Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (10,931)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Na minha opinião "MINHA OPINIÃO" o Bin Laden talvez não tenho feto isso, ou fez não sei, mas por que os Estados Unidos esconderam todas as provas do pentágono ? Por que não tem nenhuma fita que realmente prove que um avião de fato atingiu o Pentágono ? O atentado de 11 de setembro ainda tem muitos segredos que os Estados Unidos não revelam por alguma rasão. Mas claro isso é oque eu acho, então por favor não criem polemica com esse simples e ingênuo comentário. ^.^

  • Of course the anomality under Flight 175 is just a shadow, m'kay? I can tell - even though the plane has never been positively identified as being UA Flight 175.

    And of course bin Laden/al-Qaeda was behind 9/11. I know - even though FBI never wanted him for the attacks.

    And of course he was killed on may 1st 2011 and not dec. 2001 as some say. I know - even though he hasn't been seen evidently alive since dec. 2001.

    I know it all - because I'm the insane nutcase called "lijebaley01" on YouTube.

  • Thetan, you truly are an idiot. There is nothing in the harrit paper that indicates the spheres they tested are remnants of a thermitic reaction. Their purity is so low, the temperatures needed to make them can easily be achieved by normal office fires.

  • @lijebaley01

    "There is nothing in the harrit paper that indicates the spheres they tested are remnants of a thermitic reaction."

    Dumpti-durp. lijebaley01 on YouTube claims that he knows about a report he never read.

    Now THAT's (YouTube) debunking. Fun stuff if you want to make a study in moronicy.

  • @Thetan1974 Moron, I have demonstrated more comprehension of that paper than even the authors do. Interpretations of their XEDS maps in figure 15 proves it. Now why would they show proof that the red chips contain hardly any Aluminum, and thereby proving the red chips are non-thermitic?

  • @lijebaley01

    You have demonstrated NOTHING as lijebaley01 on YouTube other than your moronicy and/or lies.

    Now off to finish your experiment of having paint creating the iron rich microspheres that USGS and RJ Lee have sorted out so the red/gray chips doesn't stand alone as the nano-thermite it is. Be a good boy now. You have had almost three years. Off you go. Back to the lab and dig in primer paint.

  • @Thetan1974 You truly are feebleminded pretending that a red chip containing no aluminum can result in iron spheres. Just perhaps instead of the proven impossibility of an aluminum/iron thermitic reaction, your sphere that contains about the same relative proportion of iron as iron oxide paint could be from, um, paint?

  • @lijebaley01

    Thanks for agreeing that it os impossible to make iron spheres with paint. That explains how the WTC chips are not paint, as namely a thermitic reaction was produced.

    Maybe you should read the paper some day. Just an advice.

  • @lijebaley01

    Fine that you agree that paint can't produce iron spheres. That means that the red/gray chpis are not paint, as namely a thermitic reaction is what they have been proven to produce.

    Maybe you should read the comment some day. Just an advice.

  • @Thetan1974 MORON, the iron is in the iron oxide paint to begin with. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the red chips to be part of an aluminothermitic reaction, as there is no aluminum in them, as is shown in the Harrit paper. You are done, best tell harrit to invent a different scenario. Further discourse on the subject from you will only prove the seriousness of your mental inflictions.

  • @lijebaley01

    "It is IMPOSSIBLE for the red chips to be part of an aluminothermitic reaction, as there is no aluminum in them..."

    Jesus christ. Are you at a mental care home or something? Couped up in a bed dressed in white? Denying that the red/GRAY chips are proven, IN THE REPORT (Fig. 22-28) to be absolutely thermitic.

    We're not talking about the red chips that NIST have shown in their report, fool.

  • @Thetan1974 You are a dunce. The XEDS maps of the red part of the "thermitic" chips have NO aluminum in them, as shown in fig 15 c. To continue to argue this is not true proves you are the mentaly deranged.

  • Comment removed

  • @Thetan1974 For figures 22, 23 and 26 the same result would be expected if paint with spalled steel were subjected to the same test. Figure 24, a scan of residue from commercial thermite is immaterial. The same microspheres are shown to be present in photos taken before any ignition, flame or DSC test were taken. There is no proof that a thermitic reaction was involved. Have you read the paper?

  • @lijebaley01

    Yes I have.

    "There is no proof that a thermitic reaction was involved."

    There's evidence that you're insane - or talking about another report.

  • @lijebaley01

    "For figures 22, 23 and 26 the same result would be expected if paint with spalled steel were subjected to the same test."

    Another hit from "lijebaley01" on YouTube.

    Now, off to SHOW it - and sign with your real name, m'kay.

  • @Thetan1974 I'll say it again in case you didn't quite understand. There was no aluminum in the red part of the red/grey chips, as shown in the Harrit paper. This is proof your lying scumbag truther friends are guilty of fraud.

