. The known universe 14,000,000,000 BCE . Earth 5,000,000,000 BCE . Homo sapiens 300,000 BCE . Fire (applied) 200,000 BCE . The underlying law of nature (discovered & applied) 2003 CE
Dear truth seeker, lets find the truth together... among the pile of half-truths....Dwain's evidences appeared in order but not his conclusions...ok...
WE ALL KNOW THT TODAY WITH ALL THE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE, THE SAYING... I CAN BELIEVE WAT I CAN SEE OR HEAR IS NO LONGER TRUE..
"I'll be back to refute everything you say later."
Indicative of your true intentions, which are totally out of sync with sincere research.
If you were interested in truth, you wouldn't be so obsessed with refuting me, you'd be determined to test your own arguments against mine, and you would accept valid argumentation like I did in the discussion about the debris ejecta.
To be quite honest though, I have little motivation for pointless flame wars. Your blatant denial of Newton's laws of motion has earned you place in the cucking stool on my profile page.
I am waiting for you to tell me how you think that a floor failing under a much higher load than it was designed for is disobeying any laws of physics.
That is the science I want to see. "Six Pillars", "Jolts" and "Dust from window sills" is all irrelevant in comparison to those two simple questions.
That is why AE911 Truth and yourself avoid them like the plague.
Measure speed? I didn't. Szamboti did. His findings are discussed on various fora, including by people such as Dr. Greening.
The recovery period required by amplified loading followed by structural failure is larger than the framerate interval of the Sauret video, therefore it can be established whether or not these jolts occur.
The same method has been successfully applied on Balzac Vitry, also using video evidence.
Typical. Don't address Gage or Utzen's points as building professionals. Just call one or both "closet homos". It only reflects upon you as it becomes quite clear that this is the sort of ad hominem you will find yourself resorting to when in intellectual vacuum.
Gage profession isn't properly designing building framing.
Gages profession is to make the building pretty and ensure that the statue of the man pissing into the foutain doesn't interfere with the fung-shui of the walking paths.
If you want to run away while getting kicked in the ass then so be it. Hope you wore the Charmin.
Now if you want tell us why you believe that 1 floor can hold up 12 + floors worth of mass or why the puny truss chords should not have bent under 1800 degree heat then come and do it.
You can't and thus have no argument unless you talk about irrelevant things like the "six pillars" or "really small rust and aluminum particles".
Jones is lying. Jones has no clue what NT looks like.
Finding small particles of rust and aluminum does not equal Nano-Thermite, no matter how many big sounding words Jones uses to describe it.
Steven Jones might tell you a fork is a :Quad-pronged apparatus consisting of a handle 10 centimeters across with the pronged organic sustinence penetrating devices 1/4 the handles length.
Sure, it dazzles people like you because it sounds complex but it's just a fork.
The way to challenge Jones and his nanothermite colleagues in the scientific world (Niels Harrit was first author in the paper analyzing the WTC dust) is to write a scientific paper refuting their findings, have it peer reviewed, and get it published in the scientific literature.
Why waste my time on denialist diversion? Why not invest my time on people who will at least attempt to come up with alternative (and plausible) explanations, say for those iron-rich microspheres or the red/gray chips?
What makes you think flat out denial or hand waving constitutes valid argumentation?
Coming with alternate explanations for small Aluminum and Rust chips is the diversion. Saying they are something out of the ordinary in the first place is the diversion.
It's what allows unfettered senseless speculation to continue which is what keeps up the sales of AE911 Truth Merchandise.
Yours is the alternate explanation, and what's more, it has no basis. Aluminum and rust IS thermite if it is intermixed in micron-sized grains and then reacts when ignited! It IS nano-thermite if it not only ignites and reacts, but contains UFG and intimately mixed particles, which can only be achieved with complex INTENTIONAL synthesis.
Such material is NOT paint. It does NOT "spontaneously form" in fires or collapses. You might as well claim bombs could be formed in collapses.
SECOND, how about the ORIGINAL paper, in a science journal, that points out Nano Thermite was first produced in a prototype production facility in 2002?
At 80 grams per week, it will only take you 5,000 years to produce 100 Tons (harrit)
WTC, THERMITE, 2002 THERMITE PRODUCTION PROCESS, LIMITS ON P45
ammtiac. alionscience. com /pdf/ AMPQ6_1ART06. pdf
@dadeets769 Too bad Jones refuses to have his work peer reviewed. Maybe that is why BYU fired him.. He found paint and the oven proves it. Silicon? The micro-spheres were present in the concrete before the collapse. And it ignites at 1/2 the temperature thermite requires.
Notice none of the beams show signs of high-heat (thermite burns at 3500C)?
About big sounding words: you use words like "parsimony". Parsimony means excessive frugality. I think you meant to say "precautionary principle".
Your "rebuttal" of Jones is saying he found small particles of rust and aluminum. If you read his paper, you know full well that this is a lie. Instead of resorting to lies, why don't you provide sound alternative explanations for the formation of iron-rich microspheres after ignition of these chips?
We could go on at length about this. You say 'yes', I say 'no'. Then what?
Your bare assertions and denial are of no use or worth to any of us. You have done better in this discussion and I was open minded about it.
However claims such as "Jones doesn't know what nano-thermite looks like" are so far sub-par that I have serious doubts that you are even worth my or anybody's time here.
If you have any intellectual integrity at all, then provide sound arguments, not these ridiculous cop outs.
Had you watched that "truther video", then you would have noticed I posted a simple critique of it at the top, based on our discussion here.
But instead you choose to look away and don't address the matter at all. What is the point of discussion then?
If I provide arguments against yours about welding byproducts, you say these arguments are "irrelevant" because you were engaging in "speculation". You can't stay scientific this way. This is sophistry.
No. Scientists like Jones waste time and collect a paycheck by pursuing irrelevant, gainless endeavors.
Lets go out on a limb and say Jones found NT. It's irrelevant since not steel was found to be damaged by explosives or incendiaries and since no such substances were required to initiate or continue the collapse.
Jones does not know what deliberately manufactured NT looks like. He didn't even have the means to acquire a sample. There is also no literature that critiques the substance the same way Jones did.
Theirfore Jones has some small particles of Rust and Aluminum. Nothing special although trying to explain this to a 911 Truther is akin to trying to teach a pig to sing.
"Jones does not know what deliberately manufactured NT looks like."
The material is thermitic. The material contains nano-sized aluminum platelets (~ 40 nm thick). The material contains iron-oxide particles approx 100 nm in size.
The ignition temperature of the thermitic substance is well below that of normal thermite. Furthermore, Jones et. al. draw on many publications by, for example, LLNL.
You don't know what deliberately manufactured Nano-Thermite looks like.
You and Jones have never looked at other substances or tested dust from the steel of any other buildings to see if it shared those same characteristics.
You never looked inside the Welders apartment of the window sill Jones took the sample from.
You do not know whether or not the substance is Nano-Thermite.
Did Jones test any dust samples from other buildings to see if they contained the same particles?
Did he test any dust from inside the apartment of the window he collected the sample from?
Does Jones have a piece of known NT or a paper about NT that states that it has the same characteristic that Jones focused on during his own analysis of the dust?
The answer is NO to all those things. Just a few of many reasons that Jones does not know whether he has NT or not.
I don't know if he has tested against background dust but RJ Lee has. Have you read THEIR reports? They might not discuss red/gray chips, but they do discuss all kinds of other abnormalities that are corroborated by the USGS AND Jones/Harrit et. al.
Right, Jones tested one substance that had not been subject to the same conditions that it had been in the WTC's such as having a 5000 degree electrical arc drawn across it during welding.
While all this speculation is fun, it's a waste of time when Planes and Fires was proven and when we have no steel that shows any damage from incendiaries or explosives.
My assertion isn't baseless. The steel samples that NIST analyzed are still available for you to look at.
Your claim is now that all the 1000's if not tens of thousands of people involved in cleanup and analyzing somehow didn't notice a piece of exploded or completely melted steel is the only baseless claim here.
That is why you are called a conspiracy theorist.
All the people in the cleanup and investigation are in on it right?
Anyways, you didn't even respond to my earlier comments about the welding byproducts. You didn't respond to my link about the squibs. You just repeatedly go off on ad hominem (Jones this, Jones that) detours. What an enrichment of the mind.
I don't watch truther videos, sorry. Sorry there no squids.
Your response to my claim about the welding rods is irrelevant because it's only my speculation that what Jones found could be from such sources.
We have to stay scientific and embrace the prinpciples of parsimony and assume his chips are from such likely sources since Jones did not prove he had Nano-Thermite.
I remember that Mark Roberts once said truthers would physically look away from photos or other evidence to the contrary that he tried to present them. This is a classic denial response and there is no reason not to look at his work.
Yet you do the exact same with me. Then you have the audacity to lecture me about "staying scientific".
You put forth denials and bare assertions by the gross. Your "intimate knowledge" of my thoughts suggests you fancy yourself a mind reader.
Do you believe the fire in the building was not hot enough to heat the trusses and allow thermal creep which in turn led to the bowing and failure on the wall of the WTC?
