water doesnt prevent me from saying it looks like water. I can say that and be right. I am trying to educate the reader here. gmab.

As for the stupidity of the theory, you seem to be scared shitless of the theory, cuz you refuse to check it out in any depth.

you just keep reciting the same bullshit about paint, which the paper disputes on page 1. And that dude is a published scientist. and you are not.

[Wild Cobra]

you just keep reciting the same bullshit about paint, which the paper disputes on page 1. And that dude is a published scientist. and you are not.

I suppose you believe Al Gore invented the internet also.

[Parker2112]

Point is, there is no proof of a conspiracy. It's just a hypothesis, and a poor one at that, because none of the evidence is good.

you arent up on the science at issue. Talk about nano thermite or your just blowing hot wind.

[Wild Cobra]

you arent up on the science at issue. Talk about nano thermite or your just blowing hot wind.
Never seen anything from my scientific approach of being skeptical until proof shows otherwise. All your evidence is explainable as something else, hence, not proof.

I suppose next, you will be talking about UFO's.

[Wild Cobra]

Parker, don't you know...

This is what happened...

The Islamic radical stole Asgard beaming technology, and planted the thermite on the new technology. That's the only way they could do it without being found out!

[ChumpDumper]

the fact that gellato isnt ice cream doesnt mean I cant say it looks like ice cream. The fact that stale sprite isnt water doesnt prevent me from saying it looks like water. I can say that and be right. I am trying to educate the reader here. gmab.

As for the stupidity of the theory, you seem to be scared shitless of the theory, cuz you refuse to check it out in any depth.You don't think I've already read up on this?

That's why I don't have to read anymore.


you just keep reciting the same bullshit about paint, which the paper disputes on page 1. And that dude is a published scientist. and you are not.So what exactly is the chemical makeup of the material?

Show us all what it actually is, and then I will believe it isn't paint and rust.

[ChumpDumper]

We aren't trying to lock anybody up here chump. We dont have to know a to z in order to warrant a new investigation.Investigate what?

And who would investigate?

The government?

An "independent" group given money by the government?

More bullshit.

Give me a believable narrative that contains everything you currently believe about 9/11.

This request goes out to everyone who doesn't believe more or less the accepted theory.

I'm waiting.

I'm sure all I will get is whining. That's all I've gotten in the past.

[Blake]

You rule it out, and yet Danish scientists have found it in the rubble. where it should not be. Sounds like you and Neils need to have a beer.

Danish scientists?

lol

[mouse]

Danish scientists?

lol


I wouldn't be lol'ng if I was you, those same scientists you laugh at are the ones who busted Americans trying to pass off petrified wood as a NASA moon rock.


7ZO6JPsszrY



If this country can lie about walking on the moon I am sure lying about a few buildings in NY is not a problem.

[Parker2112]

Investigate what? Presence of thermite for starters. If other scientists confirm the work of this Dane, then we need to answer the question as to how it got there. Thats not real hard is it?

At least not as hard as it is to get anyone to address the issue.

My take: The silence in MSM is telling. I think people are scared to question the official line. Professionals and people with something to lose are scared, if you ask me.

We need to see that stigma removed so we can get some honesty, not just an intimidated silence. I think we have a lot more skeptics than we can account for in the current climate. I think people are afraid to lose careers and worse if they start to resemble looney truthers.


And who would investigate?
The government?
An "independent" group given money by the government?

How about unpaid appointments going to veterans who retired from law enforcement and have a minimum of five children? Joe the Plumber maybe? Has to be someone completely outside the political process. So no Joe the Plumber. see next answer.


More bullshit. Actually, if we need it done, we need it done. Just because there isnt a ready supply of independent investigators immune to political pressure doesnt mean we just wish the questions away.


Give me a believable narrative that contains everything you currently believe about 9/11.

Are you afraid to debate this single issue, Chump? Are you so afraid that you need everyone to pour out their own flawed theories so you can do battle with straw foes?

I dont have a theory, I have questions. I think the first commission did a piss poor job, kicked aside credible testimony and was manipulated up and down.

[Blake]

I wouldn't be lol'ng if I was you, those same scientists you laugh at are the ones who busted Americans trying to pass off petrified wood as a NASA moon rock.

If this country can lie about walking on the moon I am sure lying about a few buildings in NY is not a problem.

lol Danish scientists

lol Dutch moon rocks

[Blake]

Presence of thermite for starters. If other scientists confirm the work of this Dane,

it's been a while, was the name of the Dane scientist 'Neils Harrit'?


then we need to answer the question as to how it got there. Thats not real hard is it?

if the building was detonated, what do you think is a reason for the bad guy(s) flying planes into the buildings?

[Parker2112]

it's been a while, was the name of the Dane scientist 'Neils Harrit'?



if the building was detonated, what do you think is a reason for the bad guy(s) flying planes into the buildings?

yes. And I cant say. I can think of tons of scenarios, but they all amount to guessing.

[mouse]

if the building was detonated, what do you think is a reason for the bad guy(s) flying planes into the buildings?

It was no big secret the building was going to be attacked Larry Silverstein wanted to make sure he could cash in on it. Why fix a building you wanted to get rid of already.

You act if though America has never done this tactic before.

I thought you knew about American history?



http://newsfall.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pearl-harbor.jpg



History of
American False Flag Operations

The leaders of smaller and less industrialised nations are not madmen (whatever the media claims). They also are generally better informed than their citizens. In a war an attacker does not need equal forces compared to the enemy. The attacker needs a 5-fold local superiority, or better. No one begins wars without very definite objectives and a quick victory in sight. If a war with more even military balance erupts, someone has been mislead and walked into a trap (usually arranged by third party).

After the American war of Independence (1776-1779), and an English challenge to that independence (1812-1814) no single nation has planned an offensive war against the USA. It is probable that a strong coalition of Anglo-French-led European nations planned to split the USA into two states through diplomatic recognition of the Confederate states possibly followed up by naval blockade embargoing the Union. At that time the British Empire was the strongest naval power, and the French the second strongest. The events led, however, into the Civil War (1860-1865) and due to the Russian intervention 1863 (1863) on the Union's side, those European plans were quietly abandoned.

Mexican wars 1819, 1846-48: Long series of operations, commencing with the annexion of Florida (1819) and followed by a declaration of independence of Texas from Mexico (1836). Provocative troop movements near the U.S. southern border caused an incident which led to war. (It is said the US built a fortification 150 km inside the Mexican border.) The annexation of Texas by the USA and the conquest of California, New Mexico, and nearby territories followed. Mexico had a weak government at that time, because after Napoleon conquered Spain (1809) their former colonies soon revolted. Mexico had been a colony of the Spanish kingdom but now they revolted and formed a republic. There were a series of revolts, not just one.

Spanish-American war, 1898: The surprise explosion of the battleship Maine at Havana, Cuba. 255 of the crew died. The Hearst press accused the Spanish, claiming that the explosion was caused by a remote-controlled mine. The USA declared war on Spain, and conquered Philippines, Guam and Cuba. Subsequent investigations revealed that the explosion originated inside the Maine and that it was either an accident, such as a coal explosion, or some type of time bomb inside the battleship. Divers investigating the shipwreck found that the armour plates of the ship were blown bending outwards, not inwards.

World War I, 1914-1918: A U-boat torpedo hit ocean liner Lusitania near Britain and some 1200 people, including 128 Americans, on board lost their lives. Subsequent investigations revealed that the major explosions were inside the Lusitania, as it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of artillery shells and rifle ammunition, as well as other explosives on behalf of Morgan banking corporation to help their clients, the Britain and the France. It was against US laws to transport war materials and passengers in the same ship.

World War 2, 1939-1945: A U-boat torpedo hit the ocean liner Athenia near Britain with some 1100 passengers, of which 311 were Americans. The sea was calm and only 118 people on board lost their lives. The ship was sunk because it behaved like a military transport, blackened out and zigzagging. This incident wasn't enough to precipitate war, and the Germans also refused to be provoked by several American acts of war. Americans confiscated German merchant ships, and Americans started to support the British with various lend-lease items, US volunteer pilots joined the RAF and some RAF pilots were trained in the US, US gave the British 50 old but usable WW1 destroyers and 20 modern torpedo boats, tanks, light bombers, fighter aircraft like P-40s and so on. American destroyers also escorted the convoys bound to Britain, and attacked German U-boats even far away from those convoys. The US did not maintain a neutral stance attitude towards the warring nations.

The US naval intelligence, chief of Japan desk planned and suggested "8 insults", which should bring Japan into war with the US. President Roosevelt executed this plan immediately and also added some other insults, enraging the Japan. The most serious one was a total blockade of Japanese oil imports, as agreed between the Americans, British and the Dutch. FDR also declared an all-out embargo against the Japan and forbade them the use of Panama canal, impeding Japan's access to Venezuelan oil.

The Flying Tigers volunteer air group successfully fighting the Japanese in China with some 90 fairly modern P-40Bs was another effective provocation that is not generally acknowledged by historical accounts of World War 2, most of which fail to mention any air combat action prior to 7th December 1941. But at that time the Japanese had already had lost about 100 military aircraft, mostly bombers, to the Tigers. After Pearl Harbor these squadrons were some of the the hardest-hitting ones in the US service.

The attack on Pearl Harbour followed some 6 months later. Having broken the Japanese encryption codes, the Americans knew what was going to happen, when and where, but the president did not dispatch this information to Pearl Harbor. Americans even gave their friends the British 3 Magic decrypting machines which automatically opened encrypted Japanese military traffic. But this same information was not available to the commanders of Hawaii. The movement of the fleet was also visible in the very effective radio direction finding network. Japan had an alliance with Germany, and the Germans upheld their promises by declaring the war against the USA right after the Japanese declaration.