  • @lijebaley01

    You seem like a Cointel robot. Not making any sense. Only wanting to put up the last comment in order to confuse the newcomer.

    The report tell perfectly how the red/gray chips are thermitcal with/without detectable alu.

    Now, off to show the thermitical reaction, WHICH IS PROVIDED IN THE REPORT, from any paint.

  • @lijebaley01

    "This is proof your lying scumbag truther friends are guilty of fraud."

    Aw, sure. They faked the thermitic creating testing and forgot to put in some alu in their fake home made chips. Sure. f'course.

    And there are NO proof that those who scripted the official story are fraud liars who just wanted wars as part of their globalisation. NOOOt one.

    Gullable crazy moronic Cointel freak.

  • @Thetan1974 From the Harrit paper. " 2Al + Fe2O3 yields Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), delta H = - 853.5 kJ/mole".  The title of the paper.... Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. Now tell me moron, how can they determine they found active thermitic material if there is none of their aluminum to be found in their active thermitic material? Answer the damn question.

  • @lijebaley01

    The answer is in their report, anonymous Cointel robot. Go read is some day.

  • @Thetan1974 You will not like it at all if I go public. Whistleblowers to perpertrators of fraud gets tons of money. Hell you can do it yourself.

  • @lijebaley01 Please reply your comments on a video called: Pod Under Flight 175? Military Plane Hit South Tower! Proved by CNN Footage.

    We are all waiting for you to comment on there.

  • @Alexjones67s Wow, that is a tough one.  You see shadows.

  • @lijebaley01 Take a look at that video right now.

  • @lijebaley01 Come and make some comments on this video right now. Pod Under Flight 175? Military Plane Hit South Tower! Proved by CNN Footage.

  • You conspiraloons should all get together and write a sc-fi novel.

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    Well, CIA agents actually do write TV and Hollywood scripts. Funny enough, it was CIA workers who provided the script for the pilot of the series "The Lone Gunmen" in March 2001, that happened to be about planes being hijacked and flown into WTC.

    Hmm. Well, of course that's just a coincidence and that's propably where bin Laden and Mohammad got their idea from. Uhua. Hmm, yep, right.

  • WTC 7 explain...

  • Your government tells you

    "If your not doing anything illegal, then you've got nothing to hide"

    We say, "If our government isn't doing anything illegal, it has nothing to hide"

    New investigation please

  • And if a new investigation came to the same conclusion as the first would you change your mind? What evidence (hypothetically) would it take to change your mind?

  • watch?v=ufWggCESyDg at min 39:29...that isnt thermite!

  • Make this VIRAL we must have independent investigation.

  • What's sad is the US government did this, and in doing so, KNEW they would kill many of their own citizens. Now that the NDAA bill has passed, and the "troops are coming back" (to militarize US), it is not long until we are living in an official nazi-like police state. If you care about our country and your future, vote Ron Paul 2012

  • The last time a conspiracy theorist ruled a country he killed 6 million Jews, and others!!!

    Nutter cunt.

  • Les om smacsonic og rakettbrennstoff i abeldanger(dot)net

  • @lijebaley01: We're looking forward for you to:

    1) Present what other than thermite could produce the iron rich micro spheres

    2) Present what substance the excact same red/gray chips with the same contents as those located in the WTC dust samples or how these chips are "naturally" created from materials regularly appearing in buildings collapsing.

  • @Thetan1974 Iron rich spheres are and always have been in iron oxide paint primer. As for naturally created, just a cursory look at NIST NCSTAR 1-3C and a quick read will demonstrate how materials that look and behave exactly as harrit's thermite were present. The swiss cheese metal was from accelerated oxidation. Now, tell me why harrit's paper does NOT address these spalled steel paint chips that must have been present?

  • @lijebaley01

    We're looking forward for you to:

    1) Present what other than thermite could produce the iron rich micro spheres - not just claim it on YT, but opresent the experiment.

    2) Present what substance the excact same red/gray chips with the same contents as those located in the WTC dust samples or how these chips are "naturally" created from materials regularly appearing in buildings collapsing.

    Sorry, but the NCSTAR 1-3C does not present that. On with your experiment.

  • The NIST report states that 'the paint was essentially a ceramic coating, consisting of predominately iron oxides'.

    Now the information on the paint was published in a paper by Sramek in 1967. So if the NIST are making this up then Sramek was involved as far back as 1967!!!

    Also, microspheres range between 1 - 1000 micrometres. However the nanoscale is an order of magnitude below this. You have contradicted yourself. A nanoparticle can't possibly be in the microparticle range. Look it up!!!

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    The NIST report on paint has nothing to do with the iron rich micro spheres, which they excluded, or the red/gray chips, which ability to create iron and has a nano resembling bottom up-built signature.

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    You keep blah-blah'ing about paint in order to still blindly and religiously believe in the myth about "Osama & the 19 Hijackers" and your statement of "And please don't assume I support the war, or the government. I have a strong anarchist streak in me, thus I am skeptical of the very notion of government..." becomes a complete and utter joke.