Yes or No.
Once collapse is initiated, why do you believe the building beneath it should arrest the collapse? Cit specific components and their strengths during your answer.
NOBODY at AE911 TRUTH has produced such a write-up.
Specific, testable claims would allow to see that their claims are unfounded.
Yes or no? Excuse me while I refuse a binary choice. I am unconvinced by NIST's arguments for collapse initiation due to fire, but I certainly don't rule it out.
And again, when did I say the building "should arrest the collapse"?
If you want to study a paper, study Tony Szamboti's paper. That paper cites specific data requiring jolts that are not observed.
AE911Truth mostly draws from the work of STJ911. Test their claims with other criticisms than "they lie", please.
I'm not going on NIST alone. NIST would have to produce findings consistent with all the other evidence. In some cases they do. In other cases they are guilty of scientific fraud. The abuse ranges from willful ignorance to drylabbing to circular reasoning to fabrication.
Newton's second law of motion dictates that jolts occur, and such jolts have been observed in demolitions such as Balzac Vitry, when the top section meets the lower section after a two-three storey section in the middle has been removed.
Newton's second and third law are repeatedly observed in practice. They cannot be violated.
You talking about DVD sales is an ad hominem argument and a distraction from the horrible denial of Newton's laws of motion you've just displayed.
A jolt does in fact occur when the stick fails. Your foot accelerates downward, and the rate of acceleration thus changes from 0 to 'x'.
Apart from that, your analogy is crooked. The WTC floor failures occur because of dynamic loading, not static loading. GPE converts to KE, which must be used to deform structure. Whether this is an elastic or inelastic collision, a jolt must occur.
Which is why jolts are observed in studies of e.g. Balzac Vitry.
The floors will fail under the static load of the top of the structure (above collapse initiation area).
This means that ALL kinetic energy is "excess" energy which increases the amount of energy available to break other floors meaning each floor provides less meaningful resistance to an ever-increasing falling mass.
Back on topic:
How did you measure the speed of the collapse and determine there was no jolt?
I would like to see these numbers before you speak again.
Electrode coatings can consist of a number of different compounds, including rutile, calcium fluoride, cellulose, and iron powder. Rutile electrodes, coated with 25%45% TiO2, are characterized by ease of use and good appearance of the resulting weld. However, they create welds with high hydrogen content, encouraging embrittlement and cracking. Electrodes containing calcium fluoride (CaF2), sometimes known as basic or low-hydrogen electrodes, are hygroscopic and must be stored in dry conditions
It makes little sense to look at every possibility when no evidence exists that would even cause you consider explosives as a possibility.
What you are doing is looking for a knife and the knife-weilding killer of a man who has only a gunshot wound when you have the man who shot him and the gun in your possession along with a video showing him performing the killing.
If you wish the gun analogy, the 2+ sec. of freefall acceleration of the upper section of WTC 7, and the necessity for 8 lower stories to get abruptly out of the way. That is the smoking gun.
Well... I would say two men, one stabbed in the neck, one stabbed in the abdomen... the latter man falls first, tips over but this tipping motion arrests and he falls straight down through himself at 0.7 G, blowing out all his vertebrae to dust in the process.
A litte later, the same happens to the other guy.
Later in the afternoon, a guy standing near the guy stabbed in the neck drops dead too: he falls straight down through himself at 1 G for 2.25 s, apparently because of "artery expansion".
And then.. to top it off, medical literature says that such stabbings have never led to such freefall collapses and total destruction of human bodies before.
Yet it happened, because the day it happened was a "day of firsts". A unique day, which fundamentally changes the laws of science forever.
Doctors involved in previous cover-ups of medical errors, sponsored by the government, rush to the scene and come up with explanations that are blatantly ridiculous and unscientific. Then..nothing.
Honest doctors who speak up are labeled "unpatriotic kooks" and "murderer sympathizers".
A climate of fear, political pressure and conformism then prevents media from interviewing these doctors and giving them them the and their questions the attention they deserve.
Not even if some of the government doctors involved in the investigation later claim they lied to the American people and that they were "set up to fail".
However, if such an incident occurs in another country, particularly a geopolitical rival...., well then government doctors, independent doctors and even politicians fight to be the first to express their dismay and distrust in the political process in said country and demand a new investigation into the matter, in the name of democracy, transparency and human rights.
Military and economic allies then join ranks. All whistle the same tune. Obviously the foreign government is covering sth up.
We seem to think conspiratorially when it comes to our geopolitical rivals, but when it comes to our own governments, we tend to think in terms of coincidence and incompetence. We tend to accept absurd prevarications from our own governments, but mock and reject those of our rivals.
It's a trust matter. We are born and raised into a Western world view. While I think we are generally still a little bit better off in the West than we would be in the East, the gap is closing disturbingly fast.
I would add that to me, it is not just the fact THAT the WTC towers collapsed, but HOW they collapsed.
Collapse initiation itself for WTC 1 & 2 is a different discussion, which I think treads in murky waters. I'm surprised at and at unease with the short time span it took for those towers to give up, but I'm not convinced it is impossible. However, I find NIST's reasoning forced, especially the floor tests and the fireproofing dislodging tests.
You have no reason for finding their reasoning forced.
We have the side of the building bowing filmed and extensively documented by several different sources.
A plane hit the building. It doesn't take any type of experimentation to know the plaster fireproofing would be dislodged from the steel by such an event. It's not a "mystery" worth of discussion and Cheney's stubborness doesn't affect the outcome either way.
"You have no reason for finding their reasoning forced."
In the case of the floor tests and the shotgun tests, I see plenty of reason for doubt.
NIST has been repeatedly guilty of scientific misconduct. However, that only leads me to conclude that I cannot necessarily trust all of their data and/or conclusions.
NIST's sophistry, drylabbing, wilful ignorance, obfuscation and fraud doesn't 'prove' demolition in itself. It is, however, cause for great concern. (I'm sure you disagree forcefully)
Then there are NIST's computer models, in which they have the foolhardiness to e.g. set thermal conductivity to zero if it placates their predetermined conclusion.
At times, NIST has tweaked parameters to the point of absurdity in order to further a natural collapse scenario.
They hide some or all of the data they use for their FEA. Why? They are certain they are correct aren't they? Is this stuff, are these numbers, a threat to national security? I think not.
You overcomplicate very simple things. And no, calling you Jim Hoffman was not a complement.
He is totally out of his realm as far as 911 goes.
The premise is very simple. If you disagree with NIST then you disagree that an unprotected with an 1800 degree fire below it will absorb enough heat (in lets say 30 minutes) to undergo thermal creep.
There is no evidence for that. That's why. But all of this is collapse initiation discussion. My main beef is with that which followed collapse initiation.
If this is a Freudian slip ("complement" instead of "compliment"), then I wonder what it hidden motive it suggests.
Everybody is "out of his realm". Sunder is not a metallurgist. He's not a physicist. He's not a chemist. He's not a historian. He's not a firefighter. He's not a mathematician. He's not a software engineer. He's not a pilot. He's not a general. He's not a lot of things.
He's a structural Engineer and holds a Masters in that area he also has a Masters in Civil Engineering among other things.
Since we are dealing with the failure of framing of a building, such degrees hold high relevance and would be more of a prerequisite for such an investigation rather than say a physicist who claims to have proven the existence of God, a Software Engineer and an Architect.
Let's say that "collapse initiation" is inevitable given the plane impacts and the ensuing hydrocarbon/office fires.
My point is: what happens next? The fact THAT collapse initiates, doesn't automatically mean that the buildings are pulverized to the ground at 0.7g without measurable "jolts".
Some of the evidence put forth by Jones/Harrit et al. suggests to me that powerful people in the military wanted to ENSURE that those buildings came down catastrophically.
Hmmm, while I don't always agree with him, because he presents long convoluted arguments with the intention of always right no matter the cost (sincerity), I can't help but be flattered a little but.
As for politics; I consider this whole thing a criminal investigation by the people. As such, Byzantine concepts such as historical precedent, zeitgeist, context, motive, means and opportunity are relevant. The USG has a rap sheet.
Oh my...comments on this video have degenerated into some incredibly ignorant and ranting 9/11 faithkeeper and some reasonable individual trying to contain her/him.
The purpose of this discussion ought to be to critique Dwain's performance, his choice of slides, his language, etc.
His "support for demolition" slide is pretty clever and deliciously ironic.
DanUuNoel, well, you are right, I guess. We maybe be discussing that instead.
We are sorta on topic though. Actually, flanksteak2 raised some interesting points just now about the spheres and the alleged igniter circuitry, the sort of points that are instructive.
There is always the danger of confirmation bias and there is no better falsification than that from fervent opponents of hypotheses/papers/experiments/theories/evidence.
"Prof. Steven Jones arrived in town today, so Luke R. and I took him on the double decker bus tour through Sydney. We stopped in the famous and very peaceful Chinese Garden and learned of the latest thermite experiment performed by Prof. Jones. Turns out that the nano-thermite can be ignited by an electric current. He place probes with a 12 volt current on a 1mm length chip and it "flashed" right in front of his face — scaring the daylights out of him."