Two scapegoats, the navy commander Admiral Husband Kimmel, and the army commander Lt. General Walter Short were found incompetent and demoted as they were allowed to retire. Short died 1949 and Kimmel 1958. In 1995, the US Congress re-examined this decision and endorsed it. Then in 2000 some archive information came to light and the US Senate passed a resolution stating that both had served in Hawaii "competently and professionally". In 1941 they were denied vital information, and even on presidential orders purposefully mislead into believing that the Japanese feet could be expected from the southwest. These commanders have yet to be rehabilited by the Pentagon.

Korean War, 1950-1953: South Korean incursions (the Tiger regiment etc.) into North Korea (1949) led to contrary claims and into war. The cause of this war propably was covert action involving leaders of Taiwan, South Korea and the US military-industrial complex (John Foster Dulles has been mentioned as an organizer of the hostilities.) After the unpublished hostilities in 1949, the communist powers were strongly backing North Korea.

Chiang Kai Sek was being abandoned, isolated and falling prey to the powerful communist Chinese operations. The right-wing South Korean ruler was expected to loose the soon-to-be-elections. The American military-industrial complex went into high gear again, and huge government orders for equipment were flowing in.

The American-led UN forces had difficult times early in the war, but after sufficient forces arrived they advanced victoriously and penetrated deep into the North Korea. The strong Chino-Russian intervention into the war once again turned the tides, the Chinese with vast armies on ground, and the Soviets less visibly with large numbers of aircraft, nearly costing the UN forces the war.

Finally the front stabilised along the original 38th parallel armistice line. The war resulted in the death of 3 million Korean Chinese and the destruction of virtually all of the Korean cities, and left Taiwan in strong American protection and South Korea firmly in the hands of the right-wing president Syngman Rhee. Some 55,000 Americans lost their lives.

Vietnam War: "The Tonkin incident", where American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. What was happening at the time were aggressive South Vietnamese raids against the North in the same general area. Huge American presence wasn't decisive and President Nixon negotiated a "peace with honour" in 1973. This war was lost, when North Vietnam finally conquered South Vietnam in 1975.

Grenada invasion: The Grenadian leader, Maurice Bishop, favouring the left and having invited Cubans to help build the infrastructure including by extending the airport to accomodate long range Soviet aircraft, was deposed and executed in October 19, 1983. Six days later the US invaded, with the proffered reason that the American medical students studying in the Grenada were in danger due the Cuban presence. The new leader supported by the US favoured more traditional values and the right.

War on Drugs: The war was launched by Richard M Nixon sometime around June 17,1971. The drug problem was found bad within the army in Viet Nam around 1968 prompting action was required towards the end of the war. Nowadays it is estimated that the military will never win the War on Drugs. The street prices of illicit drugs did not change significantly in the USA despite the military action in foreign drug-producing countries. The Colombian experience, with local military supported by the US, has shown that peace is more important than war against drugs. The Colombians have successfully negotiated some 1000s of guerrilla fighters back into the society and out of jungle.

This "war" actually seems to be a pretext for military invasions into less developed countries, where covert "bad" drug lords on behalf of western intelligence services are producing drugs into US and first world markets. This operation produces huge incomes, generating black budget money for those intelligence services managing the global drug operations.

Panama invasion: The incident between American and Panamanian troops led to invasion. The leader Noriega was changed and the earlier Carter administration plan to hand control of the canal over to Panama was cancelled. The strategic importance of the canal has surpassed any more just thinking in the US global domination policy.

US-Israeli sponsored war between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988: The US has built power bases in the Middle East in Iran starting with the CIA-organised coup 1953, where Iranian prime minister Mossadeq was replaced with the Shah of Iran Reza Pahlavi and he by his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran was equipped with the best western military equipment, including the American F-14 fighters with Phoenix missiles and the British Chieftain MBTs. Unfortunately there was in 1979 a coup of ayatollah Khomeini replacing the Shah and founding an Islamite nation.

After this, the US warmed up relations with their good Iraqi friend Saddam Hussein, and started to build a nation capable of challenging the Iran. Iraq acquired large numbers of effective weapons including factories able to produce older versions of gas warfare agents. These would later be called WMDs, which of course they were not, being the WW1-vintage weapons.

The war broke out and was fought to exhaustion because third-party powers, especially Israel, were carefully monitoring the power balance supplying more weapons to the side which seemed to be loosing. "Too bad they both cannot loose" is how Kissinger evaluated this situation.

Desert Storm (First Gulf war), 1991): Hussein asked for permission from the US (via their ambassador April Gillespie) and got an answer that the US does not care Arab quarrels. That was a trap, and after Saddam occupied Kuwait, George Bush Sr. mobilised a coalition of some 40 nations to "liberate Kuwait" and to smash the recently-built Iraqi military power base. This also involved a media hoax, where the daughter of Kuwaiti US ambassador played nurse on TV and testified to "witnessing" Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait.

War on Terror: The war was launched by Bush administration October 2001. The war was claimed to be the response on terrorism, especially the 9-11 incidents. Most of the people in the world today know that these reasons are false and that those events were based on MIH type (make it happen) inside job.

Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan invasion), 7.10.2001-: Without any evidence, the former CIA-asset, a Saudi-Arabian Osama bin Laden was claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 strikes at the WTC and the Pentagon. Such a complex operation, if actually executed which it was not, in this case would be much beyond the capabilities of anything in Afghanistan. Only some top ten intelligence services in the world could hope to be successful in such an operation involving forgery, infiltration, living "underground" in a foreign non-Muslim country, coordination of moves, illegal arms, hi-quality flight training, accurate aircraft navigation in no-visibility conditions and so on. Perhaps even less, because the friends of the US (at that time, still most of the world) would also have been interested in stopping the attack.

Enduring Justice (Second Gulf war), 20.3.2003-: later known with less irony as Operation Iraqi Freedom The claimed reason of the attack was that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US with wmd's available within less than an hour after the decision to assemble them has been made. Since no wmd's were found, and after the Iraqi also scrapped some 800 long range Scud style missiles before the US coalition attack, the reason for the invasion was changed into "bringing the democracy into Iraq".

References
Why the Pearl Harbor took place

Robert B. Stinnett: Day of Deceit: the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, 2000
Mark Emerson Wiley: Pearl Harbour - mother of all conspiracies
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
Cordell Hull's Ultimatum to Japan

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/hullno26.html
What the US usually knew in advance (books)

Fredrick W. Winterbotham: The Ultra secret, 1974
Bradley F. Smith: The Ultra-Magic Deals, 1992
F.H.Hinsley: British Intelligence in the WW2 (4 large volumes), 1988
How to create innocent-looking wars

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/
How wars are made

http://tacklingthetoughtopics.net/default.htm
Especially these items: World War 1, World War 2, Korean War, The Vietnam War
How to create distant future wars

The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony C. Sutton
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony C. Sutton
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony C. Sutton
The out-of-print book: From Major Jordan's Diaries (Google this item)

[ChumpDumper]

Presence of thermite for starters. If other scientists confirm the work of this Dane, then we need to answer the question as to how it got there. Thats not real hard is it?Why haven't they conclusively found the actual chemical makeup of the material and duplicated the experiment several times using independent labs?

That's not real hard, is it?


At least not as hard as it is to get anyone to address the issue.Address a bunch of made-up crap by a bunch of loons?


My take: The silence in MSM is telling. I think people are scared to question the official line. Professionals and people with something to lose are scared, if you ask me.If there is nothing at all to say, would you expect anything other than silence?


We need to see that stigma removed so we can get some honesty, not just an intimidated silence. I think we have a lot more skeptics than we can account for in the current climate. I think people are afraid to lose careers and worse if they start to resemble looney truthers.The stigma is there for a reason. These douchebags are now collectively the boy who cried nanothermite, where before they were collectively the boy who cried wing pods and drone planes and cruise missiles and planted explosives and directed energy weapons, etc.

Forgive our skepticism, but these people have been full of shit for the better part of a decade. They have been retreating from each stupid position they have taken once it is smashed upon the rocks of simple common sense and cursory logical reasoning. It's not a stretch to conclude that this latest (for you) conspiracy theory is constructed wholly from the confirmation bias of the "scientists" who have been convinced from the beginning that the US government was complicit in or caused the 9/11 attacks.

They have outright lied in pursuit of their cause in the past, and they are not above lying again.


How about unpaid appointments going to veterans who retired from law enforcement and have a minimum of five children? Joe the Plumber maybe? Has to be someone completely outside the political process. So no Joe the Plumber. see next answer.What the fuck does that even mean?

Were you being serious?


Actually, if we need it done, we need it done. Just because there isnt a ready supply of independent investigators immune to political pressure doesnt mean we just wish the questions away.So you just aren't going to answer the question?

OK.


Are you afraid to debate this single issue, Chump? Are you so afraid that you need everyone to pour out their own flawed theories so you can do battle with straw foes?The single issue here is you think something happened different than the accepted theory.

Just tell us what it is.

Give us something to believe -- you obviously believe something else happened. Make your theory fit what was observed.


I dont have a theory.Then why the fuck are you trying to convince anyone of anything?

Get back to me when one of you loons has an actual working theory that fits the observed events of 9/11. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone's time.

If you are going to whine that that's too difficult for you, tough shit. I don't care. I know way more about 9/11 than any normal person should know because a bunch of idiots said "Well what about [insert single issue here]?" They all turned out to be a bunch of fucking weaklings who, once their pet issue was debunked, just posted another YouTube and declared that to be the new smoking gun. I'm fucking sick of it.

I asked you the simple question of how the conspirators could get the nanothermite in the exact locations of the plane impacts. You conveniently ignored it, which is understandable -- but that's the kind of blind spot I expect from conspiracy theorists who have no theory like you. This doesn't even pass the smell test, but our own confirmation bias forces you to believe it.

You are a fool.

[Winehole23]

Parker....

It's exceptionally bad on your part when Chump and I agree against you!Parker unites disparate elements of the board against him. It's sort of like a minor superpower.