  • @lijebaley01

    "Now, tell me why harrit's paper does NOT address these spalled steel paint chips that must have been present?"

    Harrit's paper adress the interesting and crucial, which is

    1) The iron rich micro spheres created by a thermitical reaction

    2) The red gray chips that can actually create these iron rich micr spheres.

    Now, on to show where you find both appearences in paint or whatever you claim they are to be found. Present the paint, the experiment - and your name.

  • @Thetan1974 Moron, there is nothing in the harrit paper that shows the results of a thermitic reaction. They are scanning iron oxide paint that must be present in the dust.  It is so freakin easy to check. All they need to do is find in their samples red chips without spalled steel, and check them to see if they are attracted to a magnet. They should try running these red chips alone in a DSC, but this time do it correctly in an inert atmosphere, and see if they burn or react.

  • @lijebaley01

    "Moron, there is nothing in the harrit paper that shows the results of a thermitic reaction."

    Lie, moron. ONLY thermit can create the kind of iron rich micro spheres found in the WTC dust,

    You want to show what else causes those? Go ahead!

    "They are scanning iron oxide paint that must be present in the dust."

    Now you go present the primer/paint chips that can create the same iron rich micro spheres. GO AHEAD.

    And don't forget to sign with your real name.

  • @Thetan1974 Moron.... Did you know Jones sampled the paint chips from wtc steel, ran a DSC on it, and came up with a scan IDENTICAL to his thermite scan? He, ummm, debunked himself, and he is just too corrupt at this point to recognize it.

  • @lijebaley01

    Know I know that you're Cointel liar (paid or volunteer home-in-your-basement-nutjob - doesn't really matter) who don't dare tell your name and used the last 4 days to try to come up with this "rebuttal."

    Jones tested a red/gray chip that - propably containing paint on its surface - creates IRON when ignited. Now, YOU go ahead and show us how you locate the SAME CHIP with this IRON creating ability in the paint used on the WTC, moron.

  • @Thetan1974 You don't understand how his "burn" in the DSC is meaningless, unless it was run in an inert atmosphere. You don't understand that the ratio of iron oxide to aluminum in his red chip scans proves a thermite reaction to be impossible. You are a moron.

  • @lijebaley01

    I understand perfectly that you sit anonymous in the web trying to give the audience the impression that the nano-thermite is paint and the IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES could come form something else - without showing the paint containing this iron creating paint or other sources for the iron rich spherules.

    I understand that you - for some reason - desperately try to maintain the official story. But you're not going to forever with lies.

  • @Thetan1974 Moron, there is no thermite... There are no IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES shown to come from thermite.  There are no scans indicating a possible thermitic reaction. The Iron rich sphere shown are hardly pure enough iron to have a melting point even remotely close to iron. You are to stupid to understand the material presented has a much lower melting point, and can easily be obtained at temperatures present in normal office fires. Mindless parrot.

  • @lijebaley01

    "There are no IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES shown to come from thermite."

    You're a desperate Cointel liar: There are no IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES shown to have come from anything else BUT thermite. That's what thermite creates. And namely the red/gray (nano)thermitic chips have been proven to create IRON RICH MICR SPHERES.

    911debunkers. blogspot.com/2009/07/more-abou­t-that-exploding-paint. html

  • @Thetan1974 I guess you are just a moron who will always think that a scan of 30% or so iron proves it must have come from thermite and no where else.  Just look at the scan, fig 25 in harrit's paper. Do you have any idea what that scan means?

  • @lijebaley01

    I not only guess, but KNOW, that you're "lijebaley01" who think he can anonymously and on YouTube explain away the information about the exploding paint which is to find at DebunkersBlogspot. com. Now THAT's moronic.

    Guess what? You need to find these red/gray chips in paint, ignite them and prove that they create iron - even of 30% or more would be interesting.

  • @Thetan1974 I guess one day I should go to Debunker's blogspot. I bet there is much I know that they haven't found yet. Does it really matter who I am? What should matter is the fact that you have not found any reason to dispute any my claims. I have to burn iron oxide primer paint to see if it contains iron oxide? The grey layer is non reactant iron as shown in the paper, that spalled off with the paint. You are a moron.

  • @lijebaley01

    I bet that even though you go to Debunker's Blogspot one day you will be able in a Zionist deceptive brainwashing way to attempt to divert away from the facts in order to stay inside your "no inside job" matrix.

    The most interesting thing is, that you will keep being anonymous. Afraid of going public? Why?

    You just go ahead and show the paint - or anythning else - that contains the same red/gray(30%?) iron creating chips. Interesting paint, nomatter what.

  • @Thetan1974 Yep, you are right. As far as their red chips go, they assume they are thermitic in order to prove they are thermitic. Explosive paint my ass. Nice argument. Moron. Show a damn red chip that is explosive already.

