Hardifire: Mark Roberts, Arthur Scheuerman discuss 9/11

[tyleryesta1]

Naturally the common people don’t want war. But the leaders of a country determine policy, and it’s a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, fascist dictatorship, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. -Nazi Hermann Goering

[sofaking3000]

it's almost impossible to even try to explain how awesomely devoid of any brain activity these assholes are.. in fact there is only one thing in this universe that will top it, and that is how fake and self important they are.. it truly sickens me, it's such a shame we have to share our planet with such utter retards.. i don't know if you've seen the end of "the mist" but i really hope it will happen to you.. and then maybe die of aids after you have been anally raped..

[AlienEntity1]

@sofaking3000 That is one of the most vicious, hurtful things I've ever read. Wonder never cease how utterly devoid of humanity some people (like you) are.

You're one step away from making death threats. Really. Not that I'm surprised, because a lot of truthers are borderline personalities just waiting to hurt someone. That's one of the reasons your 'movement' is dying...

Very, very sad. I hope you get well in future. Needless to say you're blocked.

[AlienEntity1]

@dreamdiction Fallacy alert 'Even if only one part of the 9/11 story is a lie, then the WHOLE 9/11 STORY is a LIE'

Turning the tables on you, 'Even if only one part of the 9/11 Truth allegations are wrong, then ALL the allegations are wrong'.

Of course it's an asinine statement, either way. ;)

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 No, again they were 1 micron across. Says it right there in the paper. But the iron was .1 microns (100nm), we've already been over this. That's expected in modern paints. Please stop arguing against established facts!

Zinc? Laclede did not contain zinc. That's irrelevant. Tnemec primer did. But also 2 chips did contain zinc. Check the paper.

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 Laclede Standard Steel Joist paint, used in the WTC steel:

'Iron oxide 55 %

Aluminum Silicate 41 %

Strontium Chromate 4 '

That's just the pigment, not the vehicle. The proportions are roughly the same as the 2.6% and 1.6% found in the chips (1.6x vs 1.34x)

In addition, Harrit's graphs show ' Small peaks of strontium and chromium are visible and marked there' (Ivan Kminek). So the material is perfectly consistent with a known paint. Hmmm.... must be an explosive! LOL

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 Aluminosilicates are commonly used in paints, have the same structure (plate-like) as the Jones chips and the same size - 1000 nm long.

You forgot about the actual dimensions, and picked just one number which was misleading. If I lay a ruler flat it's still 12 inches long. If I claim the ruler is only 1/4 inch long, that would be very, very wrong. But that's what you're doing, essentially.

And at 1.6%, there's not much Al!!!! Not thermite.

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 Actually you missed something when you quoted the size - also you gave no page reference. 'The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and have a faceted appearance.' 100nm is .1 microns, which is exactly the size range as given by Kminek.

Further, the plate-like particles are largely Aluminosilicates and are

'40 nm thick and up to about 1 micron across'. So the actual size is 1 micron! 1000 nm!!

ie Kaolin

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 Jones et al. did not perform the tests to determine whether Al was elemental or not. Common sources of Al are 'alumina (aluminum hydrate or transparent white), chalk (calcium carbonate or calcium sulfate), china clay(hydrated aluminum silicate or kaolin) oralum (aluminum potassium sulfate, used to lake pigments since the Roman era'. (article on paint additives and pigments).

The chips contain small amount of Al,kaolin (aluminum silicate) can supply this, and is commonly used in paints

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 No, it is not. It's the same size as the particles in the chips......

[AlienEntity1]

@AlienEntity1 Remember, in order to react, the Fe and Al must be closely bound. They are not in the chips, because most of the layer is C (binder).

But in a paint, the binder keeps the materials spread out, so they don't pool together. That's how paints work, you see.

But nanothermite or thermite does not work that way. It cannot, no matter what you insist upon.

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 According to a materials scientist posting at JREF 'The solvent he used, MEK, is a poor solvent for cured paint '. Jones is not a materials scientist at all. He went to a hardware store and bought a product he thought would work - that's his expertise. And you just believe him as if he knew his stuff.... (facepalm)

The typical size of paint pigments is ' in the range 0.1 to 5 μm'. Materials scientist Ivan Kminek. This is expected.