[Winehole23]

(I can't remember the last time the withering scorn of ChumpDumper was expressed in full paragraphs here. Brutal.)

[Parker2112]

Why haven't they conclusively found the actual chemical makeup of the material and duplicated the experiment several times using independent labs?

If there is nothing at all to say, would you expect anything other than silence?

This paper has been through valid peer review (its been refereed) and its out there for criticism. Sounds like the ball is in the anti-truthers' court.


The stigma is there for a reason. ...boy who cried wing pods.... drone planes.... cruise missiles... planted explosives... directed energy weapons, etc....lied in pursuit of their cause in the past.... not above lying again.

So I was right...you just wanted to vent on already-debunked straw. Get it all out I guess. When you want to address this scientific finding, go for it.

And the shit about the stigma being earned is a flat out lie. Stigma was present from day 1. Get honest Chump.



The single issue here is you think something happened different than the accepted theory.

Just tell us what it is. somehow superthermite was found. Its realfugginsimple.



Then why the fuck are you trying to convince anyone of anything?
I am trying to get intelligent feedback on thermite. Teysha gave some. Ill be happy with that I guess.

[ChumpDumper]

This paper has been through valid peer review (its been refereed) and its out there for criticism. Sounds like the ball is in the anti-truthers' court.What are their names? I'd like to see some of the things they think as well. Surely they have nothing to hide, right?


So I was right...you just wanted to vent on already-debunked straw. Get it all out I guess. When you want to address this scientific finding, go for it.This has already been debunked as well. You are late to the party.


And the shit about the stigma being earned is a flat out lie. Stigma was present from day 1. Get honest Chump.OK, I agree that truthers had the stigma of being lying loons from day one of their conspiracy making.


somehow superthermite was found. Its realfugginsimple.So what was the actual chemical makeup of the thermetic material? It's a realfugginsimple question they failed to answer and refuse to investigate further. Many materials can have that reaction. And how did they prove it was from the actual WTC site? That should be realfugginsimple as well.

And finally, what is their narrative that includes placing superdupernanonachograndethermite in the exact impact points of the twin towers and how did they survive the impacts and the resulting fires. Don't think we didn't notice you conveniently ignored that realfugginsimple question again. This is what "truthers" do -- they lie whenever a pet theory starts to unravel.


I am trying to get intelligent feedback on thermite. Teysha gave some. Ill be happy with that I guess.I am trying to get an intelligent answer about how the the thermite was attached to the building at the exact points of impact and how it survived the impacts, explosions and fires.

I'll be happy if any "truther" stops ignoring this realfugginsimple question.

[Parker2112]

the info about how the thermite may have been placed on those levels
(cuz we just dont-fuggin-know if it was, cuz the official version never-fuggin-considered thermite at all (NEVER TESTED, NEVER ADDRESSED, NEVER QUESTIONED BY) (EVEN THOUGH NIST HAS EXPERTS ON THE TOPIC WORKING FOR THEM, WHO KNEW IT WAS A POSSIBILITY, AND KNEW HOW TO RULE IT OUT VERY EASILY)...is in the vids.

[Winehole23]

I notice you just edited out your promise to dig it up for us. Did you have trouble finding it?

[Parker2112]

What are their names? I'd like to see some of the things they think as well. Surely they have nothing to hide, right?

Stop parrotting your anti-truther blog sources long enough to teach yourself something about peer review process, and you'll realize your source and you are ignorant....


In many fields of study, single-blinding is the normative practice; however, in others, such as information systems (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Information_systems), it is almost unheard of, and double-blinding is the norm. While the anonymity of reviewers is almost universally preserved, open peer review (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Open_peer_review) is a relatively novel exception to this principle, where reviewers are revealed to the authors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Different_styles_of_review



This has already been debunked as well. You are late to the party.

By the same ignorant bloggers noted above? Which you ignorantly parroted? :lol Check yoursources Chump.


OK, I agree that truthers had the stigma of being lying loons from day one of their conspiracy making.



So what was the actual chemical makeup of the thermetic material? Ive answered that. The artical answers that. The scientists answer that. Sounds like you are unaware of the substance of the theory. That you claim is completely without merit. You sound biased. Along with ignorant. :toast

[Parker2112]

And finally, what is their narrative that includes placing superdupernanonachograndethermite...



While I admit I found this funny, your misuse of the terminology again makes you sound ignorant...here. Have at some knowledge. :toast



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Nano-thermite, also called "super-thermite",[1] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-LANL_Matches-0) is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Exothermic_reaction) after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Oxidizer) and a reducing agent (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Reducing_agent), which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Reactive_material) investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Pyrotechnics).



....in the exact impact points of the twin towers and how did they survive the impacts and the resulting fires. Don't think we didn't notice you conveniently ignored that realfugginsimple question again.

There is a theory. Its in this thread. Your welcome in advance.

However: Unlike you I am not going to mindlessly parrot the shit, to provide you with ammo. As you did for me. Thanks, btw.


....I am trying to get an intelligent answer about how the the thermite was attached to the building at the exact points of impact and how it survived the impacts, explosions and fires.

I'll be happy if any "truther" stops ignoring this realfugginsimple question.
Two options here:
1. Sounds like you have unanswered questions that were not dealt with in the official report. Sounds like you need more info. The kind that warrants further investigation.
-OR-
2. There is a theory. Its in this thread. Your welcome in advance.

[CosmicCowboy]

Damn Parker...You really get worked up about this 9/11 Truther stuff don't you?

[Winehole23]

It doesn't even rise to the level of theory, but as TeyshaBlue pointed out upstream, you don't seem to know what a theory is.

(The word you're looking for is probably "hypothesis.")

[Parker2112]

Chump, one more thing.

I understand your skepticism. What I despise is your unconditional skepticism-till-my-dying-breath.

And the reason is something you need to think about.

Here it is (Im gonna break it down for you so its clear):
1. If there is any rogue component acting within our government to carry out a rogue agenda contrary to the interests of the public...

2.Then, your bias and the parallel bias in MSM (that you emulate), along with the automatic ridicule for anyone with questions about 9/11...

3. ...lends itself to an environment that would allow that component to operate without interference.

4. And that approach runs counter to justice and transparency, and organized society. When you and people like you put a price on questiong authority, you do your country a disservice.

Think about that awhile, smart guy.

[Parker2112]

Damn Parker...You really get worked up about this 9/11 Truther stuff don't you?

Not really. I see Chump trying to bully the board without even addressing the issue at hand, and I point out whats going on. Not that hard to fathom.

Its a pretty typical occurence around these parts. If you say something that someone else finds doesnt fit in their perception of the order of things, they think its enough to sweep it aside with brute ridicule rather than logic and debate.

Chump is smarter than he shows here. He just refuses to "stoop" low enough to engage this issue (nanosupernachograndethermite :hat).

[mouse]

Not really. I see Chump trying to bully the board without even addressing the issue at hand,.

He tried that shit with me last year and I gave him a coffee enema that would have made Starbucks proud. Just call him out on his bogus claims and keep posting evidence he can't explain.

If that doesn't work I may come back tonight and show you how to change his online diaper and put him in his place like I do to all the Bush lovers in this forum.



ERhoNYj9_fg

[Wild Cobra]

Not really. I see Chump trying to bully the board without even addressing the issue at hand, and I point out whats going on. Not that hard to fathom.
I really dislike the way Chump does things, but he addresses this topic pretty good. I have the shithead on IGNORE because of his style, but sometimes look at the "view post" option, and see his words when you quote him.

Its a pretty typical occurence around these parts. If you say something that someone else finds doesnt fit in their perception of the order of things, they think its enough to sweep it aside with brute ridicule rather than logic and debate.
True, but it's a good way to vent here, rather than with the people we love.

Chump is smarter than he shows here. He just refuses to "stoop" low enough to engage this issue (nanosupernachograndethermite :hat).
LOL...

He is smart, and a good manipulator. Still, he's right on this topic.

[ChumpDumper]

the info about how the thermite may have been placed on those levels
(cuz we just dont-fuggin-know if it was, cuz the official version never-fuggin-considered thermite at all (NEVER TESTED, NEVER ADDRESSED, NEVER QUESTIONED BY) (EVEN THOUGH NIST HAS EXPERTS ON THE TOPIC WORKING FOR THEM, WHO KNEW IT WAS A POSSIBILITY, AND KNEW HOW TO RULE IT OUT VERY EASILY)...is in the vids.It is not a possibility. It never was. That's why they didn't waste time on it. It doesn't even withstand the simple question of placement you keep avoiding.


Stop parrotting your anti-truther blog sources long enough to teach yourself something about peer review process, and you'll realize your source and you are ignorant....I didn't read any blog to want to know who these peers are. These loons and their history of lying makes it imperative that they be more open than any usual peer review process that isn't suspect.

For example, they must prove they didn't do this -- from your link:


Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Considering the only people who take seriously the work of these loons are other loons, it is quite fair to ask if, in fact, loons were reviewing the work of these loons.


By the same ignorant bloggers noted above? Which you ignorantly parroted? :lol Check yoursources Chump.No need; I checked yours.



Ive answered that. The artical answers that. The scientists answer that. Sounds like you are unaware of the substance of the theory. That you claim is completely without merit. You sound biased. Along with ignorant. :toastDid you answer that? Give me a link to your answer.


While I admit I found this funny, your misuse of the terminology again makes you sound ignorant...here. Have at some knowledge. :toastAlready known.


There is a theory. Its in this thread. Your welcome in advance.Give me a link to your theory that includes all the conspiracies you believe.


However: Unlike you I am not going to mindlessly parrot the shit, to provide you with ammo. As you did for me. Thanks, btw.Your consistent cowardly dodging of this simple question is all the ammo I need. Thanks.


Two options here:
1. Sounds like you have unanswered questions that were not dealt with in the official report. Sounds like you need more info. The kind that warrants further investigation.
-OR-
2. There is a theory. Its in this thread. Your welcome in advance.Option 3: There is no theory. You won't give one because you are afraid it will be picked apart rather quickly by me or someone else here.