  • @lijebaley01

    Oh no - show the world a chip with the "exploding" IRON creating ability that the ignited red/gray chip have, go public and stop being a sad quibbler and hypocrite.

  • @Thetan1974 "It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches" From the Harrit paper, talking about the red/gray chips. Do you even understand what their conclusions suggest?

  • @lijebaley01

    Still anonymous? Still not showing what primer contains these red/gray chips? Still not providing any experiment of what could cause 30%+ IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES in a building - or when it collapses?

    Still being a sorry Cointel loser?

  • @Thetan1974 Still too stupid to realize that red iron oxide primer paint has iron oxide in it? Still too stupid to know steel has iron in it? Moron.

  • @lijebaley01

    "Still too stupid to realize that red iron oxide primer paint has iron oxide in it?"

    Still to poor to show proof of your claim and locate these perfect 30%+ IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES in your primer paint?

  • Why was the Harrit paper publsihed in a vanity journal by Bentham (check Bentham out on New Scientist). Why wasn't the paper publsihed by a respected journal like Nature or Science. Why didn't Harrit have any control samples, why hasn't he given the samples to other scientists (only conspiraloons), why didn't Harrit do a double-blind study, why did he use samples collected 6 years after 9/11 by laypeople, and why do people take this paper seriously. Pseodoscience at it's finest.

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    That Nature of Science are scared of the truth or for being called "conspiraloons" has nothing to do with the science of the nano-thermite paper being wrong. It has been peer reviewed all right.

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    "You are so guullible it's unbelievable."

    You have a need for believing the official "Osama & the 19 hijackers myth" which so much more than nano-thermite disproves, I pity you.

    "I do have a science degree…"

    So far you have nothing else but claims as "‪clarkesonslooneyleft"‬. I'm looking forward for you to publisize a peer reviewed debunking of the Harrit/jones report by your name.

    "So rust and aluminium was found in dust, wow fucking wee!!!!"

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    "So rust and aluminium was found in dust, wow fucking wee!!!!"

    More than that: iron spheres created from reduction which nothing else but thermite produces. And "paint" with the ability to produce exactly those iron rich microspheres.

    "Ok, Bentham, the publishers were this paper was published, are not a respected publisher, they are vanity publishers."

    Are you saying that NIST made a respected and scientific report? You're losing it, pal. It's long debunked.

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    "Also, Harrit didn't have any control samples, and didn't do a double-blind experiment."

    What do you mean? His experiments have been made "under control" and threes still dust to be tested for honest scientists who don't come up with insane claims about this being paint, when this has been thoroughly debunked.

  • Do you know what a control sample is? Ok, did he test any other samples from other building fires? Also, did he just test for thermite, or was he testing for a range of explosives and incendiries? If he just tested for thermite then he was looking for thermite in particular. Now was he looking for it because he suspected it, or was he looking for it because he knew it would be present because it's aluminium and rust so most likely would be present? A did he do a double-blind study?

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    "That's enough to get it rejected by a respected journal. And you still take it seriously, you fucking sheep!"

    You f*cking asshole believing in unproven and uninvestigated fairytales about "2 767's and fires alone" which has caused a wars and the killings of 100.000s of inoocents.

  • Uninvestigated!!! Yeah whatever!!!. Unproven, now that's a very unscientific statement. Science can only show te most likley reasons given all the evidence. You will rarely hear a scientist speak of proof, but they will speak of the likelihood.

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    "Why didn't Harrit have any control samples,"

    Um, he has always had control samples for SERIOUS independent researchers. And those who have tested them were unbiased before doing the testings and then joined AE911Truth because of what they found.

    Finally, someone in the "debunking community" have claimed that they want to attempt honest testings of the samples: 911debunkers. blogspot. com/2012/01/jrefers-acknowledg­e-nanothermite. html

    We'll see.

  • Do you know what a control sample is!!! lol

    Did he have any other samples from other building fires? Did he do a double-blind experiment? If he didn't then his own biased opinions, could have influenced his findings.

    Control samples and double-blind experiments are basic science. No wonder his work wasn't published in a respected journal!!! lol

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    You can read the Bentham report if that ain't too much for you:

    He/they found unreacted thermitic material, which is så far the only source for creating the iron rich micr spheres that USGS and RJ Lee located and for which FEMA never had an answer to. It is clear that this substance is artificially made. (Or you're welcome to go out and find it somewhere else.)

    Whatever you call Bentham the paper is science. Being "clarkesonslooneyleft" on YouTube is not scientific at all.

  • No, Bentham doesn't publish respected scientific journals. It isn't just me who doesn't take Bentham seriously, just check out what New Scientist has to say about Bentham. If you think Bentham is science how cum they were willing to publish a bogus paper generated by a computer. The only reason they didn't publsih it is because the author wouldn't pay them. Proper journals aren't vanity publications.

