Reply With Quote
No.
Seriously, why would there need to be explosions 40 floors up when the main support trusses around the fifth floor had already failed and the buillding was already collapsing?
...considering the National Ins ue of Standards and Technology doeesn't really have much to do directly with weather forecasts, I don't trust them as a good source for the weather...
...considering it's been more than 7 years and there is still a lack of evidence concerning explosives, I don't trust you as a good source of 9/11 information...
No.
Seriously, why would there need to be explosions 40 floors up when the main support trusses around the fifth floor had already failed and the buillding was already collapsing?
Do the math!
Collapsed buildings
WTC buildings.
Do the math!
You just proved the WTC buildings weren't brought down by an earthquake.
Dr. Stevens Jones is the Next Galileo
Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say
By Elaine Jarvik
April 6, 2009
Deseret News
Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials -- proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery.
Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.
For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7.
The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a "nano-thermite" material that is highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq.
The next step, Jones said in a phone interview on Monday, is for someone to investigate "who made the stuff and why it was there."
A layer of dust lay over parts of Manhattan immediately following the collapse of the towers, and it was samples of this dust that Jones and fellow researchers requested in a 2006 paper, hoping to determine "the whole truth of the events of that day." They eventually tested four samples they received from New Yorkers.
One sample was from a man who had swept up a handful of dust on the Brooklyn Bridge, where he was walking when the second tower fell. As the journal authors note, "It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steel-cutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC-7, which fell hours later."
Another man collected dust in his apartment, about five blocks from the World Trade Center, on the morning of Sept. 12. There was a layer about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near an open window.
Red/gray chips, averaging in size between .2 and 3 mm, were found in all four dust samples. The chips were then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and other high-tech tools.
The red layer of the chips, according to the researchers, contains a "highly energetic" form of thermite. While normal thermite (a mixture of finely granulated aluminum and an oxide of metal) can be incendiary, "super thermite" is explosive. He says there is no benign explanation for the thermite in the WTC dust.
Jones made headlines in 2005 when he argued that the rapid and symmetrical fall of the World Trade Center looked like the result of pre-positioned explosives. He argued that fires alone wouldn't have been hot enough to crumble the buildings; and that even if struck by planes, the towers should have been strong enough to support the weight of the tops as they crumbled -- unless they were leveled by explosives.
Essentially forced to retire, Jones says he is now paying for research out of his own pocket.
He likens himself to Galileo and Newton, who stood by their consciences. "I would like to think I could stand up for the truth," he says.
The dust study vindicates his earlier theories, Jones says, but he has mixed feelings about the implications. "As a young student said to me a while back: 'It's exciting from a scientific point of view, because things are now making sense. But I feel sad for my country.'?"
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/0...295677,00.html
Last edited by Galileo; 04-07-2009 at 02:43 PM.
The peers review the writers' check to see if it clears. If it does, they publish the paper.the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal
were Galileo and Newton also members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
why are the "9-11 truth experts" always experts in fields that have very little to do with engineering?
From my cursory reading on this, it seems the twoofers have discovered the presence of red paint in the twin towers.
Not Galileo, but Newton was a unitarian who believed that the prophecies of Daniel and the prophecies of Revelation could be quantified.
What's funny, is a Toofer would be able to find thermite in every General Motors 3rd generation LS series aluminum engine. I'd like their theory of why GM is making Termite engines!
it was more of a smartass rhetorical question
Seriously though.
Read the whole paper.
The authors attribute the dust to "super-thermite" or "nano-thermite", that is thermite that has been powderized or put into a gel-suspension. The supposition is that such a material was sprayed all over the building.
The FAIL is that the authors have taken a fairly quiet exothermic reaction, and then shoehorned their data to change normal thermite into a conventional explosive.
One of the graphs in the paper indicates that the amount of energy in the chips they examined had more energy per gram than HMX, a commercially available high-explosive.
So we are left with:
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
The 9-11 guys have taken the first steps towards using some actual science.
Honest skeptical questions:
Did the study consider alternate means of formation of the redish chips they studied, and compared those alternate means of formation to what was observed?
The confounding thing about their theory is that the formation of thermitic compounds in an aluminum and steel builiding during a conventional fire would be expected.
To be able to conclusively prove their theory, they would have to show that the chips they observed could NOT have been formed by other means, and MUST have been ONLY formed by unexploded "nano-thermite".
There is no evidence that this normal control-type examination was done. That makes it bad science, as I am sure someone else will point out.
Lastly, the problem remains for the "explosive" theory:
Since this paper posits really energetic explosives being used, this implies debris speeds in the range of thousands of feet per second.
Why was glass and small debris not scattered for miles around?