Jones/Harrit are not expert enough to know.

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 According to a materials scientist posting at JREF 'The solvent he used, MEK, is a poor solvent for cured paint '. Jones is not a materials scientist at all. He went to a hardware store and bought a product he thought would work - that's his expertise. And you just believe him as if he knew his stuff.... (facepalm)

The typical size of paint pigments is ' in the range 0.1 to 5 μm'. Materials scientist Ivan Kminek. This is expected.

Jones/Harrit are not expert enough to know.

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 I see you removed your previous inane taunt about the energy density of paint vs nanothermite. Good!

You've realized that ordinary materials have higher energy density than nanothermite does, and that the famous Tillotson sample maxes out at 1.5 KJ/kg, far lower than the samples of Jones and Harrit, but almost identical to paint!

Coincidence? Sure, just a coincidence.

And since the Al and Fe are in such small quantities they can't react thermitically anyway.

You've been fooled.

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 Also, at the extremely thin application amounts seen (less than 1mm) there is simply not enough chemical energy to do anything to the steel.

Ordinary paint has more energy than nanothermite, yet you wouldn't theorize that steel buildings could fail because the paint ignited!! yet that's exactly what Harrit et al. are postulating - it's an absurd idea, which is why qualified experts think it's nonsense.

You're simply not well informed to know when you're being fooled. I'm trying to help

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 We've already demonstrated that chemically it cannot be nanothermite, so you seem to be missing the main point!

nanothermite does not output the energy density that the chips do. It cannot. Period. There is not enough chemical energy for nanothermite to do what the chips do, and it also does not decompose at the low temp the chips do.

They are not nanothermite. They are most likely one of many anticorrosion coatings applied to structural steel. That's all. End of story.

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 Well, the chip that was put in MEK was not of the same composition as the others. And since the chips have a gray layer, which is probably some thin oxide from the steel surface, we wouldn't expect it to dissolve like fresh paint.

Note that neither Jones nor Harrit has bothered to identify the composition of the gray layer, so they're just guessing.

You seem to think that if we can't explain one tiny thing, then the material must be magic nanothermite. Yet we've already showed it isn't

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 Here's a demonstration of iron powder burning readily over a common flame. The temperature is nowhere near the melting point of steel, but then it doesn't have to be.... as you can see easily. Open your eyes and you will see the facts - and they destroy your cherished myths. :(

watch?v=qtN6dTTHVeU

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 Nope, we're talking about a very thin painted layer of organic binder containing fine particles of Iron Oxide (paint pigment), which will behave like any fine iron powder - that is, fine iron powder can be ignited very easily, because of the surface area exposed to heating.

In a paint like the red chips, it is the binder which supplies most of the energy of combustion, hence the DSC outputs > than nanothermite - ie. 7 KJ/G vs 1.5 for real nanothermite. The energy comes from the binder.

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 Yup, you can burn steel with a lighter.... don't believe me? google it but also watch this video. And yes, it produces small spheres of steel.

watch?v=_YkHRzOBzPM

[AlienEntity1]

@bd886 I did approve all your comments that I saw. I may have missed some. The composition of the spheres is not pure iron. Look at the graphs. They contain Fe, Si etc.... so this does not indicate Fe at 1500 degrees celsius.

When you burn steel wool, it will create iron spheres, yet this does not require either thermite or super-high temperatures. It has to do with the dimensions of the iron that is heated. But you can burn steel with a lighter! Try it yourself.

[bcbobbie]

@zezt If you read the entire quotes in context you will see that they are not talking about what you think they are. In some instances they were referring to the sound falling bodies were making when hit the ground and exploded. In other instances they were not even referring to the buildings in question. And, explosion sounds do not necessarily mean bombs.These quotes are taken out of context to mislead the viewers of pro-conspiracy sites. So now you need to consider why are they doing this?

