Reply With Quote
Did he show how they aren't paint?
Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple
Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand
by Jim Hoffman
Version 0.7, April 18, 2009
Introduction
The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers. Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure, chemical composition, and ignition behavior.
The basis and validity of this identification can grasped quickly by anyone with a working knowledge of physics and chemistry. They need only read the paper's one-page conlusion, and perhaps its section describing the provenance of the dust samples.
But what of the reader whose strong suit isn't the hard sciences? Does one have to be an expert to understand the findings and evaluate the many claims thrown up by "debunkers" to dismiss those findings?
Fortunately, the answer is no. The central observations of the paper can be understood by any intelligent person with some effort. In this thumbnail summary of the paper's findings, I focus on three easy-to-remember features of the red-gray chips established by the paper -- features that undeniably show that the chips are a high-tech engineered pyrotechnic material. Because my description includes some technical language, I have provided a glossary for the benefit of the non-technical reader.
Contents
Introduction
Three Features of the Red-Gray Chips
1. Physical Structure
2. Chemical Composition
3. Thermal Behavior
Conclusion
Glossary
Three Features of the Red-Gray Chips
PLEASE READ THE REST:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...de_simple.html
Did he show how they aren't paint?
he did, you must not have read the article yet.
I read the original paper which did not rule out red paint. Did Hoffman do his own experiments as a software engineer to rule out red paint?
You know what? I did not read the article, because Hoffman is a software engineer and as such, not any more qualified to interpret the paper than I.
I did, however, take the liberty of searching his latest treatise for the words "paint" and "pigment" -- neither of which were found.
How can a person explicitly rule out something without even mentioning it?
Anyway, thanks for lying again and showing that you, in fact, did not read the paper.
From Hoffman's article:
"When the chips are heated to about 430ºC, they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC -- the melting point of iron."
This is the 9000 pound gorilla in the corner. Red paint does not do this.
please copy and paste that part of the article because after reading it, I can't find it.
By James B. Meigs, Editor-In-Chief, Popular Mechanics
Published on: October 13, 2006
Page 1 2 3 4 Next »
On February 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/ Illuminati conspiracy for global domination. It was on that day the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, with its cover story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, hit newsstands. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs—which calls itself the “9/11 Truth Movement”—was aflame with wild fantasies about me and my staff, the magazine I edit, and the article we had published.
The Web site www.911research.wtc7.net, an organization that claims that questioning the “official” story of 9/11 is “an act of responsible citizenship,” fired one of the first salvos: “Popular Mechanics Attacks Its 9/11 LIES Straw Man,” read the headline of a piece by a leading conspiracy theorist named Jim Hoffman.
We had begun our plunge down the rabbit hole. Within hours, a post on www.portland.indymedia.org, which claims to be dedicated to “radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth,” called me “James Meigs the Coward and Traitor.” Not long afterward, another prominent conspiracy theorist produced an analysis that concluded that Popular Mechanics is a CIA front organization. Invective and threats soon clogged the comments section of our Web site and poured in by e-mail:
"I was amused at your attempts to prove the conspirator theorists wrong by your interviewing people who work for the government. Face it: The U.S. government planned this attack to further its own agenda in the Middle East.
Rest assured, puppet boys . . . when the hammer comes down about the biggest crime ever perpetrated in the history of man—AND IT WILL—it will be VERY easy to identify the co-conspirators by their flimsy, awkwardly ignorant of reality magazine articles. Keep that in mind the next time you align yourself with evil s .
YOU HAVE DECLARD YOURSELF ENEMY OF AMERICANS AND FRIEND OF THE MOSSAD!"
I shouldn’t have been surprised. In researching the article we’d spent enough time studying the conspiracy movement to get a feel for its style: the tone of outraged patriotism, the apocalyptic rhetoric, the casual use of invective. A common refrain in conspiracy circles is the claim that “We’re just asking questions.” One would think that at least some quarters of the conspiracy movement might welcome a mainstream publication’s serious, nonideological attempt to answer those questions. One would be wrong.
It was only a matter of time before the Nazis got dragged in. Christopher Bollyn, a prominent conspiracy theorist affiliated with the far-right American Free Press, weighed in a few weeks later with a piece led “The Hidden Hand of the CIA, 911 And Popular Mechanics.” The article begins with a brief history of Hitler’s consolidation of power following the Reichstag fire in 1933. “Like Nazi Germany of 1933,” Bollyn wrote, “American newsstands today carry a mainstream magazine dedicated to pushing the government’s truth of 9/11 while viciously smearing independent researchers as extremists who peddle fantasies and make poisonous claims.”