@flanksteak2: I'm not playing twenty questions. Please just get to the point, that's what I (try to) do as well. Apart from the occasional nastyness that comes with the territory of debating something intrinsically emotional.
The fact that most of those iron-rich microspheres are not from clean-up operations is something I'm quite certain of. There are many reasons for this, and I haven't even listed them all.
At the core of this argument is the obvious temperature gap between what Jones, RJ Lee and USGS find, and what a plane crash and an office fire are capable of producing thermodynamically.
Even if the demolition hypothesis for WTC 1 & 2 is properly falsified, I would still like a good explanation for this gap.
Do you suppose some welding was on the building while it was being built and do you suppose some of the welding spatter fell through the air and landed on the structure?
No large oxygen peak in the spheres? Aluminum peak? Therefore, welding residue is unlikely. I do like the point you raise though. I hadn't thought of that at all.
Btw, dr. Jones crushed some WTC concrete and found no such spheres.
Well, I guess this matter can be settled by publishing a paper studying spheres gathered from oxyacetylene torches. However, the "contamination" of those spheres is wider than just oxygen.
The point is not only that the spheres seem unlike spheres gathered from welding, they seem unlike spheres originating from (The WTC's) structural steel.
The spheres seem to originate with the chips, given the XEDS peaks and their presence after ignition.
JREF blasts Jones as always, this is to be expected. But they certainly do not concur with you that "oxygen free spheres" would be produced. By the way, Jones claims "high iron LOW oxygen" spheres. (Not even discussing the other XEDS peaks that indicate contamination of other elements)
There there is this:
xrl. us/bgc8b6
At first glance, (no offense) I'd say your argument in this particular case is weak at best.
Ha ha ha. =) What is this, a reasonable scientific objection? At least Harrit is experienced with nanoparticles. Also, there is plenty of literature on nano-thermite, including pre-9/11 literature.
Jones doesn't attempt to identify nano-thermite by visual observation of microscopic pictures, does he? He attempts to establish particle size and morphology, and ignites the chips to determine whether or not a thermitic reaction takes place.
Jones attempts to use scientific sounding jargon in order to lend credibility to his baseless claims.
None of those guys know what Nano-Thermite looks like and none of them were able to acquire a sample to test and no literature is available from past scientists that looked at and scrutinized NT in the same way Jones did.
In Summary, Jones has no Control Group I.E. known Nano-Thermite to work from.
And then of course we get the "It's so high tech and secretive that we just couldn't get any" babble that leaves Jones an "out" from which he can exit his hall of Pseudoscience.
"Jones attempts to use scientific sounding jargon"
He's a scientist with publications in Science and Nature. And you?
As for your other objections: there is literature available that "scrutinized" nano-thermite in the same way Jones did, in fact, way beyond that. DoD publications aren't about IDENTIFYING nano-thermite, they are EFFICIENCY STUDIES.
The criteria for nano-thermite come down to: (1) thermitic reaction (2) nano-scale particles: nano-aluminum/nano-iron oxide
Right, so Jones concluded that since the Rust and Aluminum particles he had were very small that they must Nano-Thermite.
There are more reasonable explanations for the substance Jones found and I pointed to several of them. Using the principles of parsimony and to remain scientific, it's only reasonable to hypothesize that the particles are from those sources and not from some mystery explosive especially when there are no signs of the use of explosives in the rubble.
"Jones concluded (..) since the (...) particles (...) were very small that they must (be) Nano-Thermite."
No. He concluded it based on various properties. These properties include a ignition temperature well below that of regular thermite, an intimate mixing of components, nano-aluminum platelets, nano-sized iron oxide crystals... a DSC graph compared to Tillotson (both conducted in air) and
*drumroll*
An very fast thermitic reaction, yielding iron-rich microspheres.
You are right, no chip igniters were found in the dust, as far as I know. Good point. Then again, we don't know what we are looking for. So far, the intent seems to be to examine the feasibility of the red/gray chips as igniters triggered electrically.
All this research does is confirm the possibility. I too would want to know why no circuitry was found in that case.
On the other hand: did the WTC dust contain recognizable circuitry from personal computers? So.. there were no PC's in the WTC?
I disagree. Collapse initiation...mwah. Maybe. I can see the WTC buckling and yielding after a while. Especially if the fireproofing was sub-par in multiple places and given the lateral load increase when floors are disconnected from exterior columns.
The biggest evidence to me: lack of jolt, the temperature gap, the pulverization of all floors of concrete, the high speed lateral ejections, the flashes not from glass, the booms in the Naudet vid.
It is my distinct impression he got a free sample from the government. Partially exploded, but still an interesting souvenir of mass murder.
Or....some really dangerous and curious "primer paint" with aluminum platelets under 100nm in size that exhibits thermitic reactions when heated to 430 degrees Celsius and which produces previously molten iron-rich microspheres.
@flanksteak2: nope. As I think? I explained earlier, oxyacetylene torches create spheres rich in iron AND oxygen. Furthermore, one sample was retrieved ten minutes after the North Tower's collapse. Furthermore, the mass percentage is quite high, and some of the places where the dust was scooped up by RJ Lee were penetrated by force.
Furthermore, there is other evidence of "extremely high temperatures during the collapse" as RJ Lee states it.
In other words, no, scratch clean-up as the cause.
There is no change. There is only "regime rotation", with this nonsense Democrat vs. Republican "Good Cop Bad Cop"-routine.
Did we sign a climate treaty yet? I'm not aware of it. Guantanamo closed yet? Not aware of it. Less troops in Afghanistan? Hmmm. No. Did wiretapping stop? No it didn't, in fact it expanded.
What change? Health care? They won't even allow him that much. Obama is a powerless fraud and a compulsive liar with great PR.
Obama is like Germany after WW II, but with no change, except somebody black with a friendly face replaces Hitler, and they "might consider closing the concentration camps"
but:
"Obviously the Jew terrorists currently imprisoned there are that much more dangerous now that they have been tortured"
so:
"It might be best to keep the concentration camps open after all, for our own safety."
dude, you're out of touch with reality... come back to earth... you need to be on medication, none of your comments make any logical sense. have a good day being insane.
Insane eh? How about raping people with broken bottles? How about torturing children to make their parents sign a confession? All with the knowledge of and consent of the CIA?
xrl. us/bf3gdk
Source: Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan.
This is your wake-up call. I can source you hundreds of such stories. This stuff continues under Obama. Deal with it.
I wonder if the people who say it wasn't a controlled demolition really mean it.
NIST has admitted it was in their latest report, as is clear to anybody with a grasp of Newton's Laws of motion.
If NIST can't explain it, other than by controlled demolition, why on earth should anybody on this forum think they can?
If they could, they would be acclaimed as a great scientist by the whole world, having satisfactorily explained something the combined minds of NIIST couldn't manage.
You are wrong in saying NIST has admitted it. There is an important distinction. They admitted the freefall (which makes it immediately obvious), but steadfastly hold to the idea that what is obvious is not true.
I presented this freefall information to a college physics professor earlier this week. His immediate response was with the question, "why is NIST avoiding explosives as the answer?"
'Architects and Engineers for 9II Truth recentIy received acknowIedgement from the FBl's counterterrorism division, which concIuded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and wiII get - FBl scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director MichaeI Heimbach assessed AE 9II's presentation as "backed by thorough research and anaIysis.'
It doesn't take long to see that having an intelligent discussion with people on YouTube about anything is a useless endeavor. There are too many people trying to be disruptive.
I think you may want to close the comments, or maybe just post the ones that contribute something intelligent.
The only other thing I would suggest is improving the audio if that's possible.
Why, if it is "Wormtongue" KevinMerck trying to persuade the "moderator" (iow the uploader of the video) to tip the balance of the discussion in his favor using censorship.
Googling "Tnoy34rt" and "macindrew" together shows them singing the same song on many different sites. In fact, on one Youtube video, both are addressed as one in discussion, e.g. "macindrew a.k.a. Tnoy34rt"
xrl. us/bf7ck5
Tnoy34rt, are you macindrew? Are you sockpuppeting? If so, what does that say about YOUR "health condition"?
This usually seems to be an exercise in which "truthers" present their views which are then derided by "debunkers".
Is there anything about 9/11 (besides the fact that 9/11 was clearly an attack by muslim terrorists, a notion to which I largely subscribe) you would like to say yourself?
How do you feel about the post 9/11 world, for example?
In case anyone is wondering what flanksteak is talking about, he thinks I'm David Chandler and that Punxybarney (who comments on a different video) is Richard Gage.
That should tell you a little about the steak.
Macindrew proves how knowledgeable she is by her description of the design characteristics of the twin towers and her explanation of why they "collapsed" which are laughable to anyone who knows what they're talking about, yet she accuses others of being crazy.
The comments were in reference to the collapse video on your channel. You have it tagged as YOUR video. If it's Chandlers then so be it, Chandler is wrong and you are a shill for hosting the videos of known hoaxers.
Barney is not Richard Gage although since Barney doesn't know anything it's just as easy to assume he is Gage.
