Cont.> As a result of his research & published findings he's been attacked for his religious beliefs & called a "whack job". His research has been the subject of much disinformation (see above). His findings are a problem for those who wish to cover up what really happend on 9/11/01. Other scientists have since found Thermate in WTC dust samples but Steven Jones continues to be the #1 target. Why? Is it because his religious beliefs make him easier to discredit?
Of course thermate was found. Hell, there are pictures of it!!! The pics are from WTC dust samples. Unignited Thermate, partially ignited thermate & thermate residue where found in multiple WTC dust samples. Samples collected by different people, different places & at different times. For example, 1 sample was collected from the Brooklin bridge 20 mins after first collapse, another from inside a Manhattan appartment. Dr. Steven Jones was the first to test for & find evidence of explosives. >
@mrh785 "Of course thermate was found. Hell, there are pictures of it!!! The pics are from WTC dust samples. Unignited Thermate, partially ignited thermate & thermate residue where found in multiple WTC dust samples" - Actually no. Their tests confirmed that it was not thermate or thermite. The contents of the dust showed different properties such as the ignition temp and energy release...
Kind of a problem for crackpot Jones so he switched to mysterious nanothermite ...
@Xendrius You mean Mark Basile, the person who conducted the exact same experiments, got the exact same results and made the exact same erroneous conclusions?
And the same Mark Basile who was actually named and thanked in the original Harrit/Jones paper for his contributions?
Hardly independent verification, wouldn't you say?
Still waiting for an audience with the notorious Mr Owens.
A crime to keep all that wisdom in just one brain it is
Crack your head open like a pinata, spilling your worldly insights and knowledge on us lowly troglodyte surface dwellers, that we get edumakatid, lice yu
JUST FYI, THE USER KNOWN AS cantonear1968 IS A KNOWN SHILL. HE'S ON THESE 9/11 PAGES SPREADING DISINFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01. LIKE OTHER SHILLS HE CLAIMS TO BE AN "EXPERT", IN THIS CASE A FORMER "NAVIGATOR" FOR THE AIR FORCE. HE IS 100% FULL OF CRAP & CAN'T BE TAKEN AT HIS WORD. HE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A DISINFORMATION PUSHER. HE WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ANY RESEARCH & RESEARCHERS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICIAL STORY & WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE TRUTH MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY MY SON RYAN KYLE OWENS IS PAID TO MAKE THESE VIDEOS AND POST THEM ON YOUTUBE
Just wondering if this story is real. Never seen you post a comment anywhere to respond to this post, or any other. Would you kindy direct me where I can glean wisdom from your immeasurable mind? In your vast library of 6 fav's & 61 loads of lard I saw no dynamic dialogue or deep diagnosis from one so learned in all aspects of just who harbours the pearls of knowledge about the new Pearl Harbor.
Don't over debate over the thermite, Of course they could tell lies if it did or didn't have it in but check out "9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood", Watch two parts and see much information from a different point of view. It will really get you thinking what truely happened.Some crazy things happened that day.
I would like to see other samples from 9/11 tested, not just the ones supplied by Harrit. And also tested by other scientists, who aren't told where the samples came from. And they should also test samples from other building fires, both steel frame and not.
If such tests came up postive for thermite and there wasn't a more likely explanation (e.g paint, and AI from planes), then I would change my mind. What evidence would it take for you conspiraloons to change your mind.
@markh1011 THE STEEL FALLS DOWN, ARE YOU MENTAL, THATS 60 STORIES HIGH AND ITS HOLDING UP ITS OWN WEIGHT AFTER THE COLLAPSE. IT COULD ONLY FALL OVER,. ITS A SOLID STRUCTURE, STEEL IS SOLID, LINK TO VID WERE TALKING ABOUT watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
@markh1011 IM MAKING SURE EVERYONE CAN SEE WHICH VIDEO WERE TALKING ABOUT OTHERWISE PEOPLE MIGHT VIEW THE WRONG VID AND GET WRONG IMPRESSIONS.watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 THE STANDING STEEL CENTRAL CORE COLUMNS WAS ABOUT 60 STORIES HIGH AND STEEL IS STRONG. IT COULDNT DISAPEAR INTO THE GROUND AS IT WAS ON THE GROUND ALREADY, IT COULD TOPLE OVER, THE ONLY WAY IT COULD GO DOWN IS TO TURN INTO DUST,
@cantonear1968 CORE COLUMNS TURNING INTO DUST YOU SAY, YOUR VERY EYES ARE KIDDING RIGHT ?
WATCH THE VIDEO watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
YOU CAN SEE THE STIFF STEEL STRUCTURE TURNING INTO DUST.I THINK YOUR TAKING THE PISS ASKING THAT QUESTION, YOU'RE THE ONE THAT GOTA BE KIDDING. SERIOUSLY DUDE.
SOLID STEEL BEAMS THAT ARE SUPORTED DON'T SUDENLY FALL STRAIGHT DOWN 60 STORIES. IF THEY WERE GOING TO FALL THEY WOULD TOPPLE OVER.
@cantonear1968 YEP SEE NO JOKE ON THIS VIDEO ON MY THE LINK watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 i HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE TO HOW IT WAS DONE BUT THERE ARE A FEW CLAIMS, ONE IS THE NUCLEAR DEMONLITION DIMITRI KHALEZOV AND OTHER HAVE SAID THINGS LIKE JUDY WOODS HUTCHISON EFFECT. I KEEP AN OPEN MIND, IF SOME SUPER WEPON LASER OR SOMETHING WAS USED, THEY MUST GET THEIR POWER FROM EITHER NUCLEAR OR FROM SOME KIND OF UPPER ATMOSPHRE PHENOMINA. THE FACT IT DID TURN TO DUST PROVES SOME FORCES WAS AT WORK.
3000 Lbs total of Thermate used.WTC reduced to 1,000,000 tons of dust.If thermate is only source for sulfur then it's presence in the dust is undetectable because to quantity is too small (by your own admission).Now prove the quantity of aluminum oxide & barium nitrate (Thermate being the only possible source by your on admission) isn't also too small to be detected. Yet, you claim it proves thermate wasn't used. First you've got to prove it would be present in detectable quantities. You haven't
@cantonear1968 No one can estimate how much thermate residue should be in the dust without knowing how much thermate was used.And no one can estimate how much was needed without a specific collapse theory that predicts how many 'cuts' needed to be made.And no one has such a theory.Jones can't say.Neither can his partner nor can you say failure to find it PROVES it wasn't used because,as admitted to,there's a threshold level of detectability.A few core columns cut?Perimeter too?
@waitew ....would also have been too low to detect. Yet Jones states he found it.
And it was his partner on the "Nanothermite" paper that suggested as much as 100 tons was in the building. Of course, that was for nanothermite. When Jones was pedaling just plain old thermate, I guess not as much was needed for THAT material!
1600 Architects and Engineers and over 10,000 other petitioners including physicists, controlled demolition experts and scholars support the claim for controlled demolition.
Thermite is made of pulverized Aluminum and pulverized Iron Oxide. It can be used as a cutting charge or as an explosive. The smaller the particles are, the more explosive it is. Nano Thermite, called Thermate is built on the molecular level. Jones found unignited, state of the art military grade thermate in the dust.
@tntruther " Nano Thermite, called Thermate is built" - Actually they are different things.
"state of the art military grade thermate" - Actually the energy release rate he found would not match that of thermate. He knows this so he made up the nanothermite thing - which he never confirms.
That nano-thermite - which can't of course be compared to military stuff from before 2002 as the military does not want to hand out any samples or comment on the matter - is proven here in front of even a critical panel of experts: watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4
Actually, what we see happen to the WTC would not match the "2 normal 767's and fires." The perps behind 9/11 know that, so they had to bribe NIST into creating a false and unscientific report about the incident.
@Thetan1974 "That nano-thermite - which can't of course be compared to military stuff from before 2002 as the military does not want to hand out any samples or comment on the matter" - Oh right here are the excuses for your theory based on a substance that is a mystery. You can't demonstrate it. No truther can after all these years..which is pitiful.
You wave away the NIST report in which their evidence and methodology is detailed but believe in a fantasy....
"Oh right here are the excuses for your theory based on a substance that is a mystery."
No, the "excuse" is that the official fairy tale is modern religion that has never been proven and simply has to fit the "Osama & the 19 hijackers" line in every possible and IMpossible way.
Besides that, the "excuse" is a scientific presentation like this: watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4
If you can't stand that some are interested in getting to the bottom of the mystery, demand a new investigation.
@Thetan1974 "No, the "excuse" is that the official fairy tale is modern religion that has never been proven" - There is a 10000 page report that details a lot of this evidence. I asked you to critique it. You failed miserably.
"Besides that, the "excuse" is a scientific presentation like this: watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4" - Yes yes you don't know shit but here's a two hour presentation that will hopefully make an argument for you...
A) Provide another source than thermite to explain for the creation of IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES. (Are YOU going to be the brave man to finally show the paint?)