In a few short weeks, Popular Mechanics had gone from being a 100-year-old journal about science, engineering, car maintenance, and home improvement to being a pivotal player in a global conspiracy on a par with Nazi Germany...............
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4199607.html
Meigs seems to have breathed in too much thermite dust after 9/11.
Godwin's law. /End thread.It was only a matter of time before the Nazis got dragged in. Christopher Bollyn, a prominent conspiracy theorist affiliated with the far-right American Free Press, weighed in a few weeks later with a piece led “The Hidden Hand of the CIA, 911 And Popular Mechanics.” The article begins with a brief history of Hitler’s consolidation of power following the Reichstag fire in 1933. “Like Nazi Germany of 1933,” Bollyn wrote, “American newsstands today carry a mainstream magazine dedicated to pushing the government’s truth of 9/11 while viciously smearing independent researchers as extremists who peddle fantasies and make poisonous claims.”
Blake loses. Debunkers lose again.
Get over it. Find a new fall back position. The scientists found thermite.
Thermite that burns so fiercely it didn't burn at all on 9/11.
Popular Mechanics looks at the conspiracy theories from an unbiased view and debunks the theories.
....but instead of looking at it as legitimate research from a real source, twoofers like you and Jim Hoffman get butt hurt and drop down into Godwin's Law territory, claiming that PM is in on the conspiracy.
Let me know when Time, Fox News, MSNBC, USA Today, CNN or any non 9/11news site at all pick up this story and I might start to listen to your incessant rambling.
But please, feel free to continue to be one of the bigger dumbasses on this board by posting these freak show articles. It's still sort of funny.
Meigs seems to have breathed in too much thermite dust after 9/11.
Marginalization of Opposing Views
The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the “government version” or “the official version.” In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a mul ude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and ins utions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let’s not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: “I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . .”
The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.
Termites!!!?
Don't forget the Fed.On February 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/ Illuminati conspiracy for global domination.
I used to wonder how Alex Jones made his bones. Then GG showed up.
Popular Mechanics looks at the conspiracy theories from an unbiased view and debunks the theories.
The article provides no evidence to back up their claims. It provides no footnotes to source its many assertions, and despite the scores of experts listed in its final section, the article cites only a few "experts," who would themselves likely be suspects if normal criminal justice procedures were used to investigate the crime.
Moreover, glaring errors in the article -- such as the assertion that there was only a single interception in the decade before 9/11/01 -- don't inspire confidence in PM's "professional fact checkers." It echoes the discredited assertions of official reports such as the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study and the 9/11 Commission Report, and provides no evidence that it is anything but a well-orchestrated hit piece to perpetuate the 9/11 cover-up.
Good post, Nbadan.
The article provides no evidence to back up their claims. It provides no footnotes to source its many assertions, and despite the scores of experts listed in its final section, the article cites only a few "experts," who would themselves likely be suspects if normal criminal justice procedures were used to investigate the crime.
Moreover, glaring errors in the article -- such as the assertion that there was only a single interception in the decade before 9/11/01 -- don't inspire confidence in PM's "professional fact checkers." It echoes the discredited assertions of official reports such as the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study and the 9/11 Commission Report, and provides no evidence that it is anything but a well-orchestrated hit piece to perpetuate the 9/11 cover-up.
If we want to go the experts without footnotes route, then I will site the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
"Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
641 architectural and engineering professionals
and 3563 other supporters including A&E students"
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Or I could site these experts:
"170+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
660+ Engineers and Architects
190+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
370+ Professors Question 9/11
230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals"
So we have 1820+ experts. That's more than Popular Mechanics can muster.
The good guys win.
The OP is just pissed because Rocky Balboa kicked his ass 25 years ago.
you're including 200+ artists and entertainers as experts??
how come every time you post a new whacko conspiray story, none of the 'articles' are ever written by structural engineers?
Please give a list of names of some these engineers and architects.
The article provides no evidence to back up their claims. It provides no footnotes to source its many assertions, and despite the scores of experts listed in its final section, the article cites only a few "experts," who would themselves likely be suspects if normal criminal justice procedures were used to investigate the crime.
Moreover, glaring errors in the article -- such as the assertion that there was only a single interception in the decade before 9/11/01 -- don't inspire confidence in PM's "professional fact checkers." It echoes the discredited assertions of official reports such as the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study and the 9/11 Commission Report, and provides no evidence that it is anything but a well-orchestrated hit piece to perpetuate the 9/11 cover-up.
you gotta be kidding. You're saying that the sources that PM uses would likely be suspects if normal criminal justice procedures were used?
Marginalization of Opposing Views
The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the “government version” or “the official version.” In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a mul ude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and ins utions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let’s not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: “I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . .”
The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...07.html?page=2
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