[zezt]

@bcbobbie so you tell me? You sound like you have a conspiracy theory about the general public , yes? ;)

[machwon]

Hey! I've never believed the 9/11 Truther argument and I never got my check! Damn you government, gimme my money! How come you pay all these other guys but not me!? I should be compensated for debating these kooks, these guys are annoying!

[Judacoth]

Mark Roberts looks a lot like Kevin Spacey lol

[bcbobbie]

I was a "truther". When Charlie Veitch changed his mind I, rather than accusing him of being an agent, listened to what he had to say. I then started watching some of Mark Roberts stuff. It is like a cult. You get so emotional tied to it that you only seek info that confirms your belief and you find a way to dismiss opposing info. I feel like I am free now.

[AlienEntity1]

@bcbobbie Congrats! Not everybody can escape it like you did, which is a shame. 9/11 conspiracy myths are persistent, but I'm one of those who hopes that opposing them will have some effect over the long term. We will never save everyone from these delusions, sadly.

[bcbobbie]

@AlienEntity1 I don't regret being there, per se, because at least it got me on a path of questioning info and not just accepting what I'm given (of course I clearly didn't question certain info enough). What I do regret is being stuck there for so long, lol. AAAAAAARG

What a dark and gloomy place to be.

[JimmyCooperAustralia]

@bcbobbie I was the same (apparently now I'm a govt agent! >_< )

I's funny how the movement is so critical of the media in how they only give you their point of view but then they go ahead and whip people into a frenzy with selective observations of their own...

[BUDFATHER]

@bcbobbie I was the same for a few years, glad I can look back in hindsight and see how wrong I actually was. If anything this has taught me is how to argue claiming science and logic is on your side, yet having a complete misunderstanding of what science and logic actually is. I still promote skeptical thinking but not so skeptic it turns you into a paranoid delusional.

[bcbobbie]

@BUDFATHER What I see now when I comment on pro-conspiracy videos is a lot of hostility and outright dismissal. By dismissal I mean that they disparage me personally or my motives [dis-info, or "asleep" - you know the routine] so that they do not have to consider what I have written. Because, if they do consider it they may have a dilemma: their belief has been clearly demonstrated to be wrong but they feel so emotionally invested to it that it just can't be wrong; better to kill the messenger.

[mickymacky02]

these are all good points. BUT we dont see that in the video. we see fire fighters picking up theyre gear, walking away. Famous firefighter quotes from that day are, "that building is coming down." It didnt look like they were simply "following procedure" and getting away from the buildings. it looked like they had strong implications. they did take precautions for everyones life and got them out of there. i would like to know when the fire chief ordered the evac compared to when wt7 came down

[AlienEntity1]

@mickymacky02 My best recollection is that it was around 2pm. There were consultations with engineers, etc and around that time Con Edison was advised to shut power down in the substation which was part of WTC 7.

Look up Daniel Nigro and Peter Hayden from FDNY. Also I think the timeline is in the NIST report somewhere. Sorry I don't have a page reference.

[LoyolaIgnatius]

Why do they always interview guys that are non-scientists whose words can be twisted easily with simply rhetoric tricks. They should be interviewing Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit and other scientists who have written the paper on the red-grey chips. Those are the gretest liars ever!!!

[ostormer]

The naïve 'trufers' are blood sucking vampires. The nature and philosophy of their argument is utterly devoid of fact, and wrought with conjecture and slander. Not one attempt is made to justify or fully explain even one theory. Instead, like a child commenting on an adult discussion, they just superficially jump from topic to topic, vandalizing logic and truth with non-contextual clips as they go. They are Holocaust deniers under a different name.

[wordgeezer]

@ostormer truth is eternal and unchanging. It is reflexted in the evidence and no theory in the world is worth a neocons damn without it.

I believe that the subject here is building 7 and Arthurs altered document concerning it. Do you really think this is the proper setting for discussion of the holocoust?

[Seigu007]

check out these 3 stooges. So Ron, fires destroyed 3 sky scrappers in 1 day? amazing! Mark Roberts does well to cover that mutating mole on the side of his face.