B) Show some military grade nano-thermite for comparison
C) Show where else you find these red/gray chips that create round iron spheres when ignited
@Thetan1974 "Provide another source than thermite to explain for the creation of IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES." - Which was done years ago. The clean up, the initial construction, friction from the collapse, flyash in the concrete, heating of iron oxides, a eutectic ect ect.
Once again the R J Lee group expected to find them there and even used them to determine WTC dust.
@Thetan1974 "Show some military grade nano-thermite for comparison" - Are you serious? They should be doing a demonstration of nanothermite bringing down a building... It is up to them to do this... NOT people to demonstrate the opposite.. They have had years but can't. It's a theory based on faith - substance no one can produce or show in action.
"Show where else you find these red/gray chips that create round iron spheres when ignited" - Done. Burnt paint and rust..
@Thetan1974 "Uhm, and are you the man to provide with all those bags of nano-thermite? " - Hahaha how convenient.. their WHOLE THEORY relies on a mysterious substance that no one can produce.
"their WHOLE THEORY relies on a mysterious substance that no one can produce."
Whole theory? Nano-thermite is as good as an insignificant little corner to the whole pile of officially story-contradicting facts about 9/11. Actually, you could call discussing the presence of nano-thermite found "cherry picking."
But if you want to stay at it: Google "nano thermite" and check out how SOMEONE is actually able to produce this "mysterious substance."
@Thetan1974 " Nano-thermite is as good as an insignificant little corner to the whole pile of officially story-contradicting facts about 9/11. Actually, you could call discussing the presence of nano-thermite found "cherry picking."" - You twit YOUR'E the one who brought it up.
I don't think you know what the term means.
"Google "nano thermite" - Something exists called nanothermite but were still waiting for someone show that it can do anything like what the truthers claim...
@Thetan1974 "So far, we have already had a demolition with the old fashioned thermite: " - ... and did you read what they needed to do to get it to work?
The had to use 1500 pound on two legs and had to build huge cupolas with brick and steel around them!
This just gives you an example of how ridiculous it would be to 1. Bring down the towers with thermite and 2. do it without anyone noticing!
"Done. Burnt paint and rust.." Where is that "done"? By Steven E. Jones? (Someone really said that to me - LOL.)
Now, if you want to be taken serious, you just be a good boy and show us how you subtract these IRON RICH MORCU SPHERES generating red/gray chips from the WTC primer - or any other paint. Good luck. (Little pat on the head there.)
"Shall I start posting random debunking links too?"
You're welcome with the usual anonymous YouTube "debunking." But as long as it isn't concerning A, B or C, there's not really any point to it. It will just be your ongoing fear of the truth and your resistance against a new investigation that will be repeated.
@Thetan1974 "You're welcome with the usual anonymous YouTube "debunking." - Yeah you totally sidestepped the point.
If you can make a point do so. But don't expect me to watch a two hour video just because you run out of things to say. I can post links as well but don't think it's reasonable for you spend your time watching them all.
@Thetan1974 "No, I have listed the reasons for why NIST are unscientific" - have addressed most of them. The same tired old debunked myths and half baked claims truthers have been preaching for years..
.. and NOT ONE had anything to do with what's actually in their report on the towers.
That is embarrassingly poor that you claim it is unscientific yet can't come up with one critique of anything in the report
@Thetan1974 "- is proven here in front of even a critical panel " - Oh great a 2 hour video. ...
Harrit is a crackpot. I read one of his articles from before his paper with Jones. It was one of the worst papers on 9/11 I have read. Just full of mistakes and distortions. If you're willing to look over the planet you will eventually find another scientist as kooky as Steven Jones.
Funny how all well respected scientists are called "crackpots" the minute their findings point away from the OCT and point to an inside job. Sad ad hom attack, there.
I didn't know Harrit had any paper on 9/11 before the nano-thermite paper. Can you give me the link and adress the errors?
Anyway, it can't possibly be more inaccurate than the NIST reports, which are the most crackpot and unscientific reports ever produced about 9/11.
@Thetan1974 "Funny how all well respected scientists" - lol the guy who got put on leave from BYU is respected? The guy who wrote a paper about Jesus visiting the Americas ?
ahahaha
"Anyway, it can't possibly be more inaccurate than the NIST reports" - You had a chance to point out the inaccuracies and couldn't come up with anything... You don't seem to have a clue. Don't feel bad. I rarely come across a youtube truther who does.
Jones got put on leave for telling the truth. Nothing else. There were never any scientific rebuttal to Jones' findings. Only witch hunt reactions to the "Maybe others than al-Qaeda could actually could have a hand in this" statement.
@Thetan1974 "Jones got put on leave for telling the truth. Nothing else." - Incorrect. He got put on leave for writing a terrible paper, outside his field of expertise, that was so bad it embarrassed the university.
" He got put on leave for writing a terrible paper..."
I know - it is terrible to put forward the science that shows that the US government lied about one of the most brainwashing impacts on American's and European's brains. I know. History repeats it self by having these "The earth is round!" types of people running around. We can't have that, right?
@Thetan1974 "I know - it is terrible to put forward the science"
- lol... I have read the paper. I read it many years ago. Have you? I doubt it. It was appalling. Even his work in recent years is better than that first paper.
"History repeats it self by having these "The earth is round!" - It's hilarious that you think you're the one with science on your side... You won't get it of course.
@Thetan1974 "There were never any scientific rebuttal to Jones' findings" - lol.. people have been addressing his nonsense for years. Popular mechanic was the first I remember. That first paper of his was particularly bad.
There are dozens of peer reviewed papers that support NIST, several analysis by engineering firms and university that show consistent findings.. The truthers are left with youtube vids and pathetic papers on the internet like that.
" You had a chance to point out the inaccuracies and couldn't come up with anything... "
Quit the Cointel hypocricy. (You have to anyway some day.)
You have the chance of understanding that I specifcally listed SOME of the reasons for NIST being unscientific.
It's like you're supposed to do a whole paper and only produce half of it. Even though the 50% you did is correct, doesn't make it scientific before you have the 100%. 1600 experts agree.
@Thetan1974 "listed SOME of the reasons for NIST being unscientific." - I quickly addressed most of your claims. I can go into more detail if you want. But the fact remains that you go on about how unscientific the report is when you don't know the first thing about it.
That is the behavior of a cultist or religious person who has faith in what they have been told to believe. That is certainly unscientific.
Did you adress anything with anything but asking me if I could explain how NIST is unscientific? Sorry, I didn't see that. Please bring it on again.
That's the behaviour of today's modern banking/nazionist world religion of "Osama & the 19 Lil Hijackers": sitting anonymously behind YouTube not being able to explain ONE thing that is questionned by those who stand public to demand a new investigation.
@Thetan1974 "Did you adress anything with anything but asking me if I could explain how NIST is unscientific?" - Address anything with anything? lol... I responded to your pathetic tired old myths. I can go into more detail if you want.
You were asked to show the mistakes in a report you claim was unscientific. That you couldn't come up with one is pitiful.
@Thetan1974 "sitting anonymously behind YouTube not being able to explain ONE thing" - So you're now just repeating my posts... god how incompetent are you...
I actually responded to most of your dismal claims...
Your struggling now and just throwing out any old accusation. It's easier than responding to me or actually learning about the topic I guess.
@Thetan1974 "It's like you're supposed to do a whole paper and only produce half of it" - Comments like this just prove my point. Their report explains why the towers collapsed. You're claiming its half a paper when you don't even know whats in it... its a religion.
@Thetan1974 " creating a false and unscientific report about the incident" - So tell me where the mistakes, lies and bad science are in the NIST report on the towers.
- can't/won't explain free fall of 7, the powderization of everything, how debris cam fly around with white tails of alu oxide behind them when buildings collapse, the nano-thermite, the iron rich micro spheres etc.
- can't be peer reviewed
- was ordered/paid to explain how/if this could happen from 2 767's and fires - not HOW it happened
@Thetan1974 "can't/won't explain free fall of 7" - Asked about the towers 0/4.
"the powderization of everything" - lol common sense explains that. But still not responding to what I asked for. 0/5.
"how debris cam fly around with white tails of alu oxide behind" - Alu oxide? Debris is expected in such a collapse. But not responding to what I asked for 0/6.
" the nano-thermite,"- Never confirmed... and it matches paint anyway.. also ..well 0/7.
To not want to explain the free fall collapse is unscientific. If you want to explain what NIST have admitted they cannot explain by "common sense" go ahead. And please dont' sign the paper "markh1011."
I answered perfectly that the debris had white TAILS OF ALU OXIDE after them that make them go towards the ground faster than gravity and make them change directions like a rocket.
This phenomenon has to be explained scientifically if a report is supposed to answer for what happened.
@Thetan1974 "To not want to explain the free fall collapse is unscientific" - They explain the collapse in their report. They even address the period of free fall in the FAQ. It's all mysterious to you for two reasons - 1. A conspiracy theorist told you it was and you just believed them. 2. You haven't researched to see the two sides of the story.