Your fear is quite justified. All the other truthers share your fear.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, one more thing.

I understand your skepticism. What I despise is your unconditional skepticism-till-my-dying-breath.Sorry pal, I simply know a lot more about this than you do, mainly because of people like you trying to spread misinformation and outright lies. Some of it sounded realistic at first, so I looked some stuff up. It all turned out to be a huge pile of shit. The people who make this shit up survive off the gullibility and unhinged biases of people such as yourself.


And the reason is something you need to think about.

Here it is (Im gonna break it down for you so its clear):
1. If there is any rogue component acting within our government to carry out a rogue agenda contrary to the interests of the public...

2.Then, your bias and the parallel bias in MSM (that you emulate), along with the automatic ridicule for anyone with questions about 9/11...

3. ...lends itself to an environment that would allow that component to operate without interference.

4. And that approach runs counter to justice and transparency, and organized society. When you and people like you put a price on questiong authority, you do your country a disservice.

Think about that awhile, smart guy.Don't have to think about it.

It was a pretty stupid. I'll consider an alternative theory when someone actually comes up with one. All you did was restate your bias against things like reason and common sense in an attempt to be an iconoclast of some sort. You're a hero in your own mind because you want to be, as are most of the loons you are worshiping without a single critical thought. Think about that for awhile.

[Wild Cobra]

It is not a possibility. It never was. That's why they didn't waste time on it. It doesn't even withstand the simple question of placement you keep avoiding.

No Shit. That's why I mentioned Asgard beaming technology. How else could anyone get enough in, unnoticed, to do such damage!

[Parker2112]

Sorry pal, I simply know a lot more about this than you do, mainly because of people like you trying to spread misinformation and outright lies. Some of it sounded realistic at first, so I looked some stuff up. It all turned out to be a huge pile of shit. The people who make this shit up survive off the gullibility and unhinged biases of people such as yourself.

Don't have to think about it.

It was a pretty stupid. I'll consider an alternative theory when someone actually comes up with one. All you did was restate your bias against things like reason and common sense in an attempt to be an iconoclast of some sort. You're a hero in your own mind because you want to be, as are most of the loons you are worshiping without a single critical thought. Think about that for awhile.

Im not a hero. But I cant stand the segment of America that thinks its actually patriotic to shout down those with unpopular views. At least I cant do it silently.

I think it leaves us open to the criminal element that would use the govt for personal gain. Whether thats city council or state legislators or corrupt members of the executive branch that steer us to war.

I think folks need to understand it is this criminal element that is suspect, not the entire govt. Maybe then they would stop trying to shout down the "loonies."

You yourself said the ridicule was present from day one. You contradict yourself.

Those of your ilk have been hard at their insidious brand of patriotism since moment one, trying to exhalt each and every govt official beyond reproach. If that wasnt you then forgive me. But I dont bare the ridicule for minority beliefs as easily as you seem to believe they should be stamped out. bub.

[Parker2112]

the theory/hypothesis: The tenant on those floors (insurance firm) had ties to the Bush admin (GWB's cuz was a ceo or somesuchshit) and had the support columns on those floors retreated with "fire retardant" (actually thermite) the months prior to the attacks.

Yeah, sounds pretty unlikely. But you asked for it. I dont buy it. But Im not the one who needs a to z to be permitted to ask questions.

[ChumpDumper]

Im not a hero. But I cant stand the segment of America that thinks its actually patriotic to shout down those with unpopular views. At least I cant do it silently.

I think it leaves us open to the criminal element that would use the govt for personal gain. Whether thats city council or state legislators or corrupt members of the executive branch that steer us to war.

I think folks need to understand it is this criminal element that is suspect, not the entire govt. Maybe then they would stop trying to shout down the "loonies."

You yourself said the ridicule was present from day one. You contradict yourself.

Those of your ilk have been hard at their insidious brand of patriotism since moment one, trying to exhalt each and every govt official beyond reproach. If that wasnt you then forgive me. But I dont bare the ridicule for minority beliefs as easily as you seem to believe they should be stamped out. bub.The ridicule was there from day one because the loons were ridiculous from day one.


the theory/hypothesis: The tenant on those floors (insurance firm) had ties to the Bush admin (GWB's cuz was a ceo or somesuchshit) and had the support columns on those floors retreated with "fire retardant" (actually thermite) the months prior to the attacks.

Yeah, sounds pretty unlikely. But you asked for it. I dont buy it. But Im not the one who needs a to z to be permitted to ask questions.:lmao

Oh man, that's a doozy.

And you don't even believe it.

Seriously, they claim one insurance company leased multiple floors in both towers?

And thermite was sprayed onto columns?

:rollin

Why are we here again?

[Parker2112]

The ridicule was there from day one because the loons were ridiculous from day one.

:lmao

Oh man, that's a doozy.

And you don't even believe it.

Seriously, they claim one insurance company leased multiple floors in both towers?

And thermite was sprayed onto columns?

:rollin

Why are we here again?

You sound like a kid who finally got into the cookie jar. :lol

Glad I could send that slow pitch your way.

HOWEVER...I think the MIC is capable of doing whatever the hell they want. They have more resources than anyone on the fuggin globe, they have more tech than anyone on the globe, they have more know-how than any other aspect of our govt, and we dont have a fucking clue what they are capable of because they dont have to reveal a damn thing they do.

Not only that, but we know the MIC is prone to division and factions from within. So the rise of a rogue group isnt really that far fetched. And their ability to conceal their actions is totally fathomable.

And if you think the ST roundtable can plot and scheme like the MIC you are as naive as you want to be.

And I will add this: A public that is confused and uninformed is the easiest to control. And we absolutely fit that bill.

Add to that:
1) the MSM company loyalty,
2) the ridicule factor that gets propogated by influential public figures and govt officials,
3) the insistance within the Bush admin and beyond that the matter is closed at all costs,
4) the first hand accounts that dont jibe with the official line, and
5) the facts that defy common sense/gut sense/the "smell test,"

and I say the whole scenario is too sketchy to be recorded as we currently claim to understand it.

[ChumpDumper]

You sound like a kid who finally got into the cookie jar. :lol

Glad I could send that slow pitch your way.

HOWEVER...I think the MIC is capable of doing whatever the hell they want. They have more resources than anyone on the fuggin globe, they have more tech than anyone on the globe, they have more know-how than any other aspect of our govt, and we dont have a fucking clue what they are capable of because they dont have to reveal a damn thing they do.

Not only that, but we know the MIC is prone to division and factions from within. So the rise of a rogue group isnt really that far fetched. And their ability to conceal their actions is totally fathomable.

And if you think the ST roundtable can plot and scheme like the MIC you are as naive as you want to be.

And I will add this: A public that is confused and uninformed is the easiest to control. And we absolutely fit that bill.

Add to that:
1) the MSM company loyalty,
2) the ridicule factor that gets propogated by influential public figures and govt officials,
3) the insistance within the Bush admin and beyond that the matter is closed at all costs,
4) the first hand accounts that dont jibe with the official line, and
5) the facts that defy common sense/gut sense/the "smell test,"

and I say the whole scenario is too sketchy to be recorded as we currently claim to understand it.:lmao

Now you are saying that conspiracy theories must be unbelievable to be believed.

How convenient for you.

The task for "truthers" is a simple one.

Come up with a theory that makes sense and is more compelling than the generally accepted theory.

Then prove it.

So far, no one even has a theory.

I am neither confused nor uninformed. I looked at the best truthers had to offer and found it profoundly lacking. In fact, I found most of them to be liars. If you dig even the slightest bit deeper, you will find the same -- but I don't expect most to do any digging.

[Parker2112]

:lmao

Now you are saying that conspiracy theories must be unbelievable to be believed.

How convenient for you.

The task for "truthers" is a simple one.

Come up with a theory that makes sense and is more compelling than the generally accepted theory.

Then prove it.

So far, no one even has a theory.

I am neither confused nor uninformed. I looked at the best truthers had to offer and found it profoundly lacking. In fact, I found most of them to be liars. If you dig even the slightest bit deeper, you will find the same -- but I don't expect most to do any digging.

So the Journal publishing this paper and the paper itself and the Danish science guy are all bold faced lying/lies/liars?

[ChumpDumper]

So the Journal publishing this paper and the paper itself and the Danish science guy are all bold faced lying/lies/liars?I would say the journal will publish just about anything that people pay to put in it, and Danish science guy's bias was laid bare when he said that it was clear to his group of loons that explosives and incendiary devices were used in the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center before they even started examining dust samples.

It's so bad, you can't even call it science anymore.

[Winehole23]

They're liars. No need to dance around it, but it seems to be somebody's occupation.

Some posters like to dance around lies.

[Winehole23]

(look at me dance)

[Winehole23]

AjsN7RbrsU0

[Nbadan]

Welcome back Winehole....I think all this talk of termite is a distraction

[Winehole23]

Termite swarming season? Seems like the store never closes.

[Nbadan]

Seriously, in the end, does it really matter? There is a bigger story here

[Winehole23]

Beg pardon. What, please?

[ChumpDumper]

Death by thermite was dreamed up by truthers when it was pointed out to them that there were no audible explosions at the initiations of any of the building collapses.

The neat thing about this "peer reviewed" thermite paper is that it debunks itself with its own data. The "scientists" measured the energy release per gram of material in four samples. All four samples produced a significantly different amount of energy -- which makes no sense if one is trying to prove a single thermetic compound is being used. Even more damning is the fact that two of the samples produced energy in excess of the theoretical maximum for thermite that they list in their paper. They try to pass it off as some kind of superthermite(!) (their word, not mine) with some kind of organic material in it that makes it explosive (their word). That, of course, destroys the entire idea of using a silent incendiary to demolish he building.

The funny thing is, the organic components of paint could easily release the amount of energy they measured.