I think that you are Rob Basalmo or you have at least stolen his personality.
By the way, I don't mean to preach, I'm speaking from my own experience.
I've argued with them myself and having stooped to their level on more than one occasion is nothing to be proud of. There is no sense in arguing with people who don't want to know the truth. Some of these people are intentional liars which is far worse than the misguided.
People have to want to know the truth or it does no good to try to convince them of it.
Until you provide some evidence Kevin, everyone will continue to laugh at you.
Trust me, you suffer from a mental condition known as "paranoia", their are medicines to help with it so you don't have to live your whole life as "crazy".
Your video where you point out "explosive ejections" is nothing more than floors being broken by the debris which is the top of the building.
Columns tipping away from the building as floors are stripped away
And smoke being pushed out of mechanical vents lower in the structure.
You disabled comments on the video because you don't want anyone refuting your fantasies and threatening the myths you have created and which are providing you a nice income stream.
There are some (about 16%) who will defend the official conspiracy theory to their death. They go to government funded "debunking websites" and then post comments on videos pretending to know what they're talking about when they have no clue. Macindrew and flanksteak are perfect examples of this.
It's best to state the facts, while trying not to argue, with the misguided and malicious.
Arguing with evil people tends to drag you down to their level.
Rankstank, I've made clear points on the strength and size of the core, the fire temps as per NIST, the fact that the fire temps were for the most part well below the point where the steel would lose significant structural strength, quotes from the structural engineer, John Skilling, regarding plane impacts and various other design load capacities. I wouldn't make those cogent points if I didn't know what I was talking about. You are completely FOS.
He's honest, he's seriously concerned about the direction this country has turned,
why aren't you?
charleskafka 1 year ago
never put the mic far away from the subject....
gunthaarz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
Dear truth seeker, lets find the truth together... among the pile of half-truths....Dwain's evidences appeared in order but not his conclusions...ok...
WE ALL KNOW THT TODAY WITH ALL THE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE, THE SAYING... I CAN BELIEVE WAT I CAN SEE OR HEAR IS NO LONGER TRUE..
LETS CHECK OUT THE FLWG:
911 coincidence
SEPTEMBER CLUES A
Donna Marsh O'Connor Begs Media To Question 911
May truth and peace be with you always
jefri53 2 years ago
Ok, Rain has let up. Gotta go get some work done.
I'll be back to refute everything you say later.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
"I'll be back to refute everything you say later."
Indicative of your true intentions, which are totally out of sync with sincere research.
If you were interested in truth, you wouldn't be so obsessed with refuting me, you'd be determined to test your own arguments against mine, and you would accept valid argumentation like I did in the discussion about the debris ejecta.
loccysmif 2 years ago
To be quite honest though, I have little motivation for pointless flame wars. Your blatant denial of Newton's laws of motion has earned you place in the cucking stool on my profile page.
You're the third this year, I believe.
loccysmif 2 years ago
@loccysmif
I am waiting for you to tell me how you think that a floor failing under a much higher load than it was designed for is disobeying any laws of physics.
That is the science I want to see. "Six Pillars", "Jolts" and "Dust from window sills" is all irrelevant in comparison to those two simple questions.
That is why AE911 Truth and yourself avoid them like the plague.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@loccysmif
You have been asked 2 simple questions: Do you believe the trusses should not have bowed under the amount heat they were subject to in the building?
How would the lower structure have arrested collapse when the floors cannot even hold the static load of the top of the building?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
And, how do you know that no Jolts occurred when you have no way of accurately measuring the speed of the collapse?
Lets focus more on that realm.
How did you measure the speed of the collapse and determine that there were no jolts?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
Measure speed? I didn't. Szamboti did. His findings are discussed on various fora, including by people such as Dr. Greening.
The recovery period required by amplified loading followed by structural failure is larger than the framerate interval of the Sauret video, therefore it can be established whether or not these jolts occur.
The same method has been successfully applied on Balzac Vitry, also using video evidence.
loccysmif 2 years ago
@loccysmif
Ah ok, so how much jolt occurred and how much should have occurred in a natural collapse?
Using the design loading of the building of course.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
BTW, I am highly convinced after watching the video of Gages meeting with the Australian Architect that Richard Gage is a closet Homo.
I have been convinced for awhile that Kevin Ryan is and that Steve Jones might be but I am now 100% sure that Gage is.
I
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
@flanksteak2:
Typical. Don't address Gage or Utzen's points as building professionals. Just call one or both "closet homos". It only reflects upon you as it becomes quite clear that this is the sort of ad hominem you will find yourself resorting to when in intellectual vacuum.
Pathetic.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Gage profession isn't properly designing building framing.
Gages profession is to make the building pretty and ensure that the statue of the man pissing into the foutain doesn't interfere with the fung-shui of the walking paths.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
Which is why Gage is backed by an organization with many different building professionals, including credentialed structural and mechanical engineers.
So...why don't you read Szamboti's work then? He has the credentials you so desperately crave in a "truther".
loccysmif 2 years ago
Anyways, after those retarded grade school level insults at Gage, Jones and Ryan....
I declare victory in this debate and call it a day.
People interested in a wall of shame of Newton violators can visit my profile page.
Vaja con dios, mr. Deets. Good luck with your future efforts.
loccysmif 2 years ago
@loccysmif
It's clear they are Homosexuals.
If you want to run away while getting kicked in the ass then so be it. Hope you wore the Charmin.
Now if you want tell us why you believe that 1 floor can hold up 12 + floors worth of mass or why the puny truss chords should not have bent under 1800 degree heat then come and do it.
You can't and thus have no argument unless you talk about irrelevant things like the "six pillars" or "really small rust and aluminum particles".
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@loccysmif
None of those people are coalescing around a single hypothesis.
None of them have told us how a floor who's load has been exceed should not collapse.
None of them have told us why they believe the fire should not have heated the steel.
The organization isn't organized at all.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
Jones is lying. Jones has no clue what NT looks like.
Finding small particles of rust and aluminum does not equal Nano-Thermite, no matter how many big sounding words Jones uses to describe it.
Steven Jones might tell you a fork is a :Quad-pronged apparatus consisting of a handle 10 centimeters across with the pronged organic sustinence penetrating devices 1/4 the handles length.
Sure, it dazzles people like you because it sounds complex but it's just a fork.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
The way to challenge Jones and his nanothermite colleagues in the scientific world (Niels Harrit was first author in the paper analyzing the WTC dust) is to write a scientific paper refuting their findings, have it peer reviewed, and get it published in the scientific literature.
dadeets769 2 years ago
Why waste my time refuting something that was never proven?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
Why waste my time on denialist diversion? Why not invest my time on people who will at least attempt to come up with alternative (and plausible) explanations, say for those iron-rich microspheres or the red/gray chips?
What makes you think flat out denial or hand waving constitutes valid argumentation?
loccysmif 2 years ago
Coming with alternate explanations for small Aluminum and Rust chips is the diversion. Saying they are something out of the ordinary in the first place is the diversion.
It's what allows unfettered senseless speculation to continue which is what keeps up the sales of AE911 Truth Merchandise.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
Yours is the alternate explanation, and what's more, it has no basis. Aluminum and rust IS thermite if it is intermixed in micron-sized grains and then reacts when ignited! It IS nano-thermite if it not only ignites and reacts, but contains UFG and intimately mixed particles, which can only be achieved with complex INTENTIONAL synthesis.
Such material is NOT paint. It does NOT "spontaneously form" in fires or collapses. You might as well claim bombs could be formed in collapses.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Right. So what you're saying is that very small chips of aluminum and rust can only be High-Tech, Super-Explosive.
I don't think I agree.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2
"So what you're saying..."
No.. I am not saying. Straw man argument. Your favorite fallacy.
loccysmif 2 years ago
@dadeets769
You need a paper refuting Steven Jones?
Why don't you just call the Phone number on the cover of the report?
It's a cell phone to a BYU chem professor, not a laboratory.
The address is a UPS store down by the PROVO airport.
I estimate $50 to fool Trusting Truthers for nearly three years.
What a great investment.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@dadeets769
SECOND, how about the ORIGINAL paper, in a science journal, that points out Nano Thermite was first produced in a prototype production facility in 2002?
At 80 grams per week, it will only take you 5,000 years to produce 100 Tons (harrit)
WTC, THERMITE, 2002 THERMITE PRODUCTION PROCESS, LIMITS ON P45
ammtiac. alionscience. com /pdf/ AMPQ6_1ART06. pdf
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@dadeets769 Too bad Jones refuses to have his work peer reviewed. Maybe that is why BYU fired him.. He found paint and the oven proves it. Silicon? The micro-spheres were present in the concrete before the collapse. And it ignites at 1/2 the temperature thermite requires.
Notice none of the beams show signs of high-heat (thermite burns at 3500C)?
MrRexquando 3 months ago
@flanksteak2:
About big sounding words: you use words like "parsimony". Parsimony means excessive frugality. I think you meant to say "precautionary principle".