"If you want to explain what NIST have admitted they cannot explain by "common sense." - What? What are you claiming NIST can't explain?
@Thetan1974 "I answered perfectly that the debris had white TAILS OF ALU OXIDE" - You're going to have to support this claim... and then explain to me what you think it means.
"towards the ground faster than gravity " - Nonsensical statement.
Wait - Are you saying that parts of the building had rockets attached to make them go downwards quicker? Seriously?
@Thetan1974 "You know what I meant" - Obviously I don't which is why i asked. Don't play games.
"I said that debris went with "rocket like" forces faster than gravity and changing directions with a white trail of alu oxide:" - ? So you think it was rocket-like but nothing to do with rockets? What are you talking about?
"v=BnR4A4zb8B0&feature=related" What?! That is dust and debris!
I don't play any games. I simply just thought you got my point. Sorry, I really thought you weren't THAT brainwashed and pathetically stupid. But that was just another sign of how robotically and unhumanly conditionned you have become.
@Thetan1974 "Sorry, I really thought you weren't THAT brainwashed and pathetically stupid." - It's not my fault you can't communicate properly... You seem to struggle whenever you're not just quoting the leaders of your idiotic conspiracy church. You should stick to copy-paste so your posts will at least make more sense.
"So you think it was rocket-like but nothing to do with rockets?"
Are you at your truly sick hypocricy quibbling behaviour again. Listen: I am only going to stay certain that 9/11 was an inside job and that you truly have mental problems with this kind of behaviour. Seriously - I'm not kidding. I know there is a chance that some AUDIENCE is falling for you BS, but then you certainly have to advance your debunking manners. Your exposing yourself as being nuts here.
@Thetan1974 "isten: I am only going to stay certain that 9/11 was an inside job" - Right so you can't defend your point.. you haven't even done basic research ... but you think that repeating over and over that it was a conspiracy is a convincing argument..
Yeah ok,
" Seriously - I'm not kidding." - Well if you're serious. .. I guess you don't need evidence or logic or reason then. Being serious should be enough.
@Thetan1974 " the iron rich micro spheres e" - lol the R J Lee reports themselfaddresses that.. but i'm sure you haven't read them... 0/8.
"can't be peer reviewed" -They actually asked some scientists to peer review it.. but anyway its a non issue because there are dozens of peer reviewed papers that support it... and 0/9.
"was ordered/paid to explain how/if this could happen from 2 767's and fires - not HOW it happened" - False... and 0/10. You're not doing very well.
- Back to this. Explosives leave ridiculously obvious signs on the steel. To destroy a building in a CD you need to damage the steel. People would have been seeing it when the steel was pulled out...engineers and demo people actually assisted the clean up. Nothing.
THEN the steel was inspected at the scrap yard for signs that explain the collapse. NOTHING.
Also no detonators... det cord or ...well ..anything that supports the conspiracy.
Why do you waste so much time with the hopeless? Normal people don't.
"Back to this. Explosives leave ridiculously obvious signs on the steel."
2 767's and fires do not leave buildings powderizing and hurling girders 100s of yards up and away, creating pools of molten steel, iron rich micro spheres etc. That's ridiculous.
So the most obvious hypothesis is CD's. How excactly the encendiaries worked together with the conventional explosives is up for a new investigation to answer for.
@Thetan1974 "Why do you waste so much time with the hopeless? Normal people don't." - I'm a government agent who does this for a living.
"2 767's and fires do not leave buildings powderizing" - When a 1300 foot high building collapses from the top down ...smashing its way down.. concrete gets pulverized. If this is mysterious to you then you have decided to stop thinking.
Why do you waste so much time with the hopeless? Normal people don't. So, you don't want to give me an honest answer? Or did you just do so? That's fine with me.
" When a 1300 foot high building collapses from the top down ...smashing its way down.. concrete gets pulverized."
No, it doesn't. If you could lift up the upper block by some big old crane and drop it onto the lower part from like 100ft, it still wouldn't go through - and certainly not powderize the hole lot.
@Thetan1974 "So, you don't want to give me an honest answer?" - If the question was genuine I would. But I suspect it isn't.
"If you could lift up the upper block by some big old crane and drop it onto the lower part from like 100ft, it still wouldn't go through" - Do you expect the next floor to somehow stop a dynamic mass like that? Utterly absurd.
@Thetan1974 "certainly not powderize the hole lot." - The powder came from the concrete and drywall and other materials... seriously what do you expect when such a weight smashes down on itself from such a height?
"So what if JR Lee SAID so? " - So they are used as an authority and at the same time their conclusions are ignored. The truthers do this with most of their claims. It's pathetic. They keep quoting people who don't support their theory lol.
Great. Now show the experiment how drywall, concrete and "other materials" make debris go towards the ground faster than gravity woild make it and how these materials make the debrid rapidly change directions.
"So they are used as an authority and at the same time their conclusions are ignored."
They didn't scientifically conclude anything. They just made a claim. Like saying that if you see a UFO in the skies it must be aliens.
@Thetan1974 " Now show the experiment how drywall, concrete and "other materials" make debris go towards the ground faster than gravity" - At what point did reach whatever velocity you think that it. What time in the video.
Just a tip. Stop saying "faster than gravity" It makes you look like a moron. You may hate me but trust me on that one.
One thing we know we are not seeing is a thermite type reaction. They burn incredibly bright and don't look like that.
@Thetan1974 " Like saying that if you see a UFO in the skies it must be aliens." - Actually there is a report that concludes a lot. you haven't read it. There is also analysis from universities and engineering firms that agrees... you have no idea about those... but anway.. what YOU are doing is more like the alien people. You are seeing something in a video...claiming it is abnormal based on faith and then claiming it must be magical explosives (even though it doesn't look like them).
@Thetan1974 "Er, we keep quoting people who don't support the official story with real evidence" - The very people you are quoting disagree. .. But sure what would those experts know...
Disgraced crackpots like Steven (Jesus visited the Americas) know better.
They refer to reports that disagree with them but carefully select bits out to imply otherwise. It's pathetic. If you have real evidence you don't need to used such desperate tactics. They don't however.
@Thetan1974 " and hurling girders 100s of yards up and away" - Careful with the exaggeration...Some debris did land some distance away but this is no surprise considering 1. The collisions of the planes and 2. The building was 1300 feet high.
"creating pools of molten steel," - Molten steel was never confirmed. Molten metal was almost certainly there but once again, if this is suspicious to you then you are not really thinking.
@Thetan1974 "iron rich micro spheres " - Again you are showing that you are preaching the words of your 9/11 leaders without understanding. The R J Lee group who reported on these spheres EXPECTED to find them there and said they were a result of the fires and the collapses... and that is just one of the possibilities.
The truthers quote mine the report. They leave the parts out where the R J Lee group ruin the who mystery for them.. It's sloppy at best... outright dishonest at worst.
So what if JR Lee SAID so? They have never demonstrated how that could happen. No one has - except with thermite which is the only source of these spheres. So YOU're preaching to the defenders of your modern "Osama & the 19 Hijackers" religion.
@Thetan1974 "They have never demonstrated how that could happen." - So now you're issuing new challenges? Oh come on. You avoiding the issue. The reports the truthers quote DOES NOT support their theory but they carefully select words to keep it mysterious....
Normal people fall for it as you would expect. It's just disgraceful.
What issue am I avoiding? I simply explain that the NIST reports are BS that you want to protect. They hold no weight at all. What really happened to the WTC is covered up, so, of course truthers can't get hand on all the answers. Still, enough evidence is produced to demand a new investigation.
@Thetan1974 "What issue am I avoiding?" - They quoting experts who don't agree with them but carefully selecting sentences and ignoring the ones they don't like....
" I simply explain that the NIST reports are BS " - So you keep saying... over and over... but when challenged to critique the report on the towers you couldn't come up with ONE thing. You're just making guesses based on your faith in the cult... you don't have a clue yourself...
@Thetan1974 "They hold no weight at all. " - Yes yes you keep saying such things but have demonstrated that you're preaching based on faith. normally when you debate a topic you do some basic research. On this truthers don't seem to feel they need to.
They are very similar to the creationists.. both repeat long dead arguments that might seem convincing if you aren't interested in investigating them.
@Thetan1974 "What really happened to the WTC is covered up" - Well there is that report that you don't have a clue about.... oh no that's right lets pretend its all a mystery because you're ignorant.
"Still, enough evidence is produced to demand a new investigation." - Not only have you not come up with any valid criticism of the NIST investigation you haven't produced any evidence to the contrary. It's a pitiful situation.
Most normal people fell - and are still bound to that brainwashing TV bible - of "Osama, al-Qaeda, the 3 normal Boengs and office fires."
That's quite normal to believe in what your leaders told you. I am not "normal" in that manner that I am one of the few hwo dare disbelieve the official BS. It has always been like that through history - only a few will by time change the current stronghold of evil powers.