    And of course my username isn't scientific! Who's is?

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    You can go over all the world's scientific studies and find hysterical ways to critisize them. Funny enough, the Bentham report has been yelled and screamed at more than anything - yet no final debunking: Noone can explain WHAT the red/gray chips that creates iron rich micro spheres and resembles a sophisticated nano-built-up thermite signature are or how they should have originated from anything naturally. So the hypothesis stands so far: nano-thermite.

  • Wow, you've made a good point, I have been enlightened. I admit that I have been a sheep and now I would like to join you. So, first things first, lets get the initiation cermony out of the way and get my brain robbed of critical thinking, then I need to be injected with a drug that makes me highly gullible. After that I have to reject the collective knowledge of the scientific community. In fact I need to accept that the scientific method I learnt at uni was wrong. Finally lets fuck

  • Hypothesis yes, evidence that would be published in a respected journal, no.

    Now lets fuck

  • Notice on your page you have a video of AE 9/11 truth.

    Now, could you tell me what percentage of the global community of architects and engineers the 1600 or so supporters represent. I emailed AE but they didn't reply.

    Also notice you have video by Jesse Ventura! Do you value the word of an ex-wrestler (thus staged professional bullshitter), over that of the academic elite (i.e Chomsky)?

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    All this is about is psychologically seeking to convincing yourself that there's nothing to the inside job hypothesis You're crazy denial is not what convinces me - bacause funny enough, I don't need to look into a chrystal ball to figure out that you blindly believe the HOLE official 9/11 story and can't see or accept any lie or flaw in it.

    So this is basically modern witchhunt - you get upset for having the evidence of it being a religious fairy tale thrown in your face.

  • You say the 9/11 'story'. A story is an invention of the human mind to make sense of the world. Psychologists researching conspiraloons have suggested they have delusions in order to make sense of the world. i.e A man in a cave could never organise something like 9/11, it has to be something bigger, like a big cover-up. It is more appealing to the gullible mind to accept such stories. It gives the gullible a sense of understanding and the possiblity of controlling the cause.

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    "Do you value the word of an ex-wrestler... moommiiieee?!?!" Heeelp"

    Attacking the man and not the content.

    Stupid, brainwashed and moronic whitchunt - from a person who have valued the STRAIGHT UP LIES and unproven warmongering scripted fantasies of the former government. (Not to say the current is any better - it's rather worse.)

  • Ok, have you watched Venturas series? If you have do you really think he is an intelligent man?

    And please don't assume I support the war, or the government. I have a strong anarchist streak in me, thus I am skeptical of the very notion of government, but that a different thread.

    Talking of straight up lies, what do you think of that faked picture of fireman looking into a hole of molten bullshit? Steve Jones uses it in his lectures. Do you think that is acceptable?

  • Do you really think Ventura has more valid things to say than the intellectual elite.

    Who among the intellectual elite believe that 9/11 is an inside job?

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    "Do you really think Ventura has more valid things to say than the intellectual elite."

    Sure. He's a rightous constitutionalists whi whistle blows about your Hitler like nazis. I pity yuo that you're as brainwashed as to believe them. They have been proven to lie all over, besically controlles and need al-Qaeda for war profitting and are ruining the US and Europe economically.

    You're their mere robot.

  • There's some interesting articles around by professional psychologists about conspiraloons. Go have a look, some of what they say may strike a chord.

    Just out of interest, what evidence (hypothetically) would it take to change your mind about the series of events on 9/11.

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    You just proved my point and i knew it; You're so heavily brainwashed that you don't even know that the official 9/11 story IS an unproven theory. Here's the latest official admission to of that: youtube.com/watch?v=MeWDc4kRd9­0

    Again, this shows your closed minded anonymous witchhunt attitude towards Harrit's work. You're the majoruty herd who can't BARE the facts. So you try to ad hom them away. But it's a bug that keeps coming back.

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    Besides: No evidence of the take over and the piloting of the planes by Atta, al-Shehhi and Hanjour.

    No evidence that the craft that hit their targets were those specific airliners we've been told.

    No evidence of several of the so called phone calls from the planes.

    NO evidence of "al-Qaeda's" guilt.

    Here's a messege from some serious psychologists for you: watch?v=trfCyvLAQd8

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    "And please don't assume I support the war, or the government. I have a strong anarchist streak in me, thus I am skeptical of the very notion of government..."

    "You say the 9/11 'story'. A story is an invention of the human mind to make sense of the world. Psychologists researching conspiraloons have suggested they have delusions in order to make sense of the world."

    Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh­h....................!!!!!!!!!­!!!

  • Hi nanobrain. Just for fun I am going to pretend that nano-thermite was found and it's only source was that it was planted in the buildings. Now, how exactly did it cause the buildings to collapse? Who planted it? How did they not get noticecd? How much thermite was required (maths please)?How many people were involved? Could you please provide evidence for your answers..