Your "rebuttal" of Jones is saying he found small particles of rust and aluminum. If you read his paper, you know full well that this is a lie. Instead of resorting to lies, why don't you provide sound alternative explanations for the formation of iron-rich microspheres after ignition of these chips?
loccysmif 2 years ago
We could go on at length about this. You say 'yes', I say 'no'. Then what?
Your bare assertions and denial are of no use or worth to any of us. You have done better in this discussion and I was open minded about it.
However claims such as "Jones doesn't know what nano-thermite looks like" are so far sub-par that I have serious doubts that you are even worth my or anybody's time here.
If you have any intellectual integrity at all, then provide sound arguments, not these ridiculous cop outs.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Had you watched that "truther video", then you would have noticed I posted a simple critique of it at the top, based on our discussion here.
But instead you choose to look away and don't address the matter at all. What is the point of discussion then?
If I provide arguments against yours about welding byproducts, you say these arguments are "irrelevant" because you were engaging in "speculation". You can't stay scientific this way. This is sophistry.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Imagine flanksteak2 submitting a scientific paper to a peer-reviewed journal.
Flanksteak2's paper contains only two sentences:
"Jones is lying. He doesn't know what nano-thermite looks like".
Would it be accepted?
loccysmif 2 years ago
I wouldn't submit a candid rebuttale to a scientific journal that wouldn't publish the article critiqued in the first place.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
Then submit it to the hack journal that is alleged to be publishing garbage. Shouldn't be too difficult.
loccysmif 2 years ago
No. Scientists like Jones waste time and collect a paycheck by pursuing irrelevant, gainless endeavors.
Lets go out on a limb and say Jones found NT. It's irrelevant since not steel was found to be damaged by explosives or incendiaries and since no such substances were required to initiate or continue the collapse.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
"not steel was found to be damaged by explosives or incendiaries"
How do you know? NIST didn't test for it. Most of it was prematurely destroyed.
loccysmif 2 years ago
You would be able to see the damage without having to come up with a special test.
I know this type simple logic escapes Truthers so I don't expect you to embrace it.
That is why you are called conspiracy theorists. Some 1000's of people wouldn't have noticed steel columns that had been blown to shreds.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
Ok, I'll watch the video and see what I says.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
Jones does not know what deliberately manufactured NT looks like. He didn't even have the means to acquire a sample. There is also no literature that critiques the substance the same way Jones did.
Theirfore Jones has some small particles of Rust and Aluminum. Nothing special although trying to explain this to a 911 Truther is akin to trying to teach a pig to sing.
I waste my time and the pig gets annoyed.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
"Jones does not know what deliberately manufactured NT looks like."
The material is thermitic. The material contains nano-sized aluminum platelets (~ 40 nm thick). The material contains iron-oxide particles approx 100 nm in size.
The ignition temperature of the thermitic substance is well below that of normal thermite. Furthermore, Jones et. al. draw on many publications by, for example, LLNL.
Not nano-thermite? When singing pigs fly, maybe.
loccysmif 2 years ago
You don't know what deliberately manufactured Nano-Thermite looks like.
You and Jones have never looked at other substances or tested dust from the steel of any other buildings to see if it shared those same characteristics.
You never looked inside the Welders apartment of the window sill Jones took the sample from.
You do not know whether or not the substance is Nano-Thermite.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
I don't know what NT looks like?
BULLSH*T!
xrl. us/bgdeen
"Dust from the steel" of other buildings? What in heaven's name are you on about?
And then what's next? A conspiracy theory about the provenance of the samples?
I know that the paper shows that the red/gray chips are active thermitic materials, with intimately mixed UFG particles.
You know...well...how to dance around the issue without providing solid refutation, it seems.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Did Jones test any dust samples from other buildings to see if they contained the same particles?
Did he test any dust from inside the apartment of the window he collected the sample from?
Does Jones have a piece of known NT or a paper about NT that states that it has the same characteristic that Jones focused on during his own analysis of the dust?
The answer is NO to all those things. Just a few of many reasons that Jones does not know whether he has NT or not.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
Jones has tested against WTC primer paint.
I don't know if he has tested against background dust but RJ Lee has. Have you read THEIR reports? They might not discuss red/gray chips, but they do discuss all kinds of other abnormalities that are corroborated by the USGS AND Jones/Harrit et. al.
Your last argument is a non-sequitur.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Right, Jones tested one substance that had not been subject to the same conditions that it had been in the WTC's such as having a 5000 degree electrical arc drawn across it during welding.
While all this speculation is fun, it's a waste of time when Planes and Fires was proven and when we have no steel that shows any damage from incendiaries or explosives.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
"we have no steel that shows any damage from incendiaries or explosives."
NIST didn't test for incendiaries or explosives. Your assertion is baseless. Yet you keep repeating this baseless assertion.
Somehow I detect a hope that repeating baseless assertions will somehow in time decrease their baselessness.
Please source NIST's actual tests for incendiaries and explosives on WTC steel. I would like to see them.
loccysmif 2 years ago
@loccysmif @loccysmif
My assertion isn't baseless. The steel samples that NIST analyzed are still available for you to look at.
Your claim is now that all the 1000's if not tens of thousands of people involved in cleanup and analyzing somehow didn't notice a piece of exploded or completely melted steel is the only baseless claim here.
That is why you are called a conspiracy theorist.
All the people in the cleanup and investigation are in on it right?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2
are you just forking with me?
charleskafka 1 year ago
Anyways, you didn't even respond to my earlier comments about the welding byproducts. You didn't respond to my link about the squibs. You just repeatedly go off on ad hominem (Jones this, Jones that) detours. What an enrichment of the mind.
This is a pointless exercise isn't it? Cya.
loccysmif 2 years ago
I don't watch truther videos, sorry. Sorry there no squids.
Your response to my claim about the welding rods is irrelevant because it's only my speculation that what Jones found could be from such sources.
We have to stay scientific and embrace the prinpciples of parsimony and assume his chips are from such likely sources since Jones did not prove he had Nano-Thermite.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
I remember that Mark Roberts once said truthers would physically look away from photos or other evidence to the contrary that he tried to present them. This is a classic denial response and there is no reason not to look at his work.
Yet you do the exact same with me. Then you have the audacity to lecture me about "staying scientific".
You put forth denials and bare assertions by the gross. Your "intimate knowledge" of my thoughts suggests you fancy yourself a mind reader.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Again:
Do you believe the fire in the building was not hot enough to heat the trusses and allow thermal creep which in turn led to the bowing and failure on the wall of the WTC?
Yes or No.
Once collapse is initiated, why do you believe the building beneath it should arrest the collapse? Cit specific components and their strengths during your answer.
NOBODY at AE911 TRUTH has produced such a write-up.
Specific, testable claims would allow to see that their claims are unfounded.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
Yes or no? Excuse me while I refuse a binary choice. I am unconvinced by NIST's arguments for collapse initiation due to fire, but I certainly don't rule it out.
And again, when did I say the building "should arrest the collapse"?
If you want to study a paper, study Tony Szamboti's paper. That paper cites specific data requiring jolts that are not observed.
AE911Truth mostly draws from the work of STJ911. Test their claims with other criticisms than "they lie", please.
loccysmif 2 years ago
What information would NIST have to produce to convince you?
And once again, more denialist diversion of you to come with nonsense about "jolts" that should have been observed.
Nonsense.
If the top comes down on the bottom the bottom the floors are not strong enough to resist the weight of the top and collapse.
Of course that is too simple to understand and wouldn't keep DVD sales up.
Lets talk about jolts and the metal in some dust that we found on the window of a welders apt
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
I'm not going on NIST alone. NIST would have to produce findings consistent with all the other evidence. In some cases they do. In other cases they are guilty of scientific fraud. The abuse ranges from willful ignorance to drylabbing to circular reasoning to fabrication.
xrl. us/bgdegp
loccysmif 2 years ago
Newton's second law of motion dictates that jolts occur, and such jolts have been observed in demolitions such as Balzac Vitry, when the top section meets the lower section after a two-three storey section in the middle has been removed.
Newton's second and third law are repeatedly observed in practice. They cannot be violated.
You talking about DVD sales is an ad hominem argument and a distraction from the horrible denial of Newton's laws of motion you've just displayed.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Jolts don't occur because the load is enough to induce failure even in a static scenario.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
Do this. Put a small stick between two cinder blocks and step on the stick and keep applying your weight until it breaks.
Did a jolt occur?
No?
Why not?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
And better yet, how do you know a jolt doesn't occur when you have no way to measure the speed of the collapse that closely?
This is why you believe or are open to "alternate" hypothesise.
Your thought process and application of the correct technical tools is totally screwed up.
Now that's an accusation that would easily pass Peer-Review.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
Jolts always occur. This is dictated by Newton's laws of motion. Period.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Did a Jolt occur when you stepped on the stick?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
@flanksteak2:
A jolt does in fact occur when the stick fails. Your foot accelerates downward, and the rate of acceleration thus changes from 0 to 'x'.
Apart from that, your analogy is crooked. The WTC floor failures occur because of dynamic loading, not static loading. GPE converts to KE, which must be used to deform structure. Whether this is an elastic or inelastic collision, a jolt must occur.