@Thetan1974 "No one has - except with thermite which is the only source of these spheres." - Total wilful ignorance. I gave you several sources. You don't want to hear it. You don't want your conspiracy theory to be ruined.
You gave me no sources - other than RJ Lee CLAIMING how these occured. It's a scientific fact that only thermite produces these IRON RICH MICROSPHERES. Show us the experiment that proves how normal furniture and office material miraculously created them on 9/11. Go ahead.
@Thetan1974 "You gave me no sources - other than RJ Lee" - Wait a second.. are you now claiming that R J Lee are experts that you will listen to? That's odd because you are ALREADY IGNORING what they say... They say the fires and the collapses were responsible ... you're not listening to them...
@Thetan1974 "It's a scientific fact that only thermite produces these IRON RICH MICROSPHERES" - Your stupidity is remarkable. Do a little research you fucking moron. I gave you several. Go read and validate if what I said is true. Because you are taking an unscientific, unreasonable approach, you just waved away what I said and are now issuing stupid challenges (R J Lee have to tell you before you will believe of something)...
@Thetan1974 "Show us the experiment that proves how normal furniture and office material miraculously created them on 9/11" - Your challenges are getting more stupid. I never said office furniture created them....
@Thetan1974 "So the most obvious hypothesis is CD" - Sorry but this comment is based on ignorance and faith in dishonest conspiracy theorists...
There is no evidence for a CD.
"How excactly the encendiaries worked together with the conventional explosives" - You say NISTs report is unscientific (but can't show why) yet support this fantasy which has no evidence at all to support it..?! Do you don't see a problem with this?
And there's no evidence that woman have a sexual appetite and that the earth is round. You can always decide your own fantasy world.
I just tell you once again: NIST is unscientific for standing out as "explaining" what happened with the WTC, THey do NOT explain what happened. They rule out anything that doesn't fit the "2 767's and fires." 10,000 pages of toilet paper.
@Thetan1974 "NIST is unscientific for standing out as "explaining" what happened with the WTC" - Which they do in their report. You have shown that you can't find one thing wrong with what it is in it. That is amazingly poor considering the claims you make.
"THey do NOT explain what happened" - Actually they do. Educate yourself. At least read their FAQ.
"10,000 pages of toilet paper." - So you claim but are unable to come up with ONE thing that is wrong in it.
I don't see a problem with demanding answers to all the unanswered questions and focusing that NIST simply don't di the math on just calcukating on 10,000 pages what the impacts and fires caused - leaving that be the faithful account of the following, powderizing "collapse" which doesn't add up.
You don't see any problems with the NIST report? Well, YOU have a problem sir.
@Thetan1974 "I don't see a problem with demanding answers to all the unanswered questions" - haha the answers to these questions are usually available with a few minutes looking, but you will never do this. You don't want answers. You want the mystery to remain.
"You don't see any problems with the NIST report? Well, YOU have a problem sir." - I asked YOU to give me some and you FAILED MISERABLY.
You keep claiming it over and over but can't BACK IT UP.
@Thetan1974 "powderizing "collapse" which doesn't add up." - You've had your chance to demonstrate where it fails but can't come up with anything apparently...
" You've had your chance to demonstrate where it fails but can't come up with anything apparently..."
Apparently you didn't get my expaination - because YOU don't want your modern religion to fall apart. But since that post is long gone form the fron page here, I'll repeat it to the audience. (That's actually good that you bring it up once in a while):
@markh1011 "Got it and responded to it nicely." Where? "You mean the posts I already responded to... right." Sorry, must have missed some. Please repeat. "Addressed and educated you on this one." Where? "We were discussing the towers why do you need to change the subject?" I didn't change the subject of NIST's criminality. "You must have nothing..." Seriously, nutjob, do you really want me to list them again?
@Thetan1974 "Sorry, must have missed some" - Sure sure... some people tend to "miss" things when it all gets to hard...
"Seriously, nutjob, do you really want me to list them again?" - Let's go retard. One at a time. Keep them about the towers thanks. We can get to WTC7 later.
@Thetan1974 "Part of NIST's unscience IS not wanting to debate" - You're confused. It is not up to NIST to host debates. That is not what they were expected to do. They were asked to to explain why the towers collapsed. They did that.
They are not a debating club nor are they there to keep conspiracy theorists happy. They are scientists and have work to do. If this is the best you can come up with as a criticism then you are scraping the bottom of a barrel.
- can't/won't explain free fall of 7, the powderization of everything, how debris cam fly around with white tails of alu oxide behind them when buildings collapse, the nano-thermite, the iron rich micro spheres etc.
- can't be peer reviewed
- was ordered/paid to explain how/if this could happen from 2 767's and fires - not HOW it happened
@Thetan1974 "was ordered/paid to explain how/if this could happen from 2 767's and fires - not HOW it happened" - So the first time I responded to all this was too much for you?
Did you do so badly you're going to pretend not to see my posts?
How fucking hopeless are you that you just ignore me to spam the posts I already responded to...
"Did you do so badly you're going to pretend not to see my posts?"
I simply just didn't see any respond to the certain subjects raised. Just go ahead and repeat what's still missing.
"How fucking hopeless are you that you just ignore me to spam the posts I already responded to..."
How f'cking nazionist Hitler fascist Cointel evil "end of the Constitution" endorsing no-investigations and the killing of thousands of innocents screwed are you? At a scale of 1-10, I'd say a 8.
@Thetan1974 "I simply just didn't see any respond to the certain subjects raised." - Of couuurse you didn't....
"How f'cking nazionist Hitler fascist Cointel evil "end of the Constitution" " - lol yes you clearly have a good connection to reality.... hitler... lol idiot.
- won't adress and explain the squibs seen before the collapse and way to far below the impact points to be having anything to do with "air pressure."
- will only let their reports of towers 1 & 2 "explain" what happens before the collapses - and they don't even there adress anything that contradicts their "2 767s And Fires" bible.
The steel wasn't fully inspected - it took years for endependant scientists to do so - and they also looked in the dust.
Besides that, the eutectic defmormated steel was observed and not explained either. And there were TONS of this sh*t.
Everything support the hypothesis that these were highly sophisticated "black op" demolitions. Only fear of the truth and a cover-up protect the modern bibles: the 9/11 Commission and the NIST Reports. That's how religion has always been supported.
@Thetan1974 "The steel wasn't fully inspected " - Fully? It was inspected at the scrap yards by teams looking for failure signs and clues. Damage from explosives would have been seen instantly. Think about it. None were found. It is fantasy.
" it took years for endependant scientists" -By "independent" you mean crackpot conspiracy theorists... apparently they are the only ones who can be trusted...
"It was inspected at the scrap yards by teams looking for failure signs and clues."
Sure, it was inspected - and the deformated eutectic and the "comet" like erodet chiunks were ignored Big mistake in order to write one of the world's latest Bibels: The NIST Reports.
No, I don't mean "crackpot conspiracy theorists." We don't need those in our community. I mean brave independant researchers who after having checked the NIST reports and the evidence find that something is wrong.
@Thetan1974 "and they also looked in the dust." - The dust was already examined by real experts just as R J Lee and USGS. They found nothing that they didn't think was from the fires and collapses..
When real, non biased, experts investigate the subject they agree with NIST.
"They found nothing that they didn't think was from the fires and collapses.."
It's funny that they didn't want to adress the true cause of IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES, which can only be thermite. Someone leading that examinaiton should be fired. But that's how it is in this world now adays: Those who want to tell the truth - that the earth isn't flat - get fired. Those who support the modern leader's bibles get to keep their whores' jobs.
Is this a truther tactic for when things get too hard?"
I'm not ignoring anything. YOU're ignoring the fact that these micr spheres can only come from thermite and that RJ Lee apparently had to conclude that they were miraculously made in the WTC collapses form drywall and gypsum etc. Well, you STILL need to sg´how the experiment of how these materials created those. Claiming so whether you call yourself "RJ Lee" or "markh1011" isn't helping.
@Thetan1974 "I'm not ignoring anything" - Right. Except for the posts you are ignoring... you're a pathetic dishonest loser...you couldn't respond the first time so you hope spamming will compensate for your incompetence...
A person with this type of language is in deep mental problems and a need of putting others down looking for a slight excuse to do so. I simply ain't running away from anything, but I'm propably missing something that maybe gets "pushed away" away from the front page because of the many posts we make. YouTube is not working very well with this - it used to a couple of years ago, but these days you sometimes have to look for ages for a respond.
@Thetan1974 A person with this type of language is in deep mental problem" - anyone who thinks you're a pathetic dishonest loser has mental problems?! Yeah ooookay. This from the guy who compares me to hitler....
"but I'm propably missing something" - You haven't even opened the report you think is incorrect.... you're probably missing lots of things...
' front page because of the many posts we make." - oh yeah that must be it....
@Thetan1974 " YOU're ignoring the fact that these micr spheres can only come from thermite" - You're a twit. I gave you several ways they can be produced....
Did you even look up what flyash is?
Moron.