    Then I'll start on the Pentagon. lol

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    Being an anonymous YouTuber is the least respectable way of critisizing. I don't hope you're playing this game with me for anything else than a little "Who gets the top comment" game.

    I provided you the link to show that finally the few scientists who stand by their name have a critical view towards the Bentham paper, yet without being scientific, finally want to give it the legitimacy it deserves. Now THEY are at least not anonymous. Baised? Their testings will tell.

  • Just playing this game because I'm actually quite thick and reading these comments makes me realise that there are people even thicker and more gullible than myself. It boosts my fragile ego.

    And like this 'the few scientists who stand by their name have a critical view towards the Bentham paper, yet without being scientific, finally want to give it the legitimacy it deserves'. Without being scientific, dude you nailed it honey!

    Now lets fuck.....

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    You can convince me that what Jones/Harrit has found is not nano-thermite by joining dr. Milette's team, and of course keep the legitimicy that followers will keep an eye out, by your name and by proper research and science. Not by YouTube "critisicm" as "clarkesonslooneyleft." I'm not buying it, sorry.

  • The fact that Harrit didn't have any control samples or undertake a double-blind study, and use samples from laypeople 6 years after the event should get your alarm bells ringing.

    Do you understand the significance of double-blind control sample studies? Do you know why scientists do them? The 9/11 truthers use the scientific method in reverse.

    I am more qualified than you in the sciences thus my scientific judgement is of more value than yours, get over it, and move on.

    Peace

  • @lijebaley01

    "Moron."

    Said the ever anonymous YouTuber who can't come up with ANY explaination to the red/gray chips or show the experiment of what else besides thermite could create pefect ROUND, IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES.

  • The experiment is wortless. There were no controls, it wasn't double blind, and Harrit was already a conspiraloon before hand so it was biased. Plus it was publsihed in a vanity journal by Bentham (check out Bentham on New Scientist). Plus the samples were collected 6 years later by laypeople, and he hasn't given them to other scientists to analyze, only conspiraloons.

    Complete and utter pseudoscience which is believed by gullible sheep conspiraloons.

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    Wrong, Harrit was never interested in "conspiracy" theories before finding out about WTC 7. I know him personally, idiot. Funny how you can't avoid be calling a "conspiracyloon" when even as a scientist, you agree that WTC were controlled demolitions and that tha NIST reports are fraud. That has nothing to do with CT's. That has only to do with science.

    Everyone can look up the bentham report and try to debunk that. There's no secrets in that.

  • Yeah, his girlfriend was only a leading Norwegian conspiraloon, sure he wasn't biased.

  • Yeah, the Bentham report has been debunked!!!

  • I agree that WTC were controlled demolitions -- WTF, you nutcase, when and where did I say that.

    I know conspiraloons make stuff up but you really are taking the piss!!!

  • @Thetan1974 If you know him personally, ask him why he refused to do his DSC in an inert atmosphere. In fact, why don't you approach him about any of the many reasons his paper is a fraud?

  • @lijebaley01

    Um, so not testing in an inert atmosphere makes paint create iron spheres? Ding-dong.

    He has already been approached about with everything there is to be approached about. If you want to approach him with anything new, you know his email.

    And please don't sign it with that "lijebaley01". It looks so childish in an email.

  • @Thetan1974 No moron... If they did their scan as they should have, in an inert medium, then they could have ruled out paint as a possibility. They state in figure 25 that Spheres were formed during ignition of red/gray chip in DSC. There is NO PROOF that this is true.

  • @lijebaley01

    That these red/gray chips create those iron rich micro spheres rule out paint, nomatter how you scan it.

    "There is NO PROOF that this is true."

    Err, why didn't you just say from the beginning that you don't believe the testing methods in the report?

    If that's what helps you stay religious about the "Osama & the 19 Li'l Hijackers" myth - of which there is NO PROOF - go ahead.

    What a moron.

  • @Thetan1974 It doesn't matter how they did their experiment. From their paper, there is no evidence any spheres were produced in the DSC traces. If fact in their paper, figure 3-b and 3-c you can see there were microspheres present previous to any testing.

    Do you have any more inane arguements you want to try?

  • @lijebaley01

    Still with the anonymous and totally unscientific YouTube blah-blah on order to get the top comment.

    USGS and RJ Lee have sorted out these MICRO SPHERES of pure iron and often also silicium and alu (typical for thermite reactions) of which there's no explaination. Oh wait, but there is! It's the red/gray unreacted nano buttom-up built thermite chips.

    Now, lijebealey01 will in a scientific report show how he finds these thermite like chips in paint - and sig it with his real name.

  • @Thetan1974 Wow, how the heck could silica be there? Perhaps maybe from crushed windows?  Just where are these pure iron spheres anyways.