[spunkeee]

"Pull it" is a term used in the demolition industry. Although it does not mean to bring a building down with explosives, it does refer to bringing a building down with cranes and wires. So the question remains... why Larry Silverstein chose those particular words. Noting that all the firefighters had been evacuated at around 11am that morning. So what was Larry "pulling"? I saw no cranes or wires.

[wordgeezer]

Now you can see why I was nodding off. The debunkers are conspicuous in their absence. Famous quote by Pomaroo: "It's timeto put this one to bed"

G:.......zzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZ

[wordgeezer]

Where is this paper that Ronald is quoting and where is Arthur Scheuerman? For that matter...where is Ronald? Has he fleed the scene?

The only paper you will find on google is the original, which is entirely different, and is still on the NIST web site.......zzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZ­ZZZZZ

[wordgeezer]

~Now on Youtube~

Ronald Wiecks Skeptic Show starring Arthur Scheuerman EXPOSED

[wordgeezer]

Who cares if it was nanothermite, thermobaric weapons, mininukes, or just old fashioned microwaves. The evidence shows that temperatures of around 3000 degrees or more were in effect to cause the melting of concrete & steel.

Like I have mentioned several times,the evidence is sitting in the NYPD Museum; Melted guns with concrete melted around them that looks like lava.

These are from WTC 6. The evidence is every where you look and the fact that it is ignored seems rather damning for NIST...G:

[wordgeezer]

To find out about the bogus paper that Ronald Wieck is referring to just google....

Arthur Scheuerman.

It is a rewrite of the original that is shown in the NIST report...G:

[NanoThermite911]

NIST employs all the known experts on nanothermite....

Why didn't NIST have one of their experts test for nanothermite?

You can't have this both ways... This is called "confirmation bias" the same attempt you tried (and failed) to call me out on.

Your entire argument is based on fires being able to bring the buildings down. NIST has shown how this could have been done, but you have to carefully analyze their report to see exactly how.

This IS the evidence, you seem to like ignoring it...

[NanoThermite911]

The NIST Report clearly states that the building will fall apart if you only remove the girder shear studs from the wide flange support structure of the building, heat only the steel and not the concrete directly attached to it, and apply the heat so quickly that thermal conductivity can't dissipate the heat into the rest of the steel structure.

So all we would have to do is paint nanothermite on all the beams and remove the shear studs. That's according to the NIST model. Is it not?

[Obelisk2290]

simple question, who would you trust, fire chief and/or marshalls with decades of experience or teenagers with no experience that make up stories?

[AlienEntity1]

Or theologians?

[Skeptic121]

I have seen the Purdue and NIST simulations. The versions I have seen do not show the entire collapses of either building. Does anyone have a link to a complete simulation including the collapse all the way to the ground?

Thanks!

[charlesfloyb]

I agree that the prudent thing would be to evacuate the building. But it's hard to believe that fire could actually collapse the building since no other high rise had it happen, and no other test model could or can duplicate it. There isn't even a fire test on the bare steel that shows it will "melt, soften, weaken, any verb you want" the steel to make it fail.

[AlienEntity1]

Hey Charles. You've made 2 false statements

1) Yes, the failures have actually been modeled by several teams, including NIST, Purdue University etc...

2) Yes, fire tests indeed show that steel will fail if heated under load. There isn't even a question about it in the engineering community - it's called 'Viscoplastic buckling'. Structural engineers who build steel structures HAVE to know about this.

Lay public, not so much.

[charlesfloyb]

1. I'm talking about physical models, not models on computers by NIST with assumed variables. You must be referring to the computer models by NIST. Yes, anybody can tweak assumed variables on a computer to get a desired outcome. I've never heard of Purdue making physical test models that showed how the towers collapsed, but I'll search for it. 2. Is there a fire test that shows the trusses sag to such a degree that they'll pull the columns inward and make them buckle and fail?

[AlienEntity1]

charles.....how do you think buildings and jet aircraft are designed these days? They use engineering software.

Welcome to the 21st century. Engineering software is based on physical tests, that's why it's valid. It's not a video game.