Which is why jolts are observed in studies of e.g. Balzac Vitry.
loccysmif 2 years ago
The floors will fail under the static load of the top of the structure (above collapse initiation area).
This means that ALL kinetic energy is "excess" energy which increases the amount of energy available to break other floors meaning each floor provides less meaningful resistance to an ever-increasing falling mass.
Back on topic:
How did you measure the speed of the collapse and determine there was no jolt?
I would like to see these numbers before you speak again.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
So flanksteak2, any comments on this?
watch?v=acTcwA_YHuA
Note my criticism at the top.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Electrode coatings can consist of a number of different compounds, including rutile, calcium fluoride, cellulose, and iron powder. Rutile electrodes, coated with 25%45% TiO2, are characterized by ease of use and good appearance of the resulting weld. However, they create welds with high hydrogen content, encouraging embrittlement and cracking. Electrodes containing calcium fluoride (CaF2), sometimes known as basic or low-hydrogen electrodes, are hygroscopic and must be stored in dry conditions
flanksteak2 2 years ago
Nevermind, I see you quoted Wikipedia:
xrl. us/bgc78i
loccysmif 2 years ago
And Wikipedia quoted Miller.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
It makes little sense to look at every possibility when no evidence exists that would even cause you consider explosives as a possibility.
What you are doing is looking for a knife and the knife-weilding killer of a man who has only a gunshot wound when you have the man who shot him and the gun in your possession along with a video showing him performing the killing.
Agree?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
If you wish the gun analogy, the 2+ sec. of freefall acceleration of the upper section of WTC 7, and the necessity for 8 lower stories to get abruptly out of the way. That is the smoking gun.
dadeets769 2 years ago
Well... I would say two men, one stabbed in the neck, one stabbed in the abdomen... the latter man falls first, tips over but this tipping motion arrests and he falls straight down through himself at 0.7 G, blowing out all his vertebrae to dust in the process.
A litte later, the same happens to the other guy.
Later in the afternoon, a guy standing near the guy stabbed in the neck drops dead too: he falls straight down through himself at 1 G for 2.25 s, apparently because of "artery expansion".
loccysmif 2 years ago
And then.. to top it off, medical literature says that such stabbings have never led to such freefall collapses and total destruction of human bodies before.
Yet it happened, because the day it happened was a "day of firsts". A unique day, which fundamentally changes the laws of science forever.
Doctors involved in previous cover-ups of medical errors, sponsored by the government, rush to the scene and come up with explanations that are blatantly ridiculous and unscientific. Then..nothing.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Honest doctors who speak up are labeled "unpatriotic kooks" and "murderer sympathizers".
A climate of fear, political pressure and conformism then prevents media from interviewing these doctors and giving them them the and their questions the attention they deserve.
Not even if some of the government doctors involved in the investigation later claim they lied to the American people and that they were "set up to fail".
That, in a nutshell, is 9/11.
loccysmif 2 years ago
However, if such an incident occurs in another country, particularly a geopolitical rival...., well then government doctors, independent doctors and even politicians fight to be the first to express their dismay and distrust in the political process in said country and demand a new investigation into the matter, in the name of democracy, transparency and human rights.
Military and economic allies then join ranks. All whistle the same tune. Obviously the foreign government is covering sth up.
loccysmif 2 years ago
We seem to think conspiratorially when it comes to our geopolitical rivals, but when it comes to our own governments, we tend to think in terms of coincidence and incompetence. We tend to accept absurd prevarications from our own governments, but mock and reject those of our rivals.
It's a trust matter. We are born and raised into a Western world view. While I think we are generally still a little bit better off in the West than we would be in the East, the gap is closing disturbingly fast.
loccysmif 2 years ago
You have no evidence that the structure below could arrest prevent collapse initiation.
flanksteak1 2 years ago
"You have no evidence (...)"
You are saying I have no evidence that the WTC would NOT collapse initiation.
So...besides that you add "initiation", meaning we are talking at what LED UP TO collapse, which is a different discussion IMO.....
This does smell a little bit like the fallacy of demanding negative proof:
"X is true because there is no proof that X is false. "
OTOH, I think there is no precedent for skyscrapers fully and progressively collapsing due to FIRE. -> (NIST's POV!)
loccysmif 2 years ago
I would add that to me, it is not just the fact THAT the WTC towers collapsed, but HOW they collapsed.
Collapse initiation itself for WTC 1 & 2 is a different discussion, which I think treads in murky waters. I'm surprised at and at unease with the short time span it took for those towers to give up, but I'm not convinced it is impossible. However, I find NIST's reasoning forced, especially the floor tests and the fireproofing dislodging tests.
So in essence: "need more data".
loccysmif 2 years ago
You have no reason for finding their reasoning forced.
We have the side of the building bowing filmed and extensively documented by several different sources.
A plane hit the building. It doesn't take any type of experimentation to know the plaster fireproofing would be dislodged from the steel by such an event. It's not a "mystery" worth of discussion and Cheney's stubborness doesn't affect the outcome either way.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
"You have no reason for finding their reasoning forced."
In the case of the floor tests and the shotgun tests, I see plenty of reason for doubt.
NIST has been repeatedly guilty of scientific misconduct. However, that only leads me to conclude that I cannot necessarily trust all of their data and/or conclusions.
NIST's sophistry, drylabbing, wilful ignorance, obfuscation and fraud doesn't 'prove' demolition in itself. It is, however, cause for great concern. (I'm sure you disagree forcefully)
loccysmif 2 years ago
Then there are NIST's computer models, in which they have the foolhardiness to e.g. set thermal conductivity to zero if it placates their predetermined conclusion.
At times, NIST has tweaked parameters to the point of absurdity in order to further a natural collapse scenario.
They hide some or all of the data they use for their FEA. Why? They are certain they are correct aren't they? Is this stuff, are these numbers, a threat to national security? I think not.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Those are things that only truthers are guilty of.
The reason the towers collapsed is not complex and refuting NIST's findings is not a complex matter either.
If you think collapse should have been arrested then tell us why.
Ranting and raving about the energies involved without citing the actual strength of the assemblies in the building is sophistry.
If you believe collapse should be arrested summarize why in 500 characters or less.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
Collapse arrest?
Quote me claiming that. Do I believe this? Have I said this? Or...could it be possible that you are putting forth a straw man argument?
loccysmif 2 years ago
Obviously you are claiming that because you have "issues" with the collapse once it's initiated.....specifics I am waiting for you to spell out.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
Anyways, assertions like "you have no reason" suggest that you are a mind reader. I'm not sure James Randi would approve =P
You might think THERE are no reasons. But if you want to know MY reasons, then let me put them forth and you can attack them.
loccysmif 2 years ago
You overcomplicate very simple things. And no, calling you Jim Hoffman was not a complement.
He is totally out of his realm as far as 911 goes.
The premise is very simple. If you disagree with NIST then you disagree that an unprotected with an 1800 degree fire below it will absorb enough heat (in lets say 30 minutes) to undergo thermal creep.
If you disagree, why do you disagree?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2
"1800 degree fire"
There is no evidence for that. That's why. But all of this is collapse initiation discussion. My main beef is with that which followed collapse initiation.
loccysmif 2 years ago
NIST didn't model collapse after initiation.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
"calling you Jim Hoffman was not a complement."
If this is a Freudian slip ("complement" instead of "compliment"), then I wonder what it hidden motive it suggests.
Everybody is "out of his realm". Sunder is not a metallurgist. He's not a physicist. He's not a chemist. He's not a historian. He's not a firefighter. He's not a mathematician. He's not a software engineer. He's not a pilot. He's not a general. He's not a lot of things.
Do I sense a double standard?
loccysmif 2 years ago
He's a structural Engineer and holds a Masters in that area he also has a Masters in Civil Engineering among other things.
Since we are dealing with the failure of framing of a building, such degrees hold high relevance and would be more of a prerequisite for such an investigation rather than say a physicist who claims to have proven the existence of God, a Software Engineer and an Architect.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
Let's say that "collapse initiation" is inevitable given the plane impacts and the ensuing hydrocarbon/office fires.
My point is: what happens next? The fact THAT collapse initiates, doesn't automatically mean that the buildings are pulverized to the ground at 0.7g without measurable "jolts".
Some of the evidence put forth by Jones/Harrit et al. suggests to me that powerful people in the military wanted to ENSURE that those buildings came down catastrophically.
Shock and awe, perhaps?
loccysmif 2 years ago
You remind me of Jim Hoffman. One minute you are trying to have a technical discussion, and then your next sentence is about politics.
Discuss one or the other. They are not interchangeable topics.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
"You remind me of Jim Hoffman."
Hmmm, while I don't always agree with him, because he presents long convoluted arguments with the intention of always right no matter the cost (sincerity), I can't help but be flattered a little but.
As for politics; I consider this whole thing a criminal investigation by the people. As such, Byzantine concepts such as historical precedent, zeitgeist, context, motive, means and opportunity are relevant. The USG has a rap sheet.