  • @lijebaley01

    "Perhaps maybe" by "lijebaley01" on YouTube is not scientific. And silica is simply also a characteristica of a thermite reaction.

    Now, away to do your paper that shows the world how paint chips -- under any sircumstance, inert or not inert invironment - creates iron rich micr spheres m'kay, moron?

  • @Thetan1974 You must be drunk. Just what % do you need to make a sphere iron-rich? From Harrit's scan, it looks to be about 30%. Kinda vague, doncha think? Want more? How's this? In Harrit's paper, Fig 13 shows us a chip. The same chip, the lower left part of it, is examined using an XEDS map. If you would compare the colored photo of the same area, you would notice the map of aluminum Fig(15) c is weakest in the area where the red layer is. This proves it is NOT thermite.

  • @lijebaley01

    lijebaley01 keeps being anonymous on YouTube and calls people with the facts straight drunk while calling himself "scientific".

    That's ok, lijebaley01. Now, could you quit the kindergarten break and tell us all:

    WHAT caused the iron rich microspheres (and noone said they are supposed to be 100% iron - the iron in them are PURE) that USGS and RJ Lee have outsorted?

    What paint contains red/gray thermitic like chips that can create the same style micr spheres?

    Go along, now.

  • @Thetan1974 Clearly, you can't even understand a damn thing about the Harrit paper. ANY PAINT with iron oxide in it will have iron particles with the relatively low amount of iron as shown in the Harrit paper. Fig(15) proves there was not enough aluminum for any aluminothermic reaction. MEANING, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE RED CHIPS TO BE THERMITIC.

  • @lijebaley01

    So, it is impossible for the red/gray chips to be thermitical, when they have produced the by product of thermite a.k.a. iron rich microspheres resembling those sorted out by RJ Lee Group and USGS?

    Please call your doctor tomorrow.

  • @lijebaley01

    "Just where are these pure iron spheres anyways."

    The iron in them is pure. They're not intirely iron.

  • Comment removed

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    And you call Harrit/Jones unscientific as "clarkesonslooneyleft" on YouTube? What a laughingstock.

    And then you claim that the nano-thermite, found in the dust collected by the late Jannette McKinlay, who died from that creepy stuff that the US adm. does not want to account for, is something that Jones put there himself? Or that it was created coincidentally due to special circumstances?

    Keep pissing in your pants to protect your "Osama & the 19 Hijackers" bibel.

  • So rust and aluminium was found in dust, wow fucking wee!!!!

    Ok, Bentham, the publishers were this paper was published, are not a respected publisher, they are vanity publishers. Check them out on New Scientist.

    Also, Harrit didn't have any control samples, and didn't do a double-blind experiment. That's enough to get it rejected by a respected journal. And you still take it seriously, you fucking sheep!

    Did I say Jones put it there herself? No. But Jones does use faked pictures!

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    Btw the Bentham report on nano-thermite is open for everyone to read and debunk. Try for christ sake to do that scientifically with experiments and signed with your name. Explain what paint creates iron rich micro spheres or where these red/gray chips is to find naturally in stead of being just another anonynmous YouTube-coward.

  • Bentham is a vanity publisher, meaning you pay them to get your work published, which is the opposite from respected journals. Check out Bentham on New Scientist and you will see the accepted a completly bogus paper!!!

    Now, why hasn't Harrit submitted his paper to a journal such as Nature or Science, because it wouldn't get through peer-review because it is bad science.

    Can you explain why Harrit never done a double-blind experiment, or why there where no control samples?

  • Do you really think the majority of the scientific community take Harrit, and his sheepish followers seriously?

  • You are so guullible it's unbelievable.

    I do have a science degree, I studied it for four years, and I can spot pseudoscience a mile of. I am more qualified to make scientific judgements than you are. What is your science background? Youtube lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

  • @lijebaley01

    "You are to stupid to understand the material presented has a much lower melting point, and can easily be obtained at temperatures present in normal office fires."

    Oh, interesting substance! (which of course COULDN't have been top notch military US nano/super-thermite. Ohhh no. "lijebaley01" on YouTube knows aaaall about it.)

    Now WHAT substance are we talking about? Where did that come from? Is it primer paint, this substance? Show us the paint, then.

  • @lijebaley01 ... Moron...? Piss-off Langley-dude & show some respect... Yeah Alex Jones hasn't scored a touchdown since the real Prison Planet days & got blackmailed over a gold-future debt he'd niavely signed up for but so what...?

    Did you know your old South East Asia Director VP & US President let-on thermite was going in under the insualtion around the steel girders in the early 70's as one of the companies his father Preston started oversaw the big construction supervision...?

    The--truth?

  • @spacelizardlaw Sorry, There are many things I respect, but bigots and the purposely ignorant, are not one of them. I see that you are a decent person. But you must know there was no nanotechnology back then. I don't even think we had electron scanning microscopes at that time.