--The towers' upper floors were high enough off of the ground for the glass and small debris on those floors to have been propelled upwards of 2+ miles. Give me ONE instance of such debris hitting any one of the millions of people within that radius who came out to watch.
If this really was "massively energetic" explosives, why was this not clearly heard for tens of miles?
--I was within two blocks of a VERY small building demolition, and it was deafening, and extremely distinct. If two 100+ story buildings were demolished it would have to have been MUCH louder.
I do give you guys kudos for actually trying the science route, even if the paper had its flaws that were rather obvious in a quick reading.
So let me see if I get this right:thermite
noun
(chemistry) a mixture of aluminium metal and ferric oxide; used in incendiary devices
A building made out of aluminum and iron collapses, and the geniuses in the 9-11 movment find aluminum and iron dust in the debris?
ba-da-bing
Confessions of an ex-truther
The ranting and raving of someone who wasted a year of his life being sucked into the lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Truthers Strike Back!
Or I guess this should be called "The Trutherix" or "T for Truther," since those movies fit better for their worldview. I found it interesting that those in support of my blog were complimenting me with the likes of, "Welcome back from the dark side, Anakin," while the truthers were attempting to confine me to their fantasy world with, "Once you take the red pill, THEREZ NO GONE BACK!!1!" But I digress...
I was bored the other day and started bashing truthers on Blogger, and my words seem to have incited one truther to respond to my post... or well, snippets from various posts in no particular order, but more on that later.
Yeah, and all your "proof" involves one or two articles that came out in the weeks immediately after the attacks. Turns out the name Mohammed and various surnames are pretty common in the Muslim world? Iden ies stolen? Ha, show me your "proof."1) The iden ies are in doubt, yet the government refused to correct them, or to admit they were unsure.
People whose photos appeared as the FBI's hijackers turned up alive. This is very strange.
Most "truthers" agree they existed, at least some number of them anyway. The "turning up alive" reports aren't all "debunked." Some had their iden ies stolen. So they actually were alive, so who was it that was supposed to be on the plane?
The other difficult part about the "hijackers" is that NONE OF THEM WERE RELIGIOUS. Why kill yourself "for Islam" if you're not even religious, and you ignore all your religious customs and dictates?
And yet another difficult problem about the hijackers is the drug smuggling that Daniel Hopsicker reported on at Huffman Aviation. Hopsicker ties Huffman aircraft back to the CIA, and to other aircraft used smuggling narcotics that met up with truncated flight plans in Mexico.
Same goes for your "explosive evidence" that they weren't religious. The only link you do provide is for this Hopsicker guy, who has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And your link doesn't even go to a direct post, but rather the main page of what looks to be another truther website. So much for your "research" and "evidence."
Most of your "witnesses" had their quotes taken out of context and completely misrepresented to fit your little theory. What about all the witnesses who claim these quotes were taken out of context? And even if witnesses do stick by the fact they heard explosions, so be it. Sure, someone can hear what they think is an explosion, but does that prove it to be so?Well, I certainly believe all those eye witnesses talking about "explosions", "bombs in the buildings", "secondary devices" and other euphamisms. See this video:
Eyewitness & Media Accounts Of Bombs At The WTC on 9/11.
Why would all those people lie? Or, conversely, what exploded? (There was no natural gas in the towers.)
What exploded? Perhaps your ADHD is at it again, and you forgot that a commercial jetliner crashed through the building at 500 miles an hour! What about the raging inferno, caused by the jet fuel, which fell down the elevator shaft? Could it be that blazing elevator cars were falling from 1,000 feet and made a loud boom sound? I guess that wouldn't fit your little theory, so like every other fact in the world, its ignored.
I love you truthers. Again, you take a quote out of context and make it seem like the point I'm arguing is that Larry got all the money for himself. OF COURSE, the payout went to his company... you know, to REBUILD. But again, you leave that point out. Again, in perhaps a language you can understand, SILVERSTEIN LOST MON$$$$EY ON THE DEALIOLOLOLOL!1!1!"[Silverstein] got paid. It probably went into his company, for which he is a major shareholder. What's the point of that one?"
As for BBC, they covered it up for five years, remember. Then they pretended they never knew about it (lie), which is impossible because as soon as their transmission mysteriously was cut over the satellite, the real building 7 went down in a blaze of glory. This was noticed immediately by BBC's reporter. They then -- when finally confronted over it -- said "We're not part of the conspiracy" in addition to claiming they lost the tapes (so they wouldn't have to apologize for it on the air). I do not trust the BBC. They doth protest too much.
They didn't cover anything up for 5 years. This video only surfaced among truthers this past February. You guys are so desperate to cherrypick and find any "evidence," that it seems like you searched the archives for months and found something you could come up with an elaborate explanation for.
Perhaps it was just the fact that it was ing 9/11 and utter chaos in newsrooms throughout the world. You know, occam's razor-- the reporter was human and made a mistake in the confusion of the day? Could you identify Building 7 before you became a truther? If anything, the BBC report just confirms the fact that it was popular belief that the building was obviously unstable and in danger of coming down.
Too bad Jones is a physicist, and not a structural engineer. You also mentioned Kevin Ryan, but I won't even quote that because he's just a lowly water tester. If Jones' work is 100% scientific, why won't any other structural engineer in the world back up his claims and, you know, peer-review his findings?Dr. Steven Jones certainly has not ignored science or logic.
Dr. Jones' hard evidence of microscopic "steel spherules" in the dust of the WTC event is powerful stuff. Spheres like that could only have been formed in a molten state. They are corroborated by a US Geological Survey report.
Yes, and the spheres... Wow, they're both round! Groundbreaking stuff. Molten state? Yeah, there were molten metals, but that doesn't mean it was molten steel. Planes are made of aluminum, you know.
As for demolition, there are strong grounds for suspecting it, including Griffin's "10 features" of controlled demolition. Couple that with the inverse, that these 10 features have NEVER been seen in any case other than a controlled demolition, never in history. That is at least enough to make it possible, if not proven.
Yes, but Griffin's 10 features all take place in the wrong order and over 90 minutes. The aspects all occur within a few seconds during a CD. Already brought it up here, but I guess you didn't read my blog as thoroughly as you thought.
And just because something is probable does not make it proven. You and Mike Ruppert would make good friends. Maybe you didn't know that, and that's why you're still wrapped up in all these conspiracy theories.
Danny Jowenko, who owns a controlled demolition company, looked at WTC7 and said, "This is controlled demolition." "It's been imploded." "A team of experts did this."
Is this the Dutch guy who watched it on TV? What about all the experts who actually had pieces of debris to analyze? What about every American engineer who has seen the collapse in the proper context who disagrees with you?
Alright, I'm getting tired of this...
You really do ramble around mentally.
Yes, as you cherrypick random quotes from different blog entries and post them in a rambling style all your own. Responding to your post has been extremely tedious, and I have a finance exam to study for. Because, you know, some of us have lives of our own and the ambition to excel(and not just panic about doomsday). You, my friend, are stuck in a lost cause.
So make your own pamphlet. Why is this such a difficult solution for you to come up with? Make your own movie. You already made your own blog. It doesn't enlighten, however.
You forget that I'm co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany, the first 9/11 truth campus group to be officially recognized and funded by the university. What are your credentials?
This is exactly my problem with the "truth" movement. You guys pile on so much BS like all the long-debunked claims in this very response and add it in with one or two legitimate facts like "bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11" and you think your case is astronomical. If it was, it'd be brought to trial right now by one of the victims. You guys can't even agree on anything within your movement! Unfortunately your theories are unfounded, your experts are nowhere to be found, and all that's left is a group of un-American narcissistic kooks who can agree on nothing but the "fact" that the government did it.How many anomalies do I need to type (yet again) to make this clear?
Posted by MikeyMetz at 4:23 PM
That's the gist of it. That's why in the other thread in my first post (#11):So let me see if I get this right:
A building made out of aluminum and iron collapses, and the geniuses in the 9-11 movment find aluminum and iron dust in the debris?
Post #12:Yep, show how really dumb these conspiracy theorists really are.
Lets see... Iron oxide is rust... Doesn't steel rust under one of several conditions, including being expose to oxygen and heat.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a steel building. I guess these guys think it was made of anium.
What is the primary metal that airplanes are made of? Isn't it aluminum?
Apparently, the likes of Galileo don't know these elemental truths.
Don't you get it?
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would expect iron oxide and aluminum to be found together in the aftermath. It's expected when you combime aluminum, steel, and heat!
Absolutely ZERO proof of thermite.
My real problem with the "peer reviewed" paper was that they didn't even try to consider/eliminate other potential sources of "thermite".
Real science does that when making assertions of fact.
Just because this needs to be on every page of this thread...
pfftt.....is that all you got RG?
I think today is a win for the truthers!
How can it be a win? Most of us are simply tired of debating the same over and over.
I agree that they win in the area of stamina of repeating propaganda. They seem to never get tired.
RG is just posting things that Obama's fascist government wants you to hear.
...and now the truthers have found thermite at the scene.
game. set. match. victory for the truthers.
But they didn't find thermite. They found iron oxide and aluminum. I would be shocked if they didn't find any considering all the iron and aluminum at the scene.
Wouldn't you?
no, very clearly there is a thread started that says "active thermitic dust found"
you're quick on the uptake.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