If you're going to deny the validity of computer models, you're a lost cause, buddy. And rather foolish.

Yes, the UL fire tests showed that trusses sagged, and the tests were stopped at the point where the instruments couldn't read any more - failure imminent

[charlesfloyb]

Nobody is asking if computers are used for design purposes. Of course. We are saying that it's much easier to tweak computer variables to achieve a given outcome using assumed variables in the first place using computer software. The point I'm making is since no real world example before or since shows that a high rise building can't completely collapse from fire alone, why can't a physical model duplicate the failure? A physical model can't duplicate it , it appears. Or else it'd be done.

[AlienEntity1]

Your claim would make sense if you had a building of similar construction undergoing similar conditions, but that's not the case.

For example, with the famous Madrid fire, the steel portion did completely collapse, and only the concrete sections remained.

For the same reason, there is no precedent for the twin towers with which to compare. To state 'it couldn't happen because it hasn't happened' is not a sound argument, nor scientific.

[charlesfloyb]

Science calls for replication of an experiment to validate it. NIST never showed how fire alone could make this building fail using a physical model. Yes, computer engineering software is used for designing materials, but I don't think the software NIST used is available for evaluation. If NIST would put all of their computer software they used to make this model on display for public analysis, then you could say this modeling is valid. But as is, it's nontransparent to public.

[AlienEntity1]

That's a very weak argument. First, the engineering analysis was published in 2008, and was already vetted thru teams of qualified people.

You cannot even begin to find that level of competence and professional approach anywhere in the truth movement's claims - please show me a team of qualified engineers who've published a similar analysis to the contrary.

ie: there is no competent competing theory. None. There is a lot of ignorant internet chatter, such as the kind you're buying into.

[AlienEntity1]

Second, as you've apparently missed this AGAIN....the engineering software is available for purchase. Any engineering firm in the world (maybe not in Iran, I don't know..) can buy it, create THEIR OWN MODEL, in consultation with NIST, and test the results.

They haven't bothered to do that. Don't blame NIST.

You cannot run the simulation without the software, so Joe Average can't do anything with the data anyway.

Your protestations are moot. Why don't truthers create a simulation?

[AlienEntity1]

You make so many false assumptions, and weak excuses, for the crackpot theories of 9/11 truth, surely you must realize how weak the ideas and the science is behind them.

Your assumptions that the software isn't available is just ignorant and wrong. That is the reason why your movement is worse than useless, it's anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge bullshit.

That is the reason why I don't want to bother rebutting the claims of 9/11 truth, they're a Fail-a-thon of ignorance back to the dark ages.

[AlienEntity1]

And the engineering software HAS been validated in the real world. Did you forget that or something?

You are completely blind to the truth.

[AlienEntity1]

Charles, why do you keep on insisting things which aren't accurate? Do we have to keep doing this?

The software is LS-DYNA, from Livermore Software Technology Corp.

lstc. com

There have been conferences of LS-DYNA users. You could have found this out yourself very easily. Yet you choose to speculate inaccurately instead.

It's not NIST's software. It's industry-standard engineering software. What part of this do you not understand?

[charlesfloyb]

So where do we go to see all the settings that NIST used with this software and all the variables that they set? Simply saying that NIST is using software that they themselves didn't design or produce themselves is obvious and that's not my point.

[AlienEntity1]

Again, you're moving the goalposts. You claim that the results should be repeatable, but somehow you expect NIST to do that work. That's not how science works.

The onus is on truthers to use the same software, LS-DYNA (which you apparently didn't even know the name of, even though it's published clearly in the reports), and verify the results or challenge them.

That's not the job of NIST. Look at yourselves instead.

[AlienEntity1]

LOL. How many times have you changed your tune? First you erroneously claim that NIST fudged the variables, in other words committed fraud. But of course you have no proof at all. 'We are saying that it's much easier to tweak computer variables to achieve a given outcome'

Then you deny that the software is available. Again false.

'I don't think the software NIST used is available for evaluation.'

False. So again you deflect your error and change the goalposts.