"RJ Lee apparently had to conclude that they were miraculously made in the WTC collapse" - Fire is probably a miracle to morons like you. You're probably amazed when you see a tv.
@Thetan1974 "Claiming so whether you call yourself" - So you saw evidence you don't like... you wont even validate it...you just accuse me of making it up and need to see an "experiment" to believe it.
That the spheres could come from flyash or friction is well and truly understood. Do some basic research idiot and stop bringing up diversions and excuses...
What evidence excactly are we talking about? I like EVERY evidence out there as I - on the contrary to you - are searching the truth of 9/11. So bring it on.
@Thetan1974 " I like EVERY evidence out there as I - on the contrary to you - are searching the truth of 9/11." - You're searching for the truth but haven't even looked at the NIST report?
Obviously lines like "searching the truth" are empty slogans for truthers.. you won't even see what NIST say... to see if it's wrong?!
That's just basic stuff yet you don't think you need to do it..
You keep talking about POSSIBILITIES of how the spheres could be created. Listen, buster, I know you really need to see that as "proof." But I have listed for you how to create PROOF:
You get out of YouTube, show your face and your name and make the experiment of how anything else but thermite could create these IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES. You anonymous rambling as the reat "markh1011" is not proof.
@Thetan1974 "You get out of YouTube, show your face and your name and make the experiment of how anything else but thermite could create these IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES - Desperation. Some things are well established. Even the leaders of the truth movement, when pushed, would concede that there are other sources of the spheres. But blind sheep like you just keep making uneducated assertions... so now you demand and experiment for well understood facts? .. Just diversions and stalling....
- So do a little research and check what I said?!
WHY WON'T YOU?
No instead you've retreated to your position where you won't accept even basic things unless someone does a youtube experiment for you... Do you even understand that there is flyash in the concrete in the towers?
@Thetan1974 "Besides that, the eutectic defmormated steel" - Again you are showing that you're just repeating what the leaders of your 9/11 church told you. The eutectic was identified by Barnet, Biederman and their team and they explained that sulfur was responsible and have given multiple possible sources for it.
Truthers are cherry picking bits and pieces to mystify everything and you are falling for it.
Barnet, Biederman and their team just CLAIMED their sources. Never provided any prove as to what actually created this eutectic. Please do the officie fire experiment that gives is the result, ok?
If someone is cherrpicking in this matter, it's NIST and the debunker community. That's what you have to do to survive. Truthers admit their mistakes and fight for a new investigation that don't need to cherrypick anything.
No, the best truthers can do is public presentations in front of a critical panel of scientists: watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4
The "best" that debunkers can do is divert from certain facts and trying to "explain" the unexplained with mere guesses that support unproven miracles on 9/11. Sorry, you're way off.
@Thetan1974 "The "best" that debunkers " - lol so clueless. There are multiple analysis from different organisations that supports NISTs theory... you wouldn't know because you are apparently clueless about this topic...
There are also dozens of peer reviewed papers in respected journals that support it...,.
" There are multiple analysis from different organisations that supports NISTs theory... "
That's great. Now did any of them actually scientifically SHOW how these IRON RICH MICROSPHERES were or could have been created? Or did they just go "Well, they can't be from (nano)thermite, because that would mean that someone put that in the buildings. So we have to state that "something else" which we don't know for sure, did it"
Was that their unscientific backing of the NIST Reports?
@Thetan1974 "hat's great. Now did any of them actually scientifically SHOW how these IRON RICH MICROSPHERES were or could have been created?" - You're not quite getting it. Everyone but you knows (including R J Lee) that there are sources for the spheres that are not suspicious. It's a non issue and has nothing to do with their report. You just can't understand that.
They also don't discuss energy weapons and nuclear bombs in the reports either. Does that mean its a conspiracy? Nope.
@Thetan1974 "Or did they just go "Well, they can't be from (nano)thermite" - lol you're in a fantasy world. These analysis explain why the towers collapsed. The spheres have mundane explanations and everyone knows this except for you apparently... they are not going to address irrelevant things in their report for the sake of the deluded and uneducated.
@Thetan1974 "Said the anonymous "markh1011" on YouTube." - ah so your method of avoiding research or scientific analyses you don't like is to say I mentioned them so they don't count.
Sure keep making excuses to stay ignorant.
"At the Toronto Hearings, on the other hand, you have a selection of PUBLIC scientists who can explain why the NIST reports are unscientific." - Right so you don't have a clue. You can't debate the topic but you hear some guys in a room could ... or something.
Cont.> As a result of his research & published findings he's been attacked for his religious beliefs & called a "whack job". His research has been the subject of much disinformation (see above). His findings are a problem for those who wish to cover up what really happend on 9/11/01. Other scientists have since found Thermate in WTC dust samples but Steven Jones continues to be the #1 target. Why? Is it because his religious beliefs make him easier to discredit?
mrh785 2 days ago
@mrh785 Its hilarious that you dont know that Jones has already backed off his claims.
One question, if it was thermite/mate, why didnt they just call it that in their "paper".
Why did they HAVE TO SETTLE for "active thermitic material"?
Answer?
LHOdidntdoit 2 days ago
Of course thermate was found. Hell, there are pictures of it!!! The pics are from WTC dust samples. Unignited Thermate, partially ignited thermate & thermate residue where found in multiple WTC dust samples. Samples collected by different people, different places & at different times. For example, 1 sample was collected from the Brooklin bridge 20 mins after first collapse, another from inside a Manhattan appartment. Dr. Steven Jones was the first to test for & find evidence of explosives. >
mrh785 2 days ago
@mrh785 "Of course thermate was found. Hell, there are pictures of it!!! The pics are from WTC dust samples. Unignited Thermate, partially ignited thermate & thermate residue where found in multiple WTC dust samples" - Actually no. Their tests confirmed that it was not thermate or thermite. The contents of the dust showed different properties such as the ignition temp and energy release...
Kind of a problem for crackpot Jones so he switched to mysterious nanothermite ...
markh1011 2 days ago
Also ignore the fact that Mark Basile, chemical engineer found unreacted nano thermite chips in the dust.
Xendrius 4 days ago
@Xendrius You mean Mark Basile, the person who conducted the exact same experiments, got the exact same results and made the exact same erroneous conclusions?
And the same Mark Basile who was actually named and thanked in the original Harrit/Jones paper for his contributions?
Hardly independent verification, wouldn't you say?
cantonear1968 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Still waiting for an audience with the notorious Mr Owens.
A crime to keep all that wisdom in just one brain it is
Crack your head open like a pinata, spilling your worldly insights and knowledge on us lowly troglodyte surface dwellers, that we get edumakatid, lice yu
Disdain4Lies 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JUST FYI, THE USER KNOWN AS cantonear1968 IS A KNOWN SHILL. HE'S ON THESE 9/11 PAGES SPREADING DISINFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01. LIKE OTHER SHILLS HE CLAIMS TO BE AN "EXPERT", IN THIS CASE A FORMER "NAVIGATOR" FOR THE AIR FORCE. HE IS 100% FULL OF CRAP & CAN'T BE TAKEN AT HIS WORD. HE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A DISINFORMATION PUSHER. HE WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ANY RESEARCH & RESEARCHERS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICIAL STORY & WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE TRUTH MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE.
mrh785 6 days ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY MY SON RYAN KYLE OWENS IS PAID TO MAKE THESE VIDEOS AND POST THEM ON YOUTUBE
Just wondering if this story is real. Never seen you post a comment anywhere to respond to this post, or any other. Would you kindy direct me where I can glean wisdom from your immeasurable mind? In your vast library of 6 fav's & 61 loads of lard I saw no dynamic dialogue or deep diagnosis from one so learned in all aspects of just who harbours the pearls of knowledge about the new Pearl Harbor.
Disdain4Lies 1 week ago
Don't over debate over the thermite, Of course they could tell lies if it did or didn't have it in but check out "9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood", Watch two parts and see much information from a different point of view. It will really get you thinking what truely happened.Some crazy things happened that day.
benjyboba 1 week ago
denial is strong with this one
nrgjunky1 2 weeks ago
I would like to see other samples from 9/11 tested, not just the ones supplied by Harrit. And also tested by other scientists, who aren't told where the samples came from. And they should also test samples from other building fires, both steel frame and not.
If such tests came up postive for thermite and there wasn't a more likely explanation (e.g paint, and AI from planes), then I would change my mind. What evidence would it take for you conspiraloons to change your mind.
clarkesonslooneyleft 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@clarkesonslooneyleft
"What evidence would it take for you conspiraloons to change your mind."
None, their minds are made up. They have acute narcissistic personality disorders.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 2 weeks ago
Your new America folks?...
Search YouTube....
14 Signs of Fascism- The USA is turning into a fascist country?
In 2:43 and you will know....
MrNoblemanoflove 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you noticed attacks by a few goons when you make a comment, who want you to prove something, then mock every piece of info you give them?
Do you wonder whether it's from real ppl, or some auto-program from intel computers?
Is what we type even being seen by real ppl sometimes?
or....is it just as effective as being bugged?