But okay, I see your point.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Oh my...comments on this video have degenerated into some incredibly ignorant and ranting 9/11 faithkeeper and some reasonable individual trying to contain her/him.
The purpose of this discussion ought to be to critique Dwain's performance, his choice of slides, his language, etc.
His "support for demolition" slide is pretty clever and deliciously ironic.
Love,
DanUuNoel 2 years ago
DanUuNoel, well, you are right, I guess. We maybe be discussing that instead.
We are sorta on topic though. Actually, flanksteak2 raised some interesting points just now about the spheres and the alleged igniter circuitry, the sort of points that are instructive.
There is always the danger of confirmation bias and there is no better falsification than that from fervent opponents of hypotheses/papers/experiments/theories/evidence.
loccysmif 2 years ago
"Prof. Steven Jones arrived in town today, so Luke R. and I took him on the double decker bus tour through Sydney. We stopped in the famous and very peaceful Chinese Garden and learned of the latest thermite experiment performed by Prof. Jones. Turns out that the nano-thermite can be ignited by an electric current. He place probes with a 12 volt current on a 1mm length chip and it "flashed" right in front of his face — scaring the daylights out of him."
-- xrl. us/bf7g84
loccysmif 2 years ago
Well, that makes these chips excellent igniters for RDX without taggant, for example.
All you need is a wireless signal, such as provided by e.g. a wireless controlled demolition van seen driving through Manhattan on 9/11.
911blogger. com/node/18960
loccysmif 2 years ago
Now, that could be a red herring, but this certainly isn't:
hiex. bc. ca/products.html
loccysmif 2 years ago
You would need more juice than what a battery-powered igniter could generate to light thermite.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
"(...) could generate to light thermite. "
Thermite != Nano-thermite
loccysmif 2 years ago
Comment removed
loccysmif 2 years ago
How big are the aluminum particles in Aluminum Stearate?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2: I'm not playing twenty questions. Please just get to the point, that's what I (try to) do as well. Apart from the occasional nastyness that comes with the territory of debating something intrinsically emotional.
loccysmif 2 years ago
The fact that most of those iron-rich microspheres are not from clean-up operations is something I'm quite certain of. There are many reasons for this, and I haven't even listed them all.
At the core of this argument is the obvious temperature gap between what Jones, RJ Lee and USGS find, and what a plane crash and an office fire are capable of producing thermodynamically.
Even if the demolition hypothesis for WTC 1 & 2 is properly falsified, I would still like a good explanation for this gap.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Do you suppose some welding was on the building while it was being built and do you suppose some of the welding spatter fell through the air and landed on the structure?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
"Do you suppose some welding was on the building"
No large oxygen peak in the spheres? Aluminum peak? Therefore, welding residue is unlikely. I do like the point you raise though. I hadn't thought of that at all.
Btw, dr. Jones crushed some WTC concrete and found no such spheres.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Why would the spheres contain oxygen when one of the main functions of the coating on welding rods or the gas in wire-feeds is to block out oxygen?
Would the glob of metal not form and begin to cool rapidly in the air long before 02 had the change to penetrate?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
"Why would the spheres contain oxygen"
Well, I guess this matter can be settled by publishing a paper studying spheres gathered from oxyacetylene torches. However, the "contamination" of those spheres is wider than just oxygen.
The point is not only that the spheres seem unlike spheres gathered from welding, they seem unlike spheres originating from (The WTC's) structural steel.
The spheres seem to originate with the chips, given the XEDS peaks and their presence after ignition.
loccysmif 2 years ago
The welding on the towers was done with Stick ARC welding.
No 02 is present. The rod is surrounded with a coating that deoxidizes the weld. I will pull up an MSDS for this coating when I have time.
Such a process would produced oxygen free spheres and make some pretty interesting looking particles as it burned through the weld-through primer.
Probably a lot of the particles would be nano in size and contain several layers of different materials.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
"The welding on the towers was done with Stick ARC welding."
I'm willing to look into that, got any sources?
loccysmif 2 years ago
"No 02 is present"
So...I have found the following:
JREF: xrl. us/bgc8bs
JREF blasts Jones as always, this is to be expected. But they certainly do not concur with you that "oxygen free spheres" would be produced. By the way, Jones claims "high iron LOW oxygen" spheres. (Not even discussing the other XEDS peaks that indicate contamination of other elements)
There there is this:
xrl. us/bgc8b6
At first glance, (no offense) I'd say your argument in this particular case is weak at best.
loccysmif 2 years ago
No, Jones argument for Nano-Thermite is weak. He doesn't even know what Nano-Thermite looks like.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
Doesn't know what NT looks like? =)
Ha ha ha. =) What is this, a reasonable scientific objection? At least Harrit is experienced with nanoparticles. Also, there is plenty of literature on nano-thermite, including pre-9/11 literature.
Jones doesn't attempt to identify nano-thermite by visual observation of microscopic pictures, does he? He attempts to establish particle size and morphology, and ignites the chips to determine whether or not a thermitic reaction takes place.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Jones attempts to use scientific sounding jargon in order to lend credibility to his baseless claims.
None of those guys know what Nano-Thermite looks like and none of them were able to acquire a sample to test and no literature is available from past scientists that looked at and scrutinized NT in the same way Jones did.
In Summary, Jones has no Control Group I.E. known Nano-Thermite to work from.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
And then of course we get the "It's so high tech and secretive that we just couldn't get any" babble that leaves Jones an "out" from which he can exit his hall of Pseudoscience.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
If Jones is lying about nano-thermite being "high tech and secretive".. than YOU obtain it.
You can't get any. Neither could National Geographic. But it exists. You know that I know that you know that I know this.
loccysmif 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
"Jones attempts to use scientific sounding jargon"
He's a scientist with publications in Science and Nature. And you?
As for your other objections: there is literature available that "scrutinized" nano-thermite in the same way Jones did, in fact, way beyond that. DoD publications aren't about IDENTIFYING nano-thermite, they are EFFICIENCY STUDIES.
The criteria for nano-thermite come down to: (1) thermitic reaction (2) nano-scale particles: nano-aluminum/nano-iron oxide
loccysmif 2 years ago
Right, so Jones concluded that since the Rust and Aluminum particles he had were very small that they must Nano-Thermite.
There are more reasonable explanations for the substance Jones found and I pointed to several of them. Using the principles of parsimony and to remain scientific, it's only reasonable to hypothesize that the particles are from those sources and not from some mystery explosive especially when there are no signs of the use of explosives in the rubble.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
Comment removed
loccysmif 2 years ago
@flanksteak2:
"Jones concluded (..) since the (...) particles (...) were very small that they must (be) Nano-Thermite."
No. He concluded it based on various properties. These properties include a ignition temperature well below that of regular thermite, an intimate mixing of components, nano-aluminum platelets, nano-sized iron oxide crystals... a DSC graph compared to Tillotson (both conducted in air) and
*drumroll*
An very fast thermitic reaction, yielding iron-rich microspheres.
loccysmif 2 years ago
@flanksteak2: about that battery powered igniter: there are CMOS style nano-thermite igniters that require very little electric energy.
Simply googling this will do.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Sure, probably akin to a model rock igniter with some magnesium on the tip or something.
Your comment would be interesting if some of these or hell at least or shit even a piece of one had been found in the rubble.
Since they weren't that means your fantasies about the presence of explosives are only mere dreams and wishful thinking.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
You are right, no chip igniters were found in the dust, as far as I know. Good point. Then again, we don't know what we are looking for. So far, the intent seems to be to examine the feasibility of the red/gray chips as igniters triggered electrically.
All this research does is confirm the possibility. I too would want to know why no circuitry was found in that case.
On the other hand: did the WTC dust contain recognizable circuitry from personal computers? So.. there were no PC's in the WTC?
loccysmif 2 years ago
The more intelligent way to look at this is the fact that all the evidence points to planes and fires and a "natural" collapse.
None of the evidence points to the contrary and the collapse induced by planes and fires certainly isn't implausible.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
"None of the evidence points to the contrary"
I disagree. Collapse initiation...mwah. Maybe. I can see the WTC buckling and yielding after a while. Especially if the fireproofing was sub-par in multiple places and given the lateral load increase when floors are disconnected from exterior columns.
The biggest evidence to me: lack of jolt, the temperature gap, the pulverization of all floors of concrete, the high speed lateral ejections, the flashes not from glass, the booms in the Naudet vid.
loccysmif 2 years ago
So Steven Jones has now acquired Nano-Thermite?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
It is my distinct impression he got a free sample from the government. Partially exploded, but still an interesting souvenir of mass murder.
Or....some really dangerous and curious "primer paint" with aluminum platelets under 100nm in size that exhibits thermitic reactions when heated to 430 degrees Celsius and which produces previously molten iron-rich microspheres.
loccysmif 2 years ago
I wonder if welding spatter might not be rich in Iron and be spherical in shape?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
@flanksteak2: nope. As I think? I explained earlier, oxyacetylene torches create spheres rich in iron AND oxygen. Furthermore, one sample was retrieved ten minutes after the North Tower's collapse. Furthermore, the mass percentage is quite high, and some of the places where the dust was scooped up by RJ Lee were penetrated by force.