  • @lijebaley01 ... Technology is always at-least 30-years ahead of what you think (Tunguska) & sometimes 100's of 1000's of years ahead of what you think (Like the Annunaki-stuff on the moon which was first successfully brought back by volunteers who died of radiation in 1951 1967 & 1973 using post-Nazi anti-grav stuff) so simply saying like a parrot there was 'NO' nano-technology is like saying that reality MUST fit your community delusion...

    Like the official 911 story maybe...?

  • The thermite reaction is

    Fe2O3 + 2 Al → 2 Fe + Al2O3

    There is no iron oxide, just iron.

    Yeah, I realized the mistake I made about the micro and nanospere, but being a critically thinking skeptic I don't mind admitting to it.

    No show me some evidence where iron oxide is produced in a thermite reaction.

  • @Thetan1974 I really want to fuck you up your thermite hole.

  • Microspheres range between 1 - 1000 micrometres. However the nanoscale is an order of magnitude below this. You have contradicted yourself. A nanoparticle can't possibly be in the microparticle range. Look it up!!!

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    It isn't the mocro spheres, which are in nano scale, moron. It's the red/gray unreacted chips wich signatures reaches nano size, because they're obviously built bottom up.

  • The fact that Harrit didn't address spalled steel paint is indicative of his bad science. A decent scientist always looks at more than one explanation. No wonder it was published in a vanity publication.

  • @clarkesonslooneyleft

    The fact that the red/gray chips create iron rich microspheres characterized by being made from reduction and containing pure iron and stuff like alu and silicium rules out paint. Or are you going to show the paint with the same abilities?

  • Micro spheres of what exactly nano-brain?

  • Rio de Janeiro.Against a Communist! Engineering and the ignorant fanatics conspiracies. Not a communist country took their disease. There you would to a labor camp. They do not like friends of Al Qaeda. It is the newspaper of the Communist Party of China in English. Chinese and a distinguished engineer, Professor Wu Huanjia - Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow - Architect's Analysis. Please join to access the URL

    english . peopledaily . com.cn/200109/20/eng20010920 _ 80655 .html

  • @aczjbr Hi aczjbr, I know your intentions are good. Your problems with the English language work against you.

    Your links are interesting. You should try posting them with the title only. No commentary. It will help your credibility.

    I'm not being mean. I am just being realistic.

    You can also post in your native language. Go to the bottom of the page. Click on "Language: English" and choose your language.

    That will be better.

  • Comment removed

  • @aczjbr Don't give up!  Just post the URL's and titles. Leave the analysis to others who speak English well.

    Good luck!

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • If NIST and the 911 commission had done a better job at investigating this shit there wouldnt be any "alternative theories"

    If you should be angry at someone it is the laughable official investigation, which had several people resigning in frustration due to low funds and tied hands.

    Clintons affairs received more funds.Go figure.

    But I digress, if you people can lie about nuclear devices and biological platforms in Iraq...you can lie about anything!

  • @syntaxed2 LOL! How about if you try separating your ideas so your comment's not just a big boiling pot full of dumb?

    NIST investigated the collapses of WTC1, 1 & 7 as well as how to make evacuations from and firefighting of such fires more effective and less fatal. Read them: tinyurl . com /44dsmgw (remove spaces)

    The 9-11 Commission investigated policy, intelligence and response failures. Read it:

    gpoaccess . gov /911 (remove spaces).

    p.s. The Clinton investigation is irrelevant.

  • @NonnyMus1 Actually NIST investigated only the "initiation of the collapse" which they clearly stated.

    The 911 commission stated their job was to give a final answer as to why the buildings collapsed.

    It had nothing to do with policy, (policy about what rofl) or intelligence failures.That was investigated through congress by a board of senators.

    Oh and BTW, none even mentioned building 7.

    You know about as much as the average sheep.

    Dont bother to reply, I cant be arsed with this thread :D

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • That paper was a piece of crap published in a piece of crap vanity publication.

  • @NonnyMus1

    Well you should read the story of Barry Jennings.He made a testimony of bombs and dead bodies in the lobby of the WTC 7 the tower of the FBI which colllpased 7 after WTC 1 and 2.This man has been murdered after this testimony and nobody talked about that.So dont take me for an idiot because it might be you the biggest idiot...

  • Well I really hope for Niels that he has bodyguards because his videos disturb a lot of people i think...I hope for him he wont be

    Murdered by CIA for telling the truth.

  • @frankito78 LOL! What a strange world you troofers live in! Unless he drives at high speeds on a wet road, indulges in other high-risk activities, has a family history of fatal medical problems, takes care of himself and doesn't do drugs, he should be OK -- just as he's been OK in the two years since the paper was published!

    =P

    How about if you check back in a year just to make sure, m'kay?

    =D

  • "This can be used for welding (thermite)" Well there you go, buildings of metalstructure do have alot of weldings....