[charlesfloyb]

Yes, I do think NIST set their variables to achieve a desired outcome. They did tweak computer variables to somehow get thermal expansion to be the cause of failure. A 20 minute fire can't make a fireproofed (good for 2 hours) steel frame building fail. Specifically what temperature were they looking for?

If the software that NIST used with their settings, input, and variables is available, where is it?

[AlienEntity1]

It's a good thing you're not a forensic investigator, Charles, 'cause you haven't got the talent for it.

You've taken a few superficial quotes and called it a day. You haven't yet understood what the Sunder comments about the fires were yet either.

The good thing is it doesn't matter what you think, as you're not being called upon as an expert in these matters. You can think what you like. It doesn't make you right. Just realize that one fact.

[charlesfloyb]

Yes, I guess it's a good thing I'm not a forensic investigator, because I'd be demanding specific answers that could be understood by the masses. Yea, I question whether you understand Sunder's comments either though. I'll admit, his explanation sounds incoherent and seems to invite others to finish answering questions he can't handle. Charlie was asking if the fireproofing was faulty and Sunder dodged that by saying he didn't want to make a recomendation at this point. It wasn't faulty!

[charlesfloyb]

Exactly, it wasn't faulty. If it was faulty, then a recommendation would've been made towards it specifically. But like Charlie said, you can't have a 20 minute fire take down a steel frame building when the building has fire proofing that's good for 2 hours. It doesn't make sense on the most basic level. Charlie never was satisfied with the responses and it's our job to bring out this inconsistency. If the fire proofing was faulty, then we'd have a different discussion. But it was up to code

[NanoThermite911]

NIST did fudge variables, and there is proof you can go look it up in their report...

NIST assumed no thermal conductivity of steel in their model, removed girder shear studs from the main supports, only heated the steel and not the concrete to get maximum differential thermal expansion, which is their main collapse hypothesis about column 79 buckling, increased fire temperatures and durations on the floors where the initial failure took place, lied about combustible fuel loads, etc. etc. etc.

[AlienEntity1]

Please, instead of constantly nit-picking about the supposed errors of NIST, find a peer-reviewed, mainstream journal-published (like ASCE) paper which addresses these issues in a competent way.

Even AETruth hasn't managed to come up with a single mainstream peer-reviewed critique that disproves the NIST engineering models.

You can believe what you like, but you present little but arguments from incredulity. You won't convince the engineering community with this type of claim. Sorry.

[AlienEntity1]

And speaking of fudge, the most scientific (supposedly) paper put out by truthers lately came last year with the Jones/Harrit nanothermite paper.

Yet, not one of the authors is an expert in nanothermite, or has ever worked in any government or University program of research in that area!!

Nor were the tests on the chips comprehensive enough to actually prove the composition of them;

Nor did the Energy Density of most of the chips match any known nanothermite (published specs)

That's fudging.

[NanoThermite911]

@AlienEntity,

All that is needed to see that nanothermite was found in the WTC Dust is a basic understanding of high school level chemistry.

Kevin Ryan has proved that NIST employs many experts in nanothermite, yet none of these experts were asked to give their professional analysis in the final report and investigation into the collapse of WTC Performed by NIST.

This is fudging.

Why not have NIST Nanothermite experts give their analysis?

[AlienEntity1]

Nanothermite is alleged to have been found in the dust, yet it cannot be proven nor traced to any particular building.

For example, you cannot show that a particular sample of dust originated from WTC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. Can't be done.

You cannot use this to 'prove' something which has not been proven to exist yet - that is a circular argument.

'It could exist, therefore it does exist' is not a valid hypothesis. The existence is not yet proven.

It is a theory only.

[AlienEntity1]

Since there is no evidence that nanothermite could or was used in the demolitions (truthers have not forwarded a coherent hypothesis for HOW it might have been done, either), there is no purpose for engineers to disprove the non-theory.

If a proper hypothesis (testable) is put forward, that will change. It needs to start with a demonstration of real nanothermite duplicating the shear failures observed in the towers, for example.

The ball is in truther's court.

[AlienEntity1]

Further to fudging, why didn't the Jones/Harrit team include at least one expert on nanothermite?