Furthermore, there is other evidence of "extremely high temperatures during the collapse" as RJ Lee states it.
In other words, no, scratch clean-up as the cause.
loccysmif 2 years ago
It makes sense that there were extremely high temps during the collapse from both friction and the fact that the buildings were on fire.
You do know that fires generate heat right?
flanksteak2 2 years ago
"fires generate heat" ?
You are smarter than this. You have read Eagar's article too. Give me a break.
loccysmif 2 years ago
As for Obama and his 'change', see:
xrl. us/bf7g22
There is no change. There is only "regime rotation", with this nonsense Democrat vs. Republican "Good Cop Bad Cop"-routine.
Did we sign a climate treaty yet? I'm not aware of it. Guantanamo closed yet? Not aware of it. Less troops in Afghanistan? Hmmm. No. Did wiretapping stop? No it didn't, in fact it expanded.
What change? Health care? They won't even allow him that much. Obama is a powerless fraud and a compulsive liar with great PR.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Obama is like Germany after WW II, but with no change, except somebody black with a friendly face replaces Hitler, and they "might consider closing the concentration camps"
but:
"Obviously the Jew terrorists currently imprisoned there are that much more dangerous now that they have been tortured"
so:
"It might be best to keep the concentration camps open after all, for our own safety."
loccysmif 2 years ago
dude, you're out of touch with reality... come back to earth... you need to be on medication, none of your comments make any logical sense. have a good day being insane.
Tnoy34rt 2 years ago
Insane eh? How about raping people with broken bottles? How about torturing children to make their parents sign a confession? All with the knowledge of and consent of the CIA?
xrl. us/bf3gdk
Source: Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan.
This is your wake-up call. I can source you hundreds of such stories. This stuff continues under Obama. Deal with it.
loccysmif 2 years ago
But I guess we're "doing well" aren't we.
loccysmif 2 years ago
that stuff has gone on for 1000's of years, so not sure why you are trying to pin it on Obama.
you're probably just a racist, that's all.
Tnoy34rt 2 years ago
"you're probably just a racist, that's all."
Right. That must be it. Since I think Bush and Obama are one and the same in many ways, I am racist.
You know who I would have voted for? Cynthia McKinney. So no, that is not all. I judge people on their actions.
Maybe this discussion with a hero of mine can enlighten you about "racism".
watch?v=s1pjfIjZwaA
loccysmif 2 years ago
I wonder if the people who say it wasn't a controlled demolition really mean it.
NIST has admitted it was in their latest report, as is clear to anybody with a grasp of Newton's Laws of motion.
If NIST can't explain it, other than by controlled demolition, why on earth should anybody on this forum think they can?
If they could, they would be acclaimed as a great scientist by the whole world, having satisfactorily explained something the combined minds of NIIST couldn't manage.
whatever2dont 2 years ago
An airplane full of fuel hitting a hollow tube at 500Mph isn't a "controlled" demolition... dumbass!
Tnoy34rt 2 years ago
You are wrong in saying NIST has admitted it. There is an important distinction. They admitted the freefall (which makes it immediately obvious), but steadfastly hold to the idea that what is obvious is not true.
I presented this freefall information to a college physics professor earlier this week. His immediate response was with the question, "why is NIST avoiding explosives as the answer?"
dadeets769 2 years ago
'Architects and Engineers for 9II Truth recentIy received acknowIedgement from the FBl's counterterrorism division, which concIuded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and wiII get - FBl scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director MichaeI Heimbach assessed AE 9II's presentation as "backed by thorough research and anaIysis.'
- SiIicon WeekIy
KevinMerck 2 years ago
Kevin Merck = Moron
Tnoy34rt 2 years ago
I hope you're taking this in, Dwain.
It doesn't take long to see that having an intelligent discussion with people on YouTube about anything is a useless endeavor. There are too many people trying to be disruptive.
I think you may want to close the comments, or maybe just post the ones that contribute something intelligent.
The only other thing I would suggest is improving the audio if that's possible.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
Why, if it is "Wormtongue" KevinMerck trying to persuade the "moderator" (iow the uploader of the video) to tip the balance of the discussion in his favor using censorship.
loccysmif 2 years ago
Why are you trying to block the truth Kevin?
You can't handle facts about 9/11 or your own health condition.
How sad...
Tnoy34rt 2 years ago
Googling "Tnoy34rt" and "macindrew" together shows them singing the same song on many different sites. In fact, on one Youtube video, both are addressed as one in discussion, e.g. "macindrew a.k.a. Tnoy34rt"
xrl. us/bf7ck5
Tnoy34rt, are you macindrew? Are you sockpuppeting? If so, what does that say about YOUR "health condition"?
loccysmif 2 years ago
who cares, it's the message that matters, not the messenger, sorry you got confused.
Tnoy34rt 2 years ago
So..where do you two stand on 9/11?
This usually seems to be an exercise in which "truthers" present their views which are then derided by "debunkers".
Is there anything about 9/11 (besides the fact that 9/11 was clearly an attack by muslim terrorists, a notion to which I largely subscribe) you would like to say yourself?
How do you feel about the post 9/11 world, for example?
loccysmif 2 years ago
Would you stand up for these people?
911blogger. com/node/21869
loccysmif 2 years ago
How about Bob McIlvaine? Donna Marsh O'Connor? Lorie van Auken? Anthony Schaffer? Sibel Edmunds? Coleen Rowley?
loccysmif 2 years ago
In case anyone is wondering what flanksteak is talking about, he thinks I'm David Chandler and that Punxybarney (who comments on a different video) is Richard Gage.
That should tell you a little about the steak.
Macindrew proves how knowledgeable she is by her description of the design characteristics of the twin towers and her explanation of why they "collapsed" which are laughable to anyone who knows what they're talking about, yet she accuses others of being crazy.
Typical
KevinMerck 2 years ago
Face the facts Kevin, you are mentally disabled. Even a 5th grade science experiment confounds you.
You suffer from "paranoia", so please seek help, nobody here or anywhere is going to believe your delusions.
You're sick Kevin, you are "out of your mind"... that's why everyone on YouTube continues to laugh at your comments.
macindrew 2 years ago
The comments were in reference to the collapse video on your channel. You have it tagged as YOUR video. If it's Chandlers then so be it, Chandler is wrong and you are a shill for hosting the videos of known hoaxers.
Barney is not Richard Gage although since Barney doesn't know anything it's just as easy to assume he is Gage.
I think that you are Rob Basalmo or you have at least stolen his personality.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
The one thing we know for sure is that you are not qualified and do not have enough information to draw the conclusions you have.
Heck AE911 Truth hasn't even produced a paper to which all the members are signatory.
What is the point of having an organization when none of your members can coalesce around a single, coherent bit of speculation?
FAIL
flanksteak2 2 years ago
By the way, I don't mean to preach, I'm speaking from my own experience.
I've argued with them myself and having stooped to their level on more than one occasion is nothing to be proud of. There is no sense in arguing with people who don't want to know the truth. Some of these people are intentional liars which is far worse than the misguided.
People have to want to know the truth or it does no good to try to convince them of it.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
Until you provide some evidence Kevin, everyone will continue to laugh at you.
Trust me, you suffer from a mental condition known as "paranoia", their are medicines to help with it so you don't have to live your whole life as "crazy".
Read about your condition here:
wikipedia. org /wiki/Paranoia
macindrew 2 years ago
Your video where you point out "explosive ejections" is nothing more than floors being broken by the debris which is the top of the building.
Columns tipping away from the building as floors are stripped away
And smoke being pushed out of mechanical vents lower in the structure.
You disabled comments on the video because you don't want anyone refuting your fantasies and threatening the myths you have created and which are providing you a nice income stream.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
There are some (about 16%) who will defend the official conspiracy theory to their death. They go to government funded "debunking websites" and then post comments on videos pretending to know what they're talking about when they have no clue. Macindrew and flanksteak are perfect examples of this.
It's best to state the facts, while trying not to argue, with the misguided and malicious.
Arguing with evil people tends to drag you down to their level.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
The only evil here are the GRIFTERS that run and represent AE911Truth.
It's obvious by the way you talk that you are another loudmouth, inflammatory chucklehead just like Rob Basalmo.
You and your organization is nothing than a front to steal the cash of misinformed people worldwide.
And you know that I know that you know that I know that that is the 100% Truth.
flanksteak2 2 years ago
Rankstank, I've made clear points on the strength and size of the core, the fire temps as per NIST, the fact that the fire temps were for the most part well below the point where the steel would lose significant structural strength, quotes from the structural engineer, John Skilling, regarding plane impacts and various other design load capacities. I wouldn't make those cogent points if I didn't know what I was talking about. You are completely FOS.
LipsMalloy 2 years ago
Does Leslie Roberts agree with NIST or Truthers?
Your claim that the fires weren't hot enough is false, in fact it's downright retarded.
And no, you have no idea what you are talking about. All you can do is PARROT back buzzwords and talking points that you don't understand.
flanksteak2 2 years ago