Disdain4Lies 3 weeks ago
Debunk the Israelis arrested in a van with explosives with a mural of a plane hitting the WTC?
sss1ck 3 weeks ago
Debunk the Israelis posing as artists that rented an entire floor on the most expensive real estate in new York?
sss1ck 3 weeks ago
@sss1ck You mean the claim that also states there were no firs inside the WTCs and that smoke tubes were built outside the buildings?
And what Israelis were found with explosives? You don't even know, do you?
You're simply regurgitating something you read off of a truther website and you don't even know the story behind it.
So what is there to debunk in anything you said?
cantonear1968 3 weeks ago
@cantonear1968 Look at this video of part of the core columns turning into dust before your very eyes, STEEL TURNING INTO DUST. watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba "STEEL TURNING INTO DUST. "
- The steel falls down leaving some dust behind. Look at it closer. I think there is a video with better resolution around somewhere.
markh1011 1 week ago
@markh1011 THE STEEL FALLS DOWN, ARE YOU MENTAL, THATS 60 STORIES HIGH AND ITS HOLDING UP ITS OWN WEIGHT AFTER THE COLLAPSE. IT COULD ONLY FALL OVER,. ITS A SOLID STRUCTURE, STEEL IS SOLID, LINK TO VID WERE TALKING ABOUT watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba "IT COULD ONLY FALL OVER" - ? Explain that logic. The steel falls downward ... some dust is left behind. The steel doesn't furn to dust.
"LINK TO VID WERE TALKING ABOUT"
- Yes thanks I'm aware of what we're talking about.
markh1011 1 week ago
@markh1011 IM MAKING SURE EVERYONE CAN SEE WHICH VIDEO WERE TALKING ABOUT OTHERWISE PEOPLE MIGHT VIEW THE WRONG VID AND GET WRONG IMPRESSIONS.watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 THE STANDING STEEL CENTRAL CORE COLUMNS WAS ABOUT 60 STORIES HIGH AND STEEL IS STRONG. IT COULDNT DISAPEAR INTO THE GROUND AS IT WAS ON THE GROUND ALREADY, IT COULD TOPLE OVER, THE ONLY WAY IT COULD GO DOWN IS TO TURN INTO DUST,
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba "core columns turning into dust before your very eyes"
You're kidding, right?
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 CORE COLUMNS TURNING INTO DUST YOU SAY, YOUR VERY EYES ARE KIDDING RIGHT ?
WATCH THE VIDEO watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
YOU CAN SEE THE STIFF STEEL STRUCTURE TURNING INTO DUST.I THINK YOUR TAKING THE PISS ASKING THAT QUESTION, YOU'RE THE ONE THAT GOTA BE KIDDING. SERIOUSLY DUDE.
SOLID STEEL BEAMS THAT ARE SUPORTED DON'T SUDENLY FALL STRAIGHT DOWN 60 STORIES. IF THEY WERE GOING TO FALL THEY WOULD TOPPLE OVER.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba "YOU CAN SEE THE STIFF STEEL STRUCTURE TURNING INTO DUST"
Oh my God!
You're not kidding!
Dear me!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 YEP SEE NO JOKE ON THIS VIDEO ON MY THE LINK watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4 i HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE TO HOW IT WAS DONE BUT THERE ARE A FEW CLAIMS, ONE IS THE NUCLEAR DEMONLITION DIMITRI KHALEZOV AND OTHER HAVE SAID THINGS LIKE JUDY WOODS HUTCHISON EFFECT. I KEEP AN OPEN MIND, IF SOME SUPER WEPON LASER OR SOMETHING WAS USED, THEY MUST GET THEIR POWER FROM EITHER NUCLEAR OR FROM SOME KIND OF UPPER ATMOSPHRE PHENOMINA. THE FACT IT DID TURN TO DUST PROVES SOME FORCES WAS AT WORK.
benjyboba 1 week ago
@benjyboba "THEY MUST GET THEIR POWER FROM EITHER NUCLEAR OR FROM SOME KIND OF UPPER ATMOSPHRE PHENOMINA"
[face palm]
cantonear1968 1 week ago
3000 Lbs total of Thermate used.WTC reduced to 1,000,000 tons of dust.If thermate is only source for sulfur then it's presence in the dust is undetectable because to quantity is too small (by your own admission).Now prove the quantity of aluminum oxide & barium nitrate (Thermate being the only possible source by your on admission) isn't also too small to be detected. Yet, you claim it proves thermate wasn't used. First you've got to prove it would be present in detectable quantities. You haven't
waitew 1 month ago
@waitew "3000 Lbs total of Thermate used"
Where are you coming up with that number? Because even Neils Harrit states it was probably "as much as 100 tons. They brought it in on pallets".
"First you've got to prove it would be present in detectable quantities"
So now you're actually asking the rational people to prove thermate was there? That's been your claim! You prove it!
cantonear1968 1 month ago
@cantonear1968 Did you even watch this video? Listen to the audio?
waitew 1 month ago
@waitew Yes. And what you've done is illustrate the inconsistency and contradictions of Steven Jones as he attempts to manufacture a conspiracy!
It's explosives!
No. It's thermite!
No. It's thermate!
No. It's nanothermite!
No. It's superthermite!
No. It's explosives!
All he's doing is making things up as he goes along and gives whatever material he claims it is that day any properties he needs at the time.
If the barium level is too low to detect, as you suggest, then the sulfur level...
cantonear1968 1 month ago
@cantonear1968 No one can estimate how much thermate residue should be in the dust without knowing how much thermate was used.And no one can estimate how much was needed without a specific collapse theory that predicts how many 'cuts' needed to be made.And no one has such a theory.Jones can't say.Neither can his partner nor can you say failure to find it PROVES it wasn't used because,as admitted to,there's a threshold level of detectability.A few core columns cut?Perimeter too?
waitew 1 month ago
@waitew "nor can you say failure to find it PROVES it wasn't used"
What exactly are you arguing here?
That thermite is POSSIBLE and there is no evidence that it wasn't because it's too small?
That's what you are going with?
cantonear1968 1 month ago
@waitew ....would also have been too low to detect. Yet Jones states he found it.
And it was his partner on the "Nanothermite" paper that suggested as much as 100 tons was in the building. Of course, that was for nanothermite. When Jones was pedaling just plain old thermate, I guess not as much was needed for THAT material!
[face palm]
Ridiculous!
cantonear1968 1 month ago
@cantonear1968 BTW are you now my permanently assigned debunker? Didn't we just have a huge back & forth a few months ago in the 'stand down' room?
waitew 1 month ago
@waitew "BTW are you now my permanently assigned debunker? "
Yeah. That's what I am.
[face palm]
cantonear1968 1 month ago
Aliens did it with the help of Napoleon and Hitler!
mobilechief 1 month ago
@Twooftard tntwooftard,
You are flat out lying, slandershit. List these so called demo experts that "petition" AE911Twoof. You can't because there are none.
kangtimelord 2 months ago
1600 Architects and Engineers and over 10,000 other petitioners including physicists, controlled demolition experts and scholars support the claim for controlled demolition.
Thermite is made of pulverized Aluminum and pulverized Iron Oxide. It can be used as a cutting charge or as an explosive. The smaller the particles are, the more explosive it is. Nano Thermite, called Thermate is built on the molecular level. Jones found unignited, state of the art military grade thermate in the dust.
tntruther 2 months ago
@tntruther " Nano Thermite, called Thermate is built" - Actually they are different things.
"state of the art military grade thermate" - Actually the energy release rate he found would not match that of thermate. He knows this so he made up the nanothermite thing - which he never confirms.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
That nano-thermite - which can't of course be compared to military stuff from before 2002 as the military does not want to hand out any samples or comment on the matter - is proven here in front of even a critical panel of experts: watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4
Actually, what we see happen to the WTC would not match the "2 normal 767's and fires." The perps behind 9/11 know that, so they had to bribe NIST into creating a false and unscientific report about the incident.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "That nano-thermite - which can't of course be compared to military stuff from before 2002 as the military does not want to hand out any samples or comment on the matter" - Oh right here are the excuses for your theory based on a substance that is a mystery. You can't demonstrate it. No truther can after all these years..which is pitiful.
You wave away the NIST report in which their evidence and methodology is detailed but believe in a fantasy....
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"Oh right here are the excuses for your theory based on a substance that is a mystery."
No, the "excuse" is that the official fairy tale is modern religion that has never been proven and simply has to fit the "Osama & the 19 hijackers" line in every possible and IMpossible way.
Besides that, the "excuse" is a scientific presentation like this: watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4
If you can't stand that some are interested in getting to the bottom of the mystery, demand a new investigation.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "No, the "excuse" is that the official fairy tale is modern religion that has never been proven" - There is a 10000 page report that details a lot of this evidence. I asked you to critique it. You failed miserably.
"Besides that, the "excuse" is a scientific presentation like this: watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4" - Yes yes you don't know shit but here's a two hour presentation that will hopefully make an argument for you...