Hmmm. That is highly suspicious. It blows the credibility of their inquiry that they found energy levels which do not exist in any known nanothermite. You cannot just handwave this away and remain serious in your inquiry.

The confirmation bias is overriding any good science they're doing.

[AlienEntity1]

one final comment: it is precisely the futility of your line of inquiry which makes it uninteresting to continue discussion on.

I've read the papers on both sides, and the NIST reports. The truther approach and grand theories of conspiracy are a complete dead-end, just like all anti-scientific, faith-based approaches to empirical knowledge.

Your 'god' is the belief in the 'inside job' conspiracy. You believe it so strongly, you can't accept it might be wrong. I can and do.

cheers

AE

[AlienEntity1]

Nor was the paper published in a mainstream, established journal - instead it was a very controversial publisher, and indeed the editor resigned in protest, having not even reviewed the paper.

That's fudging.

Predictably, the issue has withered on the vine, since it is fairly obvious that the conclusions were reached prematurely, and cannot be supported by further tests.

Further tests will inevitably show that the material is not nanothermite at all......

NIST deals with real materials...

[AlienEntity1]

continued:

NIST dealt with real world engineering, with is easily verifiable by other engineers. ie: thermal expansion

Truthers are dealing with largely speculative ideas and, with nanothermite, completely theoretical uses of theoretical substances which have never been seen or tested.

Yes, it's theoretically possible that some kind of nanothermite could exist, and could be engineered to bring a building down.

But there's nothing but speculation to back it up at this point.

That's fudging.

[NanoThermite911]

It can easily be verified by looking at the NIST Report itself that NIST manipulated their model in order to get maximum differential thermal expansion.

By not heating the concrete in their model, they ignore a key fact about "real world engineering" primarily that Concrete and Steel have almost the same exact coefficient of thermal expansion. Hence the reason steel reinforced concrete WORKS.

This is not fudging, this is real world engineering. NIST is fudging it...

[AlienEntity1]

Every time one of your 'questions' is answered, you just come up with another one and another one. Anyone can question anything, that doesn't lead you anywhere in particular. You sound like you're just making up things off the top of your head, whatever comes to mind.

My question to you is very simple: Why don't truthers use the same software and see what happens? Publish your results.

Stop blaming others for your own inadequacies.

[NanoThermite911]

Science works by a method of experiment and testing your hypothesis with experiment.

Experimental and historical evidence shows us that many steel frame protected highrise buildings catch fire, but never before or since 9/11 have they completely crumbled into their own footprint from fire induced structural failure.

9/11 Debunkers constantly claim that Fire is what caused the building to collapse, yet when the possibility of thermite is brought up, you guys "move the goalosts" yourselves...

[AlienEntity1]

Look, I'm not really interested in bantering further about this kind of conspiracy stuff, if you're going to rely on a refusal to accept basic evidence.

It's not very interesting to me. You seem more interested in denial than knowledge at this point.

[charlesfloyb]

likewise

[Denierbud11]

If it can't happen because it did not happen before or since I guess those rusting battleships at Pearl Harbor never sunk,.

In case you missed the news, four US battleships were sunk in an air attack -- never before and never after was a US Battleship sunk by air attack.

Because it never happened before or after, it cannot happen

that;s the argument you are making

[wordgeezer]

Why did I come back...........zzzzzzzzZZZZZ

[wordgeezer]

Pomaroo mentions quotes taken out of context,and promptly misquotes Arthurs paper on WTC7. In fact so does Arthur, who has rewritten it, while the original is still displayed in the NIST report. Try googling "The Collapse of Building 7 and see what you come up with...G:

[PoetryHound]

Excellent question! How do you construct any conspiracy about WTC 7 that doesn't involve complicity on the part of the fire department? The conspiracy believers claim the fire department took orders "from above." Nonsense. There was no "above."

[wordgeezer]

well, ya know, it's pretty obvious that these JREF guys aren't living free...G:

[wordgeezer]

It is indeed sad that we this sort of deceit going on in a, so called, civilized society.