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

[TeyshaBlue]

I agree. You know tons more than I do about this topic.

But what you are calling my assumptions are coming straight from the interviews with the scientist and the engineer. Dont ask me to prove their work.

If you want to hear their side of things, give it a listen. If you want to argue technical points with a dumbass on the subject (me), well, I tire easily. lol.

the interviews are interesting. The guys have cred. Give em a shot. or dont. But to continue to argue without being willing to hear the opposition (NOT ME, but the actual scientists), as chump and cc are doing, is pretty arrogant and actually takes away from their cred. I dont know if you are willing to watch or not though.

Parker, for the record, I'm not stating that I have any more knowledge of this subject than you or anyone else here. I do however, read when I need to. I have listened to the nano thermite arguements..(these that you have presented are not unique in any sense of the word) and I continue to find them lacking. The mechanics of demolition are pretty open. What is missing from most of these arguments are specifications of what would've been needed....how much...what was the bonding agent....what was the initiator....relevant pieces of information.

[Parker2112]

Parker, for the record, I'm not stating that I have any more knowledge of this subject than you or anyone else here. I do however, read when I need to. I have listened to the nano thermite arguements..(these that you have presented are not unique in any sense of the word) and I continue to find them lacking. The mechanics of demolition are pretty open. What is missing from most of these arguments are specifications of what would've been needed....how much...what was the bonding agent....what was the initiator....relevant pieces of information.

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 bull . 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.

The standard: We have ceased investigating. But anything that arises that is not explained by the original investigation warrants a new look. The only way to put a-z together is through a thourough investigation that doesnt stop till questions or answered, or else it remains unsolved. These scientists are saying unsolved.

If we convicted a man based on certain evidence, and then new evidence shows that conspirators prints/DNA was also found on the weapon and at the scene, we would search for conspirators.

[CosmicCowboy]

My degree was a hybrid Architecture/Civil Engineering degree and if you understand how those steel curtain wall buildings were constructed you would understand the it is extremely probably that it happened exactly the way it looks..the fire weakened/melted the steel in those 3-4 floors and the rest of the building pancaked when the weight from above hit it falling...

[Parker2112]

My degree was a hybrid Architecture/Civil engineering degree and if you understand how those buildings were constructed you would understand the it is extremely probably that it happened exactly the way it looks..the fire weakened/melted the steel in those 3-4 floors and the rest of the building pancaked when the weight from above hit it falling...

you arent talking about these particles...you are talking about your own already-formed conclusions. If what you say is true, there is no reason the dust should include nano thermite.

[CosmicCowboy]

Fine. You are more than welcome to believe any convoluted conspiracy theories you want.

[TeyshaBlue]

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 bull . Chump is very good at this...prove it from a-z or shut up. But that is bs.

Anything that is not explained by the original investigation warrants a new look.

If we convicted a man based on certain evidence, and then new evidence shows that conspirators prints/DNA was also found on the weapon and at the scene, we would search for conspirators.

But you never questioned whether they were actually nano thermite compounds or not. You just assumed they were and ran with it?
How can an investigation explain something that may not even be true? The "evidence" can't even be considered cir stantial until it conforms to a framework of intent and structure. Then, it may achieve corroborative status if other like pieces of evidence are introduced and a network of relation established. Thus far, I've seen none of this attendant structure. I could just as easily posit that my chihuahua brought down the trade towers absent anything resembling corroborative evidence.

[Parker2112]

Fine. You are more than welcome to believe any convoluted conspiracy theories you want.

I actually dont have a theory. I have a ton of questions though.

I dont think anyone KNOWS what happened. Thats why I think we should still be investigating this thing till it cracks. If it ever does.

[TeyshaBlue]

I actually dont have a theory. I have a ton of questions though.

I dont think anyone KNOWS what happened. Thats why I think we should still be investigating this thing till it cracks. If it ever does.

If it doesn't crack, then will your questions be answered?

Somehow, I'm doubting that.