Shall I start posting random debunking links too?
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
The only way to truly debunk Harrit/Jones is to
A) Provide another source than thermite to explain for the creation of IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES. (Are YOU going to be the brave man to finally show the paint?)
B) Show some military grade nano-thermite for comparison
C) Show where else you find these red/gray chips that create round iron spheres when ignited
Thetan1974 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "Provide another source than thermite to explain for the creation of IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES." - Which was done years ago. The clean up, the initial construction, friction from the collapse, flyash in the concrete, heating of iron oxides, a eutectic ect ect.
Once again the R J Lee group expected to find them there and even used them to determine WTC dust.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Show some military grade nano-thermite for comparison" - Are you serious? They should be doing a demonstration of nanothermite bringing down a building... It is up to them to do this... NOT people to demonstrate the opposite.. They have had years but can't. It's a theory based on faith - substance no one can produce or show in action.
"Show where else you find these red/gray chips that create round iron spheres when ignited" - Done. Burnt paint and rust..
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"They should be doing a demonstration of nanothermite bringing down a building..."
Uhm, and are you the man to provide with all those bags of nano-thermite? Great. What's your email or number?
So far, we have already had a demolition with the old fashioned thermite: ae911truth. org/en/news-section/41-articles/575
That ok with you?
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Uhm, and are you the man to provide with all those bags of nano-thermite? " - Hahaha how convenient.. their WHOLE THEORY relies on a mysterious substance that no one can produce.
Yes very scientific.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"their WHOLE THEORY relies on a mysterious substance that no one can produce."
Whole theory? Nano-thermite is as good as an insignificant little corner to the whole pile of officially story-contradicting facts about 9/11. Actually, you could call discussing the presence of nano-thermite found "cherry picking."
But if you want to stay at it: Google "nano thermite" and check out how SOMEONE is actually able to produce this "mysterious substance."
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 " Nano-thermite is as good as an insignificant little corner to the whole pile of officially story-contradicting facts about 9/11. Actually, you could call discussing the presence of nano-thermite found "cherry picking."" - You twit YOUR'E the one who brought it up.
I don't think you know what the term means.
"Google "nano thermite" - Something exists called nanothermite but were still waiting for someone show that it can do anything like what the truthers claim...
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "So far, we have already had a demolition with the old fashioned thermite: " - ... and did you read what they needed to do to get it to work?
The had to use 1500 pound on two legs and had to build huge cupolas with brick and steel around them!
This just gives you an example of how ridiculous it would be to 1. Bring down the towers with thermite and 2. do it without anyone noticing!
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"Done. Burnt paint and rust.." Where is that "done"? By Steven E. Jones? (Someone really said that to me - LOL.)
Now, if you want to be taken serious, you just be a good boy and show us how you subtract these IRON RICH MORCU SPHERES generating red/gray chips from the WTC primer - or any other paint. Good luck. (Little pat on the head there.)
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@markh1011
"Shall I start posting random debunking links too?"
You're welcome with the usual anonymous YouTube "debunking." But as long as it isn't concerning A, B or C, there's not really any point to it. It will just be your ongoing fear of the truth and your resistance against a new investigation that will be repeated.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "You're welcome with the usual anonymous YouTube "debunking." - Yeah you totally sidestepped the point.
If you can make a point do so. But don't expect me to watch a two hour video just because you run out of things to say. I can post links as well but don't think it's reasonable for you spend your time watching them all.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@markh1011
"If you can make a point do so."
I made my points. They were: A, B and C.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "I made my points. They were: A, B and C." - Wow. Worst post I've seen in a while.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"You wave away the NIST report in which their evidence and methodology is detailed but believe in a fantasy...."
No, I have listed the reasons for why NIST are unscientific. It is THEM who are oushing the unproven fantasy stuff about "2 767's and office fires."
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "No, I have listed the reasons for why NIST are unscientific" - have addressed most of them. The same tired old debunked myths and half baked claims truthers have been preaching for years..
.. and NOT ONE had anything to do with what's actually in their report on the towers.
That is embarrassingly poor that you claim it is unscientific yet can't come up with one critique of anything in the report
It's ignorance and blind faith.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 ". It is THEM who are oushing the unproven fantasy" - Fantasy?
Hrm. Okay tell me the lies in the NIST report on the towers.. It should be easy considering the way you describe the report.
and...... go.
(waiting)
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "- is proven here in front of even a critical panel " - Oh great a 2 hour video. ...
Harrit is a crackpot. I read one of his articles from before his paper with Jones. It was one of the worst papers on 9/11 I have read. Just full of mistakes and distortions. If you're willing to look over the planet you will eventually find another scientist as kooky as Steven Jones.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
Funny how all well respected scientists are called "crackpots" the minute their findings point away from the OCT and point to an inside job. Sad ad hom attack, there.
I didn't know Harrit had any paper on 9/11 before the nano-thermite paper. Can you give me the link and adress the errors?
Anyway, it can't possibly be more inaccurate than the NIST reports, which are the most crackpot and unscientific reports ever produced about 9/11.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Funny how all well respected scientists" - lol the guy who got put on leave from BYU is respected? The guy who wrote a paper about Jesus visiting the Americas ?
ahahaha
"Anyway, it can't possibly be more inaccurate than the NIST reports" - You had a chance to point out the inaccuracies and couldn't come up with anything... You don't seem to have a clue. Don't feel bad. I rarely come across a youtube truther who does.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
Jones got put on leave for telling the truth. Nothing else. There were never any scientific rebuttal to Jones' findings. Only witch hunt reactions to the "Maybe others than al-Qaeda could actually could have a hand in this" statement.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Jones got put on leave for telling the truth. Nothing else." - Incorrect. He got put on leave for writing a terrible paper, outside his field of expertise, that was so bad it embarrassed the university.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@markh1011
" He got put on leave for writing a terrible paper..."
I know - it is terrible to put forward the science that shows that the US government lied about one of the most brainwashing impacts on American's and European's brains. I know. History repeats it self by having these "The earth is round!" types of people running around. We can't have that, right?
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "I know - it is terrible to put forward the science"
- lol... I have read the paper. I read it many years ago. Have you? I doubt it. It was appalling. Even his work in recent years is better than that first paper.
"History repeats it self by having these "The earth is round!" - It's hilarious that you think you're the one with science on your side... You won't get it of course.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "There were never any scientific rebuttal to Jones' findings" - lol.. people have been addressing his nonsense for years. Popular mechanic was the first I remember. That first paper of his was particularly bad.
There are dozens of peer reviewed papers that support NIST, several analysis by engineering firms and university that show consistent findings.. The truthers are left with youtube vids and pathetic papers on the internet like that.
Two different standards there.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
" You had a chance to point out the inaccuracies and couldn't come up with anything... "
Quit the Cointel hypocricy. (You have to anyway some day.)
You have the chance of understanding that I specifcally listed SOME of the reasons for NIST being unscientific.
It's like you're supposed to do a whole paper and only produce half of it. Even though the 50% you did is correct, doesn't make it scientific before you have the 100%. 1600 experts agree.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "listed SOME of the reasons for NIST being unscientific." - I quickly addressed most of your claims. I can go into more detail if you want. But the fact remains that you go on about how unscientific the report is when you don't know the first thing about it.
That is the behavior of a cultist or religious person who has faith in what they have been told to believe. That is certainly unscientific.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
Did you adress anything with anything but asking me if I could explain how NIST is unscientific? Sorry, I didn't see that. Please bring it on again.
That's the behaviour of today's modern banking/nazionist world religion of "Osama & the 19 Lil Hijackers": sitting anonymously behind YouTube not being able to explain ONE thing that is questionned by those who stand public to demand a new investigation.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Did you adress anything with anything but asking me if I could explain how NIST is unscientific?" - Address anything with anything? lol... I responded to your pathetic tired old myths. I can go into more detail if you want.
You were asked to show the mistakes in a report you claim was unscientific. That you couldn't come up with one is pitiful.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "sitting anonymously behind YouTube not being able to explain ONE thing" - So you're now just repeating my posts... god how incompetent are you...
I actually responded to most of your dismal claims...
Your struggling now and just throwing out any old accusation. It's easier than responding to me or actually learning about the topic I guess.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "It's like you're supposed to do a whole paper and only produce half of it" - Comments like this just prove my point. Their report explains why the towers collapsed. You're claiming its half a paper when you don't even know whats in it... its a religion.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 " creating a false and unscientific report about the incident" - So tell me where the mistakes, lies and bad science are in the NIST report on the towers.
Looking forward to hearing your answer.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
Oh boy, where to start.
NIST:
- didn't look for explosive residue
- Hid data about 7's collapse
- aren't open for public debate
- can't/won't explain free fall of 7, the powderization of everything, how debris cam fly around with white tails of alu oxide behind them when buildings collapse, the nano-thermite, the iron rich micro spheres etc.