Paint and rust.

All this stuff has been thoroughly taken apart by people much smarter than any of us. All one has to do is search for it. And yes, I am pretty much parroting what they have already said.

[Parker2112]

I would say the journal will publish just about anything that people pay to put in it, and Danish science guy's bias was laid bare when he said that it was clear to his group of loons that explosives and incendiary devices were used in the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center before they even started examining dust samples.

It's so bad, you can't even call it science anymore.

You should have said this pages ago. :nope Ill check it out.

[Parker2112]

Seriously, in the end, does it really matter? There is a bigger story here

what would that be?

[ChumpDumper]

You should have said this pages ago. :nope Ill check it out.The Danish guy said that in the video you posted.

Did you watch it?

[mouse]

Death by thermite was dreamed up by truthers .

If we are truthers what does that make you?

collapsed building.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-322/05ap.jpg


Buildings that are collapsing do not shoot heavy metal beams 500 feet.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-322/vlcsnap-773217.png

[ChumpDumper]

If we are truthers what does that make you?

collapsed building.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-322/05ap.jpgThat's from an earthquake.


Buildings that are collapsing do not shoot heavy metal beams 500 feet.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-322/vlcsnap-773217.pngHow would silent, incendiary nanothermite do that, mouse?

Be specific.

[Wild Cobra]

Buildings that are collapsing do not shoot heavy metal beams 500 feet.

Can you show me the math to prove your statement?

I didn't think so.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah mouse, start off by telling us how much potential energy is contained in 20 or 30 acre-sized floors of office building several hundred feet in the air.

We'll wait.

[mouse]

That's from an earthquake.

Sorry if Google isn't overly saturated with images of buildings that have collapsed due to small fires or planes crashing into them.




How would silent, incendiary nanothermite do that, mouse?

Be specific.

Why not ask the professors and scientist who deal with those types of explosives and chemicals?

I don't have to have a PHD in order to post my views on a subject or in this topic.

I have eyes and I can see when something falls down due to gravity and when something is cut down due to outside involvement.

The truth is your re-fried tactics of putting me on the witness stand is not fresh and is a very outdated technique not seen since the JFK investigations.

Face it Chump your going to have to deal with the reality that this whole WTC7 investigation is about to expose you and wildcobra as some of the most ignorant people living on this planet.

[mouse]

Can you show me the math to prove your statement?

I didn't think so.

so your saying 2 + 2 = 4 won't do?

[mouse]

Yeah mouse, start off by telling us how much potential energy is contained in 20 or 30 acre-sized floors of office building several hundred feet in the air.

I know it was enough explosive force to send small bone fragments to a rooftop of a building not even in the area of the search for remains.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.html




We'll wait.

Good thing your hero didn't have to wait long for his Insurance check.

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5656/43459823.jpg

[mouse]

show me the math


nearly 2,800 victims
fewer than 300 whole bodies found
fewer than 1,600 victims identified
over 1,100 victims remain unidentified
over 800 victims identified by DNA alone
nearly 20,000 pieces of bodies found
over 6,000 pieces small enough to fit in test-tubes
over 200 pieces matched to single person
nearly 10,000 unidentified pieces frozen for future analysis

Is that enough math for you?



Here's more....

Most of the bone fragments were less then 1/16th inch in length. how can a collapsing building all of a sudden turn into a food processor?

hers is some math you can use.

How far does my huge foot of truth have to bury itself in your crusty commie Bush loving ass to equal 3 more pages of you getting schooled?

[DMX7]

The truth is your re-fried tactics of putting me on the witness stand is not fresh and is a very outdated technique not seen since the JFK investigations.


:lol

[Nbadan]

Beg pardon. What, please?

I'm just saying that even if there was a bigger conspiracy to bring down the twin towers by some MIC secret society as some allege....trying to prove that thermite was used will get you nowhere,,,unless you want a headache...

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry if Google isn't overly saturated with images of buildings that have collapsed due to small fires or planes crashing into them.Actually, there are probably more pictures of those than buildings toppled by earthquakes.

I wouldn't expect you to understand what I just said, but thanks for proving the WTC buildings were not felled by an earthquake. You do know that one of the authors of this paper being discussed believes the US government caused he big earthquake in Haiti, don't you? This is your hero.


Why not ask the professors and scientist who deal with those types of explosives and chemicals?Funny you should mention that, as we have yet to hear from any in this thread. That paper certainly wasn't written by people who deal with these materials -- otherwise they would have known to run the definitive test for thermite, which is x-ray diffraction that would have only cost a couple hundred dollars to have it done by an independent lab.

Maybe they just ran out of money making YouTubes.

Or maybe they don't know what they are doing.

Or maybe they were just lying.


I don't have to have a PHD in order to post my views on a subject or in this topic.You lack even the most basic knowledge of 9/11, yet you post about it all the time.


I have eyes and I can see when something falls down due to gravity and when something is cut down due to outside involvement.Tell us how it was cut down, mouse.

Tell us what you think really happened on 9/11.


The truth is your re-fried tactics of putting me on the witness stand is not fresh and is a very outdated technique not seen since the JFK investigations.Hey, it still works. It never fails to make you whine about how little you actually know about any of this.


Face it Chump your going to have to deal with the reality that this whole WTC7 investigation is about to expose you and wildcobra as some of the most ignorant people living on this planet.Tell us how that is going to happen.

If you actually read this paper, you'll find out that they actually disproved the presence of thermite with their own data, and supported the argument that the substance is paint.


I know it was enough explosive force to send small bone fragments to a rooftop of a building not even in the area of the search for remains.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.htmlRight.

Now all you have to do is figure out of the potential energy of 20-30 acre-sized floors of office building could have that kind of effect.

It's not like these calculations haven't been done, mouse. Certainly as a concerned, truth-seeking patriot you are familiar with them.

Aren't you?


Good thing your hero didn't have to wait long for his Insurance check.

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5656/43459823.jpgAre you saying Silverstein is the mastermind behind 9/11?

Please explain your theory in full -- you don't have to be a PhD to regale us with your story of a simple insurance scam.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm just saying that even if there was a bigger conspiracy to bring down the twin towers by some MIC secret society as some allege....trying to prove that thermite was used will get you nowhere,,,unless you want a headache...So tell us what you think really happened on 9/11, dan.

Give us something to believe.

[mouse]

So tell us what you think really happened on 9/11, dan.

Give us something to believe.


I told you Chump would pull out the JFK card. For some reason he thinks he's the DA and we are on the witness stand.

He acts like he's Kevin Costner and we are the corrupt CIA agents, when in fact all these meaningless questions is a smoke screen a diversion to get us off track.

When i get back later (provided there isn't an army of drunken fools without someone to be with and don't have anywhere to spend New years)
around my laptop, Then I will make an attempt to address each meaningless questions Mr. Costner has posted.


The sad part is after all these years it's obvious Chump really doesn't want the truth, if he did he would welcome this new evidence instead he's in full blown Bill O'Reilly mode.


Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives
As Documentation of Thermitic Materials
in the WTC Twin Towers Grows,
Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html




ERhoNYj9_fg

[Nbadan]

I agree with mouse on one point, there is eyewitness testimony and enough sound evidence on tape to show that there were explosions inside some of the WTC buildings prior to their collapse....CD can go to hell...

[mouse]

Like I said before he denies the Hindenburg caught fire because the film was in black and white.

He doesn't think JFK was shot because it wasn't in HD.


He doesn't support the battle of the Alamo because he can't find any fight scenes on youtube. and even if there was a youtube link he would say "what do you think really happened at the Alamo?"


http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/98195547/scientists-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust

http://rockcreekfreepress.com/Images/Red-GrayChip-sm.jpg
http://rockcreekfreepress.com/Images/RedChipMagnified.jpg

[Blake]

It was no big secret the building was going to be attacked Larry Silverstein wanted to make sure he could cash in on it. Why fix a building you wanted to get rid of already.


how much extra money has Silverstein come out on top in all of this?

I know you rely on others in here to do math higher than 2+2=4, but try to include rebuilding costs after insurance payouts to back up your claims of him cashing in.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree with mouse on one point, there is eyewitness testimony and enough sound evidence on tape to show that there were explosions inside some of the WTC buildings prior to their collapse....I never disputed that there were explosions inside some of the WTC buildings prior to their collapse. Things explode quite often in fires.
CD can go to hell...Yes, the controlled demolition theory can go to hell -- well, it could if there was a theory to begin with.

There isn't one.

You and mouse just proved it.

Again.

U mad?

[Blake]

Why haven't they conclusively found the actual chemical makeup of the material and duplicated the experiment several times using independent labs?

That's not real hard, is it?

Address a bunch of made-up crap by a bunch of loons?

If there is nothing at all to say, would you expect anything other than silence?

The stigma is there for a reason. These douchebags are now collectively the boy who cried nanothermite, where before they were collectively the boy who cried wing pods and drone planes and cruise missiles and planted explosives and directed energy weapons, etc.

Forgive our skepticism, but these people have been full of shit for the better part of a decade. They have been retreating from each stupid position they have taken once it is smashed upon the rocks of simple common sense and cursory logical reasoning. It's not a stretch to conclude that this latest (for you) conspiracy theory is constructed wholly from the confirmation bias of the "scientists" who have been convinced from the beginning that the US government was complicit in or caused the 9/11 attacks.

They have outright lied in pursuit of their cause in the past, and they are not above lying again.

What the fuck does that even mean?

Were you being serious?

So you just aren't going to answer the question?

OK.

The single issue here is you think something happened different than the accepted theory.

Just tell us what it is.

Give us something to believe -- you obviously believe something else happened. Make your theory fit what was observed.

Then why the fuck are you trying to convince anyone of anything?

Get back to me when one of you loons has an actual working theory that fits the observed events of 9/11. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone's time.

If you are going to whine that that's too difficult for you, tough shit. I don't care. I know way more about 9/11 than any normal person should know because a bunch of idiots said "Well what about [insert single issue here]?" They all turned out to be a bunch of fucking weaklings who, once their pet issue was debunked, just posted another YouTube and declared that to be the new smoking gun. I'm fucking sick of it.

I asked you the simple question of how the conspirators could get the nanothermite in the exact locations of the plane impacts. You conveniently ignored it, which is understandable -- but that's the kind of blind spot I expect from conspiracy theorists who have no theory like you. This doesn't even pass the smell test, but our own confirmation bias forces you to believe it.

You are a fool.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/7/8/saupload_nuclear_bomb_badger350.jpg

[mouse]

So tell us what you think really happened on 9/11, dan.

Give us something to believe.



You didn't get a copy ?

http://www.madcowprod.com/story.911.commission.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

You didn't get a copy ?

http://www.madcowprod.com/story.911.commission.jpgMore stalling with failed jokes. This is why the "truth" movement is ridiculed. Even they don't believe their own bullshit.

[Nbadan]

More stalling with failed jokes. This is why the "truth" movement is ridiculed. Even they don't believe their own bullshit.

The 911 Commission Report is also one reason why wild conspiracy theories continue to perpetuate about 911 like thermite......it's got so many holes, and in some cases, outright lies, it's laughable...

[ChumpDumper]

The 911 Commission Report is also one reason why wild conspiracy theories continue to perpetuate about 911 like thermite......it's got so many holes, and in some cases, outright lies, it's laughable...Great.

What is your theory?

[Nbadan]

Never said I had one, just that the existing theory does not pass the smell test. For you to act like it's unfathomable that the 911 Commission made structural mistakes in their report is laughable too...

[ChumpDumper]

Never said I had one, just that the existing theory does not pass the smell test. For you to act like it's unfathomable that the 911 Commission made structural mistakes in their report is laughable too...Too bad the commission wasn't the only official investigation.

And if you don't have an alternative theory after nine years, you never will.

No one ever will.

[Nbadan]

it was the only investigation with subpoena power...which makes it the only official investigation....

[ChumpDumper]

it was the only investigation with subpoena power...which makes it the only official investigation....The FBI investigation wasn't official?

:lmao

It's these kinds of bald-faced lies that make you a laughing stock, dan.

[Nbadan]

How do we know the FBI wasn't involved? ...it's these kinds of assumptions, without proof, that make your argument less credible

[ChumpDumper]

How do we know the FBI wasn't involved? ...it's these kinds of assumptions, without proof, that make your argument less credibleHow do you know the FBI was involved, along with every other agency that made official investigations of 9/11? It's these kinds of assumptions, without proof, that make your argument less credible.

[Nbadan]

When you do a real investigation you eliminate possible suspects based on the preponderance of available evidence, you don't rule someone out just because there is no evidence at the time....moreover, you don't rule out a suspect who investigated themselves....

[ChumpDumper]

When you do a real investigation you eliminate possible suspects based on the preponderance of available evidence, you don't rule someone out just because there is no evidence at the time....moreover, you don't rule out a suspect who investigated themselves....You start out with a theory of the crime.

What is your theory of the crime, dan?

[MannyIsGod]

When you do a real investigation you eliminate possible suspects based on the preponderance of available evidence, you don't rule someone out just because there is no evidence at the time....moreover, you don't rule out a suspect who investigated themselves....

What the fuck? Thats some fucking stupid shit right there.

[Blake]

How do we know the FBI wasn't involved? ...it's these kinds of assumptions, without proof, that make your argument less credible


When you do a real investigation you eliminate possible suspects based on the preponderance of available evidence, you don't rule someone out just because there is no evidence at the time....moreover, you don't rule out a suspect who investigated themselves....

Why is the FBI a suspect?

[Nbadan]

What the fuck? Thats some fucking stupid shit right there.

I should have qualified that with the history of the FBI and intelligence agencies in the U.S. to do clandestine activities in the U.S....

[Nbadan]

Why is the FBI a suspect?

Why aren't they? Did they or did they not lose track of Muhammad Atta when he came back from Germany?

[Blake]

Why aren't they? Did they or did they not lose track of Muhammad Atta when he came back from Germany?

what was the motive? what did the FBI gain out of the 9/11 attacks?

[Nbadan]

what was the motive? what did the FBI gain out of the 9/11 attacks?

I don't know if they gained anything from 9/11, nor am I implying that the FBI was involved in a conspiracy...but they sure didn't lose anything from 9/11 even though they clearly failed in their responsibility to protect Americans domestically.....

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know if they gained anything from 9/11, nor am I implying that the FBI was involved in a conspiracy...but they sure didn't lose anything from 9/11 even though they clearly failed in their responsibility to protect Americans domestically.....You are absolutely implying the FBI was involved in a conspiracy.

Jesus fucking Christ, just own what you say for once.

You don't think the official theory is true, but after nine years you don't believe any other theory either. Tell me why anyone should give a shit about a person who won't commit to any belief whatsoever when it comes to 9/11?

[Blake]

I don't know if they gained anything from 9/11, nor am I implying that the FBI was involved in a conspiracy...but they sure didn't lose anything from 9/11 even though they clearly failed in their responsibility to protect Americans domestically.....

failure of law enforcement to perform up to a certain level at work does not mean they are criminal suspects.

Just curious, are you suspecting the entire FBI, a large number of them, a few of them or just one of them?

[CuckingFunt]

Why is the FBI a suspect?

Because they're not not a suspect.

Obviously.

[Spurminator]

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

What the fuck? Thats some fucking stupid shit right there.
He doesn't believe in innocent until proven guilty. He'd make a good police officer maybe?

[Nbadan]

failure of law enforcement to perform up to a certain level at work does not mean they are criminal suspects.

Just curious, are you suspecting the entire FBI, a large number of them, a few of them or just one of them?

...never said they were criminal suspects...your trying to tie this altogether with Mouse's theories...I'm not....I'm saying that we don't know the full extent of what the government or any specific agency knew because everything that needs to be investigated in being protected as National Security....even the 9/11 Commissioners who were hand picked by the Bush Administration only had limited access to millions of these documents and were limited to investigating specific questions when they were giving access...

Think about what we would likely find out if Julian Assage and Wikileaks had these documents....history will eventually tell the truth...it always does...it maybe 50-60 or more years when most of the Neocons and Dubya are long gone till we know the extent of what the government knew before September 11th....

[ChumpDumper]

...never said they were criminal suspects...your trying to tie this altogether with Mouse's theories...I'm not....I'm saying that we don't know the full extent of what the government or any specific agency knew because everything that needs to be investigated in being protected as National Security....even the 9/11 Commissioners who were hand picked by the Bush Administration only had limited access to millions of these documents and were limited to investigating specific questions when they were giving access...

Think about what we would likely find out if Julian Assage and Wikileaks had these documents....history will eventually tell the truth...it always does...it maybe 50-60 or more years when most of the Neocons and Dubya are long gone till we know the extent of what the government knew before September 11th....So, what do you think the documents would reveal?

You obviously think the government is covering up their involvement in 9/11. Tell us what you think they did.

[Blake]

...never said they were criminal suspects...

uhh


moreover, you don't rule out a suspect who investigated themselves....

in this case, what other kind of suspect would there be other than criminal?

[TeyshaBlue]

uhh



in this case, what other kind of suspect would there be other than criminal?

The super secret suspect!
It's kinda like being on super secret double probation.


http://johnbatchelorshow.com/images/wormer.png

[mouse]

The FBI investigation wasn't official?

:lmao

It's these kinds of bald-faced lies that make you a laughing stock, dan.

You act is though the FBI is sin free. I am amazed how far you go to defend this government its almost creepy at times.

More Wrongdoing Found at FBI Crime Labs

http://www.truthinjustice.org/FBI-crime-lab.htm

FBI wrongdoing
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-03-18/news/17236081_1_fbi-counterterrorism-national-security-letters-fbi-and-justice-department

Report Govt. Corruption / FBI Wrongdoing

http://askadelphia.citypaper.net/questions/11762-report-govt-corruption-fbi-wrongdoing

evidence that the FBI engaged in a plot to

http://www.judibari.org/brief-pr.html


many other FBI fuck ups use Google.

[ChumpDumper]

You act is though the FBI is sin free.I act as though the FBI investigation was an official one.
I am amazed how far you go to defend this government its almost creepy at times.I am amazed at how much you lie without shame; it is creepy all the time.

[Wild Cobra]

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/images/wormer.png


http://www.teesforall.com/images/Animal_House_Faber_College_Heather_Shirt.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

As a former "conspiracy theorist", & pro-scientific thinker, I can't help but notice the major errors in the theories on 9/11. When it comes to the inside job theories, I just can't take it as truth any longer. In which I feel the only credible argument the conspiracy theorists held was of a mere misunderstanding - the finding of Thermate chemical signatures in the Twin Towers.

Steven Jones has done plenty of speeches about this in which he points out the chemical elements found within the debris. These elements pointed out are as such: iron, sulfur, aluminum, potassium, manganese, fluorine, & titanium.

Yes, most of these elements can be found in thermate. Jones had this one right. So what's the problem here? Well, like any proper scientist who would conduct studies on these elements, they'd first try & find any natural sources in which these elements could come from. And guess what? They all check out for other natural sources:

Sulfur: The third most common ingredient in the WTC construction was gypsum-based drywall, which is 18.62% sulfur.
Iron: Used in paint & electronic devices.
Potassium: Used in concrete.
Manganese: Used in the structural steel, paint, batteries, & ceramics.
Fluorine: Used in Freon. 200,000 pounds of Freon cooled the WTC complex. This was the largest air-conditioning system in the country.
Titanium: Used in paper & paint & made up 2% of each of the 767's. WTC7 was also clad in polished steel & titanium.

I find the idea of Jones claiming these elements were uncommon & only found within thermate quite disturbing, & at the least illogical.

So what would any professional scientist do next? Well, they would check if these elements were presently in their correct, signature quantities.

According to Steven Jones' own estimates, "about 1,000 pounds of explosives would be sufficient [per tower]". For both towers & WTC7, this would equal about 3,000 pounds of thermate. Thermate is 2% sulfur, in which calculates to about 60 pounds of sulfur. Approximately 1 million tons (2 billion pounds) of dust blanketed lower Manhattan.

So, based on Professor Jones' estimates, a thermate reaction would cause the WTC dust to be approximately 0.000003% sulfur. Correct? (don't worry, it's text. You can get a calculator if needed)

Yet, this would then be highly unlikely for such a low percentage to be detectable, especially when compared to USGS dust samples in which showed as much as 5.4% sulfur!

And finally, what is the last important thing a scientist would need to do in order to confirm the presence of a chemical device? Well, they would need to ensure that all of the elements of thermate are present. So, are all elements present?

I would say no! For the two main byproducts of thermate are aluminum oxide (41%) & barium nitrate (29%). Both are especially unique to thermate & would have no reason whatsoever to be found within the WTC - unless, that is, thermate was in the twin towers.

However, neither the USGS nor Steven Jones himself report finding any traces of either of these elements - the two main ingredients of thermate! Yes, Jones does point out the presence of aluminum, but there's a huge difference between aluminum & aluminum oxide (which has 3 oxygen atoms). Not to mention aluminum was common through its use in the WTC's facade, the 767's, & vehicles.

The presence of all elements pointed out through natural sources within the WTC complexes, & the very lack of aluminum oxide & barium nitrate just completely destroys the theory that thermate was in the WTC!

[Nbadan]

Because they're not not a suspect.

Obviously.

your usually not this dense...of course they're suspects, they benefited monetarily and with greater authority after the attacks instead of being investigated why they failed to protect America so miserably...that alone makes them a suspect...

[ChumpDumper]

your usually not this dense...of course they're suspects, they benefited monetarily and with greater authority after the attacks instead of being investigated why they failed to protect America so miserably...that alone makes them a suspect...:lol you think the FBI would pull off 9/11 to get a budget increase?

I'm sure it makes sense to you....

[Nbadan]

:lol you think the FBI would pull off 9/11 to get a budget increase?

I'm sure it makes sense to you....

They sure as hell didn't get a budget cut and their house cleaned...that's what should have happened...

[Nbadan]

...and I didn't say that 'they pulled off 9/11'...nice straw man...I said I would not believe an investigation from an agency that failed in its job to protect us...especially when there are many witnesses who are willing to admit that they never talked to the FBI...it was a CYA cover-up just like the 911 commission report..

[ChumpDumper]

They sure as hell didn't get a budget cut and their house cleaned...that's what should have happened...Who specifically should have been fired and why?

[ChumpDumper]

...and I didn't say that 'they pulled off 9/11'...nice straw man...I said I would not believe a investigation from an agency that failed in its job to protect us...


of course they're suspects

[Nbadan]

Who specifically should have been fired and why?

Everybody...house should have been cleaned...

[ChumpDumper]

Everybody...house should have been cleaned...Fire about 30,000 personnel in the FBI alone and replace them with whom?

[Blake]

your usually not this dense...of course they're suspects, they benefited monetarily and with greater authority after the attacks instead of being investigated why they failed to protect America so miserably...that alone makes them a suspect...

so basically your premise is that the FBI purposely failed knowing full well that such failure would lead to a budget increase.

k.

[Nbadan]

your a moron...spin all you want....believe the agency who lost Muhammad Atta and ignored foreign intelligence that terrorists were training in America to attack America using planes

[ChumpDumper]

your a moronokeh.

[Nbadan]

so basically your premise is that the FBI purposely failed knowing full well that such failure would lead to a budget increase.

k.

...unfortunately, it happens all the time...all they had to do was steer real investigations away that could have led to disclosure of failures by the agency...

[ChumpDumper]

...unfortunately, it happens all the time...all they had to do was steer real investigations away that could have led to disclosure of failures by the agency...Real investigations by whom?

[Blake]

...unfortunately, it happens all the time...

what's another instance of this premise?

[Nbadan]

Real investigations by whom?

Anybody....rogue FBI agents, private investigators, families of 911, smaller law agencies....everybody..

[Nbadan]

what's another instance of this premise?

Pffff....

The whole time J. Edgar Hoover led the FBI......

[ChumpDumper]

Anybody....rogue FBI agents, private investigators, families of 911, smaller law agencies....everybody..:lol You're a loon, dan.

Could you give ma an example of a private eye's investigating the FBI over an apparently alleged foreign terror plot?

[Blake]

Pffff....

The whole time J. Edgar Hoover led the FBI......

I'm not familiar with any instances that Hoover's possible FBI failures led to budget increases.

[Nbadan]

I'm not familiar with any instances that Hoover's possible FBI failures led to budget increases.

Are you serious?

[Blake]

Are you serious?

Yes. I haven't done a whole lot of reading up on Hoover, other than conspiracies about him being gay and a cross-dresser, supposed failures of the JFK assassination investigation and constant denials of organized crime.

In all that though, I never saw where he received a budget increase as a direct result of any of those things. Please share what you know.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes. I haven't done a whole lot of reading up on Hoover, other than conspiracies about him being gay and a cross-dresser, supposed failures of the JFK assassination investigation and constant denials of organized crime.

In all that though, I never saw where he received a budget increase as a direct result of any of those things. Please share what you know.
Propaganda Dan can never back up his propaganda...

[Blake]

stupid, these aren't the referees. They are testing for thermite. Once again, you're stupid, the lead author is the head of the chemistry department at the University of Copenhagen.

roflmao the University of Copenhagen

[mouse]

Chump is crumbling faster than WTC7

[Blake]

Oh look! A funny oversized jpeg that fucks up the page!

[Agloco]

Blake and Chump are............



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/6a00d8341c3e8f53ef00e553964b5e8834-800wi.jpg

How many more threads do you intend to post this in?

You and this picture are like a dog with a new squeaky toy.

[mouse]

Your the savvy scientist you tell me.

Unless your all out of viniger and baking soda

[ChumpDumper]

lol paint chips

[mouse]

I must say the evidence thus far points to explosives.

[Blake]

I must say the evidence thus far points to explosives.

No need to say how ignorant you are

[mouse]

I would say the journal will publish just about anything that people pay to put in it, and Danish science guy's bias was laid bare when he said that it was clear It's so bad, you can't even call it science anymore.

I wonder why Agloco didn't come in here to defend his Science pals?

[Agloco]

I wonder why Agloco didn't come in here to defend his Science pals?

Chump, Blake, et al. are doing an excellent job of representing the science themselves tbh. Nothing to defend.

[mouse]

Its ok you proved already to be a coward by avoiding a live debate with me.


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203428

[Nbadan]

Its ok you proved already to be a coward by avoiding a live debate with me.


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203428


Yeah, I don't know about a debate but I've had my concerns about Agloco since he wrote that 1/2 = .05.....that's really serious if you're in the sciences...

[ChumpDumper]

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

If not, that's really serious if you're in the sciences.

[Nbadan]

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

If not, that's really serious if you're in the sciences.

Depends on who you consider a credible source I guess....to bad NIST couldn't even contemplate any other scenario than their own scenario in their tests....

[ChumpDumper]

Depends on who you consider a credible source I guess....to bad NIST couldn't even contemplate any other scenario than their own scenario in their tests....That didn't answer my question.

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

All I need is a yes or no.

Trying to compare the secrecy of their experiments to that of NIST does not help the truther cause tbh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Depends on who you consider a credible source I guess....to bad NIST couldn't even contemplate any other scenario than their own scenario in their tests....

Yeah they did. The considered the controlled demolition hypothesis and rejected it giving their reasoning in their report.

If anyone is not considering another hypothesis --or any other hypothesis for that matter-- it's you.

I am sure you are a Clinton fan. Remember where he talks about coming to conclusions and making decisions based on ideology instead of what the actual facts are? Think about that for awhile. Quit being like WC and trying to fit the way you want things to be rather than how they actually are.

[Nbadan]

Who comparing? I stated that NIST never contemplated that the building could have been brought down by any other scenario than they outlined....is that true or not?

Answer the question.

[ChumpDumper]

Who comparing?Oh, so you were just trying to avoid answering the question I asked. Understood.
I stated that NIST never contemplated that the building could have been brought down by any other scenario than they outlined....is that true or not?

Answer the question.Fuzzy already answered that. I would add that if nutters had evidence of thermite, they would be falling over themselves to have others duplicate their test results on the dust.

Answer my question.

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

Don't try to change the subject again.

[Nbadan]

O'Relly?

Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?


NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to previous questions demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

As for thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited), it burns slowly relative to explosive materials and would require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

[ChumpDumper]

You didn't even answer your own question.

But go ahead and answer mine now.

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust.

Quit stalling.

[Nbadan]

Selling Progressive Collapse


The (911 commission) Report mentions "progressive collapse" 16 times, mostly in sections describing recommendations. It defines progressive collapse as when "a building or portion of a building collapses due to disproportionate spread of an initial local failure" but does not mention how rare the phenomenon is or that there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed buildings outside of 9/11/01.

By repeatedly invoking the specter of "progressive collapse" while concealing the phenomenon's lack of repeatability outside of "terrorist incidents," the Report surreptitiously bolsters its supposition that "global collapse" automatically follows from "collapse initiation."


A key technique the Report uses to add realism to its theory is to mix observational data with speculation, while failing to note the difference. For example, in numerous places the Report juxtaposes its estimates of core column damage (which are highly speculative) next to estimates of perimeter column damage (which can be inferred directly from photographic evidence).


The debris cut a shallow path through the west and center array of trusses, damaging the insulation up to the north wall of the building core. This devastation took 0.7 s. The structural and insulation damage was considerable and was estimated to be:

35 exterior columns severed, 2 heavily damaged.
6 core columns severed, 3 heavily damaged.
43 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation on one or more floors.
Insulation stripped from trusses covering 60,000 ft2 of floor area.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/towers_draft.html

[ChumpDumper]

Stalling to Avoid Collapse

I'm pretending the 9/11 Commission Report is a scientific document.Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

[Nbadan]

As noted below, the Report asserts that infernos raged in the Towers' cores with quantitative detail that could easily mislead the reader into thinking that there is evidence to support it. Elsewhere the Report admits that there is no visual evidence for fires close to or in the cores.


Fires deeper than a few meters inside the building could not be seen because of the smoke obscuration and the steep viewing angle of nearly all the photographs. (p 127/177)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/towers_draft.html

[ChumpDumper]

As noted above, I'm trying like hell to avoid a simple yes or no question. My e-rep amongst other anonymous truthers depends on it. Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

[mouse]

Yeah, I don't know about a debate but I've had my concerns about Agloco since he wrote that 1/2 = .05.....that's really serious if you're in the sciences...

Its one thing to get online and call yourself a highly skilled Plumber its another when you show you don't know your shit.

[Nbadan]

The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)

The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).


A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. (p 98/148)

Where does NIST get the idea that steel temperatures should be more than 450 degrees Celsius (or 842 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than their own evidence indicates? This passage provides some insight into their experimental method.


A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC. (p 123/173)

1.9 to 3.4 MW (megawatts) is the heat output of about 500 wood stoves -- that in a living-room-sized space!


The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 125-6/175-6)

Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.


Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces. (p 28/78)

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

[Nbadan]

Its one thing to get online and call yourself a highly skilled Plumber its another when you show you don't know your shit.

Well, I know that Bum is a real mathematician because he knows his shit when I post math here...or the few times he does..can't say the same for Angloco...

[ChumpDumper]

I repeatedly vomit up a bunch of posts quoting from the same site in hopes of burying the question I am terrified to answer. Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

These guys are structural engineers.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf


6 combinations of explosive location and column/truss sections and two implementation scenarios were considered.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

And quit being like WC with shitty napkin math. If you want to attempt to look at how to model building collape and thermodynamics go to the first link.

You are completely out of your element and make yourself seem the ignorant fool, dan. Don't be a WC.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC. (p 123/173)

1.9 to 3.4 MW (megawatts) is the heat output of about 500 wood stoves -- that in a living-room-sized space!

This is clearly designed to be compelling to ignorant fools. That you give it credence is sad.

[ChumpDumper]

Eh, dan has successfully engaged someone else on the subject of not my question. I'll still ask it though.

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

[Nbadan]

These guys are structural engineers.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/466.pdf

:sleep

The entire premise of the paper rests on claiming the simplifying assumptions employed describe an extreme case which favors survival, therefore all other scenarios must also lead to total collapse.

But the paper actually does not assume conditions most optimistic for survival as I'll explain.


To understand why these conditions are not most optimistic for survival we need to understand how he formulates the problem.

We have discovered many things in the last two years which show the initial collapse scenario of Bazant to be outdated. His probable collapse scenario from pg 1:


In stage 1 ~Fig. 1!, the conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel
spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be
exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C.
The heating is probably accelerated by a loss of the protective
thermal insulation of steel during the initial blast. At such temperatures,
structural steel suffers a decrease of yield strength and
exhibits significant viscoplastic deformation ~i.e., creep—an increase
of deformation under sustained load!. This leads to creep
buckling of columns ~Bazˇant and Cedolin 1991, Sec. 9!, which
consequently lose their load carrying capacity ~stage 2!. Once
more than half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated
most suffer buckling ~stage 3!, the weight of the upper part of the
structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the
upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical
floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that
moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy
and a significant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the
mass of the upper part onto the lower part ~stage 4! applies enormous
vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding
its load capacity, even though it is not heated. This causes
failure of an underlying multifloor segment of the tower ~stage 4!,
in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying
trusses to the columns is either accompanied or quickly followed
by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the
framed tube, with the buckles probably spanning the height of
many floors ~stage 5, at right!, and the upper part possibly getting
wedged inside an emptied lower part of the framed tube ~stage 5,
at left!. The buckling is initially plastic but quickly leads to fracture
in the plastic hinges. The part of building lying beneath is
then impacted again by an even larger mass falling with a greater
velocity, and the series of impacts and failures then proceeds all
the way down ~stage 5!.

Limpy's bogus proof (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf)


This is his formulation of the physics problem. It is not the only way to describe the first impact.

Notice his description of the first collision: At that
moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy
and a significant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the
mass of the upper part onto the lower part ~stage 4! applies enormous
vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding
its load capacity, even though it is not heated.

He formulates the physics as the KE of the entire upper block striking the structure below with no justification. This is only an assumption and certainly does not favor survival.

A more realistic understanding of the first significant collision as being between 2 floor slabs, both held to their respective structures by finite connections. Considering the upper floor slab to be connected to the rest of the upper block only through connections of finite strength, there is no physical justification to include the entire upper block mass or KE in the first collision.


It is by treating the upper block as a rigid body and misrepresenting the nature of the first impact as column-to-column impacts rather than floor-to-floor impacts that he can apply an overwhelming amount of KE at the first impact while claiming that such a massive jolt is actually the most optimistic case for survival.

Notice his description of perimeter buckling which has been shown to be totally wrong.

In short, it is the way in which he formulates the physics of the first impact and all subsequent impacts that allows him to overestimate the destructive nature of the collisions. We see absolutely no evidence that single floor failure inevitably leads to total collapse in actual demolitions (in, like, real buildings) studied nor do we see any guarantee that there is an ever increasing capacity for destruction at the collapse front as the front progresses downwards as BZ claims.
Website


http://the911forum.freeforums.org/list-of-all-scientific-research-9-11-papers-t106-45.html

[ChumpDumper]

Remember the thread that got started about guys testing dust from the site of the 9/11 attacks?

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

[mouse]

Well, I know that Bum is a real mathematician because he knows his shit when I post math here...or the few times he does..can't say the same for Angloco...

I knew Agloco was one of LJs TRolls when I first ran into him but it didn't bother me until he called me out for getting kicked out of MIT.

Not to mention the fact that posters here feel if they aren't anti Obama, support Evolution, and think WTC7 fell down due to Gravity they wont look like true Republicans. And that is a Sin around here.

its really an ego thing.

[mouse]

Remember the thread that got started about guys testing dust from the site of the 9/11 attacks?

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

That would require an open independent investigation and we know the 9/11 commission already did all that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So Dan, tell me in your own words what you think that the NW paper is claiming and what the random blogger you are asserting is claiming.

From the article they cite in their paper:


Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer buckling , the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the
upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

They are talking about the support columns that bear the weight of the entire structure. Are you really saying they do not know how the building was structured?

You aren't saying shit. You are just copying and pasting and as I backtrack through what you are posting I quickly realize that you are grouping shit from NIST and stupidity like your wood stove 'analysis' together.

I am just going to ridicule you now. You deserve no better than WC as this has entered his level of stupidity and wishful thinking.

[ChumpDumper]

That would require an open independent investigation and we know the 9/11 commission already did all that.No, the commission did not test the dust.

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you really saying they do not know how the building was structured?

You aren't saying shit. You are just copying and pasting and as I backtrack through what you are posting I quickly realize that you are grouping shit from NIST and stupidity like your wood stove 'analysis' together.

I am just going to ridicule you now. You deserve no better than WC as this has entered his level of stupidity and wishful thinking.He's just trying to avoid answering my question that actually has to do with the subject of the thread.

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

[mouse]

Eh, dan has successfully engaged someone else on the subject of not my question. I'll still ask it though.

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

That is a good question I am always for multiple examinations of the same evidence.

Just like when the same bone sample is sent to 4 different carbon 14 test sites and they come back with 4 different dates, :lmao

Sorry Nbadan but Chump has a point why not another conformation outside that circle?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:sleep

The entire premise of the paper rests on claiming the simplifying assumptions employed describe an extreme case which favors survival, therefore all other scenarios must also lead to total collapse.


You are an idiot:


For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the
most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.

Now deductive reasoning doesn't work?

[mouse]

No, the commission did not test the dust.

Has anyone replicated the tests Jones, et. al., did on that dust?

I know it was sarcasm.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The argument is that if you concede that the support trusses failed then that would be the most resistance provided.

You can put up scenarios where the connections to said supports failed instead but that is not the argument. Instead of arguing that the trusses didn't fail beyond your shitty attempt at thermodynamics by woodstove comparison you try to make a different shitty argument.

Of course if the supports didn't fail that would be a 'better' case scenario.

Like WC, you suck at modeling.

[mouse]

but in all fairness what I have seen posted in the ST Politics forum is 100% more info that you got with this...


http://www.maschicago.org/home2/Portals/0/911report-640x480-777416.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Most of what I know about 9/11 did not come from that report tbh.

[George W Bush]

but in all fairness what I have seen posted in the ST Politics forum is 100% more info that you got with this...


http://www.maschicago.org/home2/Portals/0/911report-640x480-777416.jpg


My administration worked very hard on that fairy tale.

In fact, how did you get a Photoshopped copy of it anyway?

Here is the official 9/11 Commission Report

http://www.breakfornews.com/newspics/Holes-in-911-Report.jpg

[mouse]

The argument is that if you concede that the support trusses failed then that would be the most resistance provided.
.

but every truss on every floor failing at the same time in perfect free fall time?

[Winehole23]

this was on Benny Johnson's podcast


Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs chair Sen. Ron Johnson says that 9/11 was a "controlled demolition" and there has been a "cover up" of massive amounts of evidence, many "questions" need to be answered

[Thread]

The Magic Negro damn well better pray it weren't an inside job, eh, kids? If it was TMN is goiin' straight to Hell.