[Parker2112]

But you never questioned whether they were actually nano thermite compounds or not. You just assumed they were and ran with it?
How can an investigation explain something that may not even be true? The "evidence" can't even be considered cir stantial until it conforms to a framework of intent and structure. Then, it may achieve corroborative status if other like pieces of evidence are introduced and a network of relation established. Thus far, I've seen none of this attendant structure. I could just as easily posit that my chihuahua brought down the trade towers absent anything resembling corroborative evidence.

The official version ruled out super thermite? If not, why? Why wasnt it even addressed? And if the investigation never addressed the possibility, and only accepted conclusions inside a certain perimiter, how can we conclusively dismiss these scientists?

If the official investigation said they tested and found no evidence of N/T, then you could discount these guys as kooks pretty easy.

This is a problem. And we as Americans who were all wounded that day deserve closure and desrve to be able to dismiss this theory. Our govt owes us that. It also owes that to future generations.

And the chihuahua version is impossible. The thermite versionn, as we have already said is a known possibility. Big difference.


One last thing: Dont be arrogant enough to think we can track the most elite destructive force on the planet...our military and intelligence communities. If someone was acting from a position within either of these, with that type of expertise, you would likely NEVER find the complete chain of details without a full confession.

[Parker2112]

If it doesn't crack, then will your questions be answered?

Somehow, I'm doubting that.

we havent addressed thermite at all. see above. That is a pretty easy detail to crack.

[Parker2112]

My degree was a hybrid Architecture/Civil Engineering degree and if you understand how those steel curtain wall buildings were constructed you would understand the it is extremely probably that it happened exactly the way it looks..the fire weakened/melted the steel in those 3-4 floors and the rest of the building pancaked when the weight from above hit it falling...

interesting thing...the official conclusion rules out "pancaking"...

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of do ents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

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

[Parker2112]

the NIST report eliminated explosives, but never touched thermite. see for yourselves.

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

Which, if you watch the Jon Cole vid, he talks about how ridiculous this is, given that many involved with NIST had been involved with thermite experiments first hand and knew well what it could have done if it was present.

Thats a pretty gaping hole in the official story if you ask me. Sounds like they need to rethink a to z. lol.

[TeyshaBlue]

And the chihuahua version is impossible. The thermite versionn, as we have already said is a known possibility. Big difference.

Again, you don't know what you don't know. You've never met my chihuahua. That ing dog is a nuclear powered 5lb. yapping/killing machine.

[Parker2112]

Again, you don't know what you don't know. You've never met my chihuahua. That ing dog is a nuclear powered 5lb. yapping/killing machine.

[TeyshaBlue]

the NIST report eliminated explosives, but never touched thermite. see for yourselves.

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

Which, if you watch the Jon Cole vid, he talks about how ridiculous this is, given that many involved with NIST had been involved with thermite experiments first hand and knew well what it could have done if it was present.

Thats a pretty gaping hole in the official story if you ask me. Sounds like they need to rethink a to z. lol.

The NIST report didn't touch on thermite because, it wasn't relevant. Still isn't. Many of the same constraints placed upon locating explosives prior to the collapse apply to thermite...and like the explosive "theories", they aren't credible. You have to answer the questions I've already posited....how much...what was the igniter...how was it applied...before the thermite theory, and I hesitate to even call it that since it doesn't even meet the criteria for theory, can even be considered.

[Parker2112]

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.

[TeyshaBlue]

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.

I don't rule it out. Thus far, logic rules it out.
I'm all about the beer. Danish scientists say they have found it in the rubble. I've yet to see evidence of that. They can say what ever they want. They need to show it. That they won't/can't is telling.

[Parker2112]

I don't rule it out. Thus far, logic rules it out.
I'm all about the beer. Danish scientists say they have found it in the rubble. I've yet to see evidence of that. They can say what ever they want. They need to show it. That they won't/can't is telling.

What if they did? What if I showed you the article showing their methods in a professional science journal? Maybe the Open Chemical Physics Journal? Would you take the time to check it out?

[Parker2112]

Boom.
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/ar...002/7TOCPJ.pdf

[TeyshaBlue]

What if they did? What if I showed you the article showing their methods in a professional science journal? Maybe the Open Chemical Physics Journal? Would you take the time to check it out?

Actually, I would as long as it included do ented samples from the site.

[TeyshaBlue]

Boom.
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/ar...002/7TOCPJ.pdf

BOOM Goes the no peer reviewed paper.

When you have a legit, peer reviewed study, let me know.

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-06-1...journals-begin

It is not surprising that the public is not aware of the fact that the so-called Bentham Open Science publishing group is basically a vanity publication where anyone can publish a “peer reviewed scientific journal article” which is not actually peer reviewed.

This embarrassing fact became all too clear recently when another Bentham “peer reviewed” journal was caught publishing a fake paper submitted by Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell University.

Davis used a well known computer program that was designed specifically to generate nonsense science articles which would be spotted as such by any legitimate peer review process. The fake article en led “Deconstructing Access Points” contained wonderfully nonsensical statements such as “Note that vacuum tubes have less jagged effective
floppy disk throughput curves than do autogenerated robots”.

Despite making no sense whatsoever, the paper was accepted at the Bentham Publishing Groups journal “The Open Information Science Journal” as though it was peer reviewed, despite the fact that the author, Davis, never received any reviewer comments, which is a universal part of the peer review process. Instead, Davis simply received a bill for an $800 fee which was to be sent to a post office box in the United Arab Emirates.

Following the disclosure of the fake nature of the article (and withdrawal of the manuscript) by Davis, the chief editor at the journal, Bambang Parmanto, resigned. "I didn't like what happened," Parmanto told reporters for The Scientist Magazine. "If this is true, I don't have full control of the content that is accepted to this journal." Following this, Marc Williams, an immunologist and stem cell researcher at the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry who served on the editorial advisory board of The Open Stem Cell Journal also resigned his position with the Bentham Group.

Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.

[Parker2112]

BOOM Goes the no peer reviewed paper.

When you have a legit, peer reviewed study, let me know.

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-06-1...journals-begin

It is not surprising that the public is not aware of the fact that the so-called Bentham Open Science publishing group is basically a vanity publication where anyone can publish a “peer reviewed scientific journal article” which is not actually peer reviewed.

This embarrassing fact became all too clear recently when another Bentham “peer reviewed” journal was caught publishing a fake paper submitted by Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell University.

Davis used a well known computer program that was designed specifically to generate nonsense science articles which would be spotted as such by any legitimate peer review process. The fake article en led “Deconstructing Access Points” contained wonderfully nonsensical statements such as “Note that vacuum tubes have less jagged effective
floppy disk throughput curves than do autogenerated robots”.

Despite making no sense whatsoever, the paper was accepted at the Bentham Publishing Groups journal “The Open Information Science Journal” as though it was peer reviewed, despite the fact that the author, Davis, never received any reviewer comments, which is a universal part of the peer review process. Instead, Davis simply received a bill for an $800 fee which was to be sent to a post office box in the United Arab Emirates.

Following the disclosure of the fake nature of the article (and withdrawal of the manuscript) by Davis, the chief editor at the journal, Bambang Parmanto, resigned. "I didn't like what happened," Parmanto told reporters for The Scientist Magazine. "If this is true, I don't have full control of the content that is accepted to this journal." Following this, Marc Williams, an immunologist and stem cell researcher at the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry who served on the editorial advisory board of The Open Stem Cell Journal also resigned his position with the Bentham Group.

Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.

so parrotted biased blogs are fact?

Ill look into it further....

[TeyshaBlue]

so parrotted biased blogs are fact?

Ill look into it further....

Go ahead. That took 0.25 seconds with teh google.

[Parker2112]

BOOM BOOM.

Author's response to the hack that you quoted.

"And a response from the main author:-

What you need to know about “Peer-review”

ProfJones Blog — April 7, 2009
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19780

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by “peers”, that is, other PhD’s and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I’ve ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a “refereed” journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this — that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention — and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers — who were selected by the editor(s) — approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as “Oh, it’s just paint” or “the aluminum is bound up in kaolin.” We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here’s what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. ”

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the “Fourteen Points” paper or the “Environmental Anomalies” papers we published last year.

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don’t the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the “imprimatur of peer-review”. That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings… We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO…"

[TeyshaBlue]

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.