- can't be peer reviewed
- was ordered/paid to explain how/if this could happen from 2 767's and fires - not HOW it happened
Thetan1974 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "idn't look for explosive residue" - I asked for " mistakes, lies and bad science are in the NIST report on the towers "
That doesn't answer my question. I will get to the comment later but I'm interested to hear your answer.
You're 0/1.
"Hid data about 7's collaps" - Asking about the report on the towers not the WTC7 which was released years ago. 0/2.
"aren't open for public debate" - Still doesn't respond to what I asked for. 0/3.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "can't/won't explain free fall of 7" - Asked about the towers 0/4.
"the powderization of everything" - lol common sense explains that. But still not responding to what I asked for. 0/5.
"how debris cam fly around with white tails of alu oxide behind" - Alu oxide? Debris is expected in such a collapse. But not responding to what I asked for 0/6.
" the nano-thermite,"- Never confirmed... and it matches paint anyway.. also ..well 0/7.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
To not want to explain the free fall collapse is unscientific. If you want to explain what NIST have admitted they cannot explain by "common sense" go ahead. And please dont' sign the paper "markh1011."
I answered perfectly that the debris had white TAILS OF ALU OXIDE after them that make them go towards the ground faster than gravity and make them change directions like a rocket.
This phenomenon has to be explained scientifically if a report is supposed to answer for what happened.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "To not want to explain the free fall collapse is unscientific" - They explain the collapse in their report. They even address the period of free fall in the FAQ. It's all mysterious to you for two reasons - 1. A conspiracy theorist told you it was and you just believed them. 2. You haven't researched to see the two sides of the story.
"If you want to explain what NIST have admitted they cannot explain by "common sense." - What? What are you claiming NIST can't explain?
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "I answered perfectly that the debris had white TAILS OF ALU OXIDE" - You're going to have to support this claim... and then explain to me what you think it means.
"towards the ground faster than gravity " - Nonsensical statement.
Wait - Are you saying that parts of the building had rockets attached to make them go downwards quicker? Seriously?
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"Are you saying that parts of the building had rockets attached to make them go downwards quicker?"
I have to disappoint your childish fantasies that you crazily make up in another desperate attempt to divert from the core of the matter:
You know what I meant, but I'll be happy to repeat it - also to the audience if any:
I said that debris went with "rocket like" forces faster than gravity and changing directions with a white trail of alu oxide:
watch?v=BnR4A4zb8B0&feature=related
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "You know what I meant" - Obviously I don't which is why i asked. Don't play games.
"I said that debris went with "rocket like" forces faster than gravity and changing directions with a white trail of alu oxide:" - ? So you think it was rocket-like but nothing to do with rockets? What are you talking about?
"v=BnR4A4zb8B0&feature=related" What?! That is dust and debris!
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"Don't play games."
I don't play any games. I simply just thought you got my point. Sorry, I really thought you weren't THAT brainwashed and pathetically stupid. But that was just another sign of how robotically and unhumanly conditionned you have become.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Sorry, I really thought you weren't THAT brainwashed and pathetically stupid." - It's not my fault you can't communicate properly... You seem to struggle whenever you're not just quoting the leaders of your idiotic conspiracy church. You should stick to copy-paste so your posts will at least make more sense.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"So you think it was rocket-like but nothing to do with rockets?"
Are you at your truly sick hypocricy quibbling behaviour again. Listen: I am only going to stay certain that 9/11 was an inside job and that you truly have mental problems with this kind of behaviour. Seriously - I'm not kidding. I know there is a chance that some AUDIENCE is falling for you BS, but then you certainly have to advance your debunking manners. Your exposing yourself as being nuts here.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "isten: I am only going to stay certain that 9/11 was an inside job" - Right so you can't defend your point.. you haven't even done basic research ... but you think that repeating over and over that it was a conspiracy is a convincing argument..
Yeah ok,
" Seriously - I'm not kidding." - Well if you're serious. .. I guess you don't need evidence or logic or reason then. Being serious should be enough.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 " the iron rich micro spheres e" - lol the R J Lee reports themselfaddresses that.. but i'm sure you haven't read them... 0/8.
"can't be peer reviewed" -They actually asked some scientists to peer review it.. but anyway its a non issue because there are dozens of peer reviewed papers that support it... and 0/9.
"was ordered/paid to explain how/if this could happen from 2 767's and fires - not HOW it happened" - False... and 0/10. You're not doing very well.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "didn't look for explosive residue"
- Back to this. Explosives leave ridiculously obvious signs on the steel. To destroy a building in a CD you need to damage the steel. People would have been seeing it when the steel was pulled out...engineers and demo people actually assisted the clean up. Nothing.
THEN the steel was inspected at the scrap yard for signs that explain the collapse. NOTHING.
Also no detonators... det cord or ...well ..anything that supports the conspiracy.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
Why do you waste so much time with the hopeless? Normal people don't.
"Back to this. Explosives leave ridiculously obvious signs on the steel."
2 767's and fires do not leave buildings powderizing and hurling girders 100s of yards up and away, creating pools of molten steel, iron rich micro spheres etc. That's ridiculous.
So the most obvious hypothesis is CD's. How excactly the encendiaries worked together with the conventional explosives is up for a new investigation to answer for.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Why do you waste so much time with the hopeless? Normal people don't." - I'm a government agent who does this for a living.
"2 767's and fires do not leave buildings powderizing" - When a 1300 foot high building collapses from the top down ...smashing its way down.. concrete gets pulverized. If this is mysterious to you then you have decided to stop thinking.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
Why do you waste so much time with the hopeless? Normal people don't. So, you don't want to give me an honest answer? Or did you just do so? That's fine with me.
" When a 1300 foot high building collapses from the top down ...smashing its way down.. concrete gets pulverized."
No, it doesn't. If you could lift up the upper block by some big old crane and drop it onto the lower part from like 100ft, it still wouldn't go through - and certainly not powderize the hole lot.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "So, you don't want to give me an honest answer?" - If the question was genuine I would. But I suspect it isn't.
"If you could lift up the upper block by some big old crane and drop it onto the lower part from like 100ft, it still wouldn't go through" - Do you expect the next floor to somehow stop a dynamic mass like that? Utterly absurd.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "certainly not powderize the hole lot." - The powder came from the concrete and drywall and other materials... seriously what do you expect when such a weight smashes down on itself from such a height?
"So what if JR Lee SAID so? " - So they are used as an authority and at the same time their conclusions are ignored. The truthers do this with most of their claims. It's pathetic. They keep quoting people who don't support their theory lol.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"concrete and drywall and other materials.."
Great. Now show the experiment how drywall, concrete and "other materials" make debris go towards the ground faster than gravity woild make it and how these materials make the debrid rapidly change directions.
"So they are used as an authority and at the same time their conclusions are ignored."
They didn't scientifically conclude anything. They just made a claim. Like saying that if you see a UFO in the skies it must be aliens.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 " Now show the experiment how drywall, concrete and "other materials" make debris go towards the ground faster than gravity" - At what point did reach whatever velocity you think that it. What time in the video.
Just a tip. Stop saying "faster than gravity" It makes you look like a moron. You may hate me but trust me on that one.
One thing we know we are not seeing is a thermite type reaction. They burn incredibly bright and don't look like that.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 " Like saying that if you see a UFO in the skies it must be aliens." - Actually there is a report that concludes a lot. you haven't read it. There is also analysis from universities and engineering firms that agrees... you have no idea about those... but anway.. what YOU are doing is more like the alien people. You are seeing something in a video...claiming it is abnormal based on faith and then claiming it must be magical explosives (even though it doesn't look like them).
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"They keep quoting people who don't support their theory lol."
Er, we keep quoting people who don't support the official story with real evidence. That's a no brainer.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Er, we keep quoting people who don't support the official story with real evidence" - The very people you are quoting disagree. .. But sure what would those experts know...
Disgraced crackpots like Steven (Jesus visited the Americas) know better.
They refer to reports that disagree with them but carefully select bits out to imply otherwise. It's pathetic. If you have real evidence you don't need to used such desperate tactics. They don't however.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 " and hurling girders 100s of yards up and away" - Careful with the exaggeration...Some debris did land some distance away but this is no surprise considering 1. The collisions of the planes and 2. The building was 1300 feet high.
"creating pools of molten steel," - Molten steel was never confirmed. Molten metal was almost certainly there but once again, if this is suspicious to you then you are not really thinking.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "iron rich micro spheres " - Again you are showing that you are preaching the words of your 9/11 leaders without understanding. The R J Lee group who reported on these spheres EXPECTED to find them there and said they were a result of the fires and the collapses... and that is just one of the possibilities.
The truthers quote mine the report. They leave the parts out where the R J Lee group ruin the who mystery for them.. It's sloppy at best... outright dishonest at worst.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
So what if JR Lee SAID so? They have never demonstrated how that could happen. No one has - except with thermite which is the only source of these spheres. So YOU're preaching to the defenders of your modern "Osama & the 19 Hijackers" religion.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "They have never demonstrated how that could happen." - So now you're issuing new challenges? Oh come on. You avoiding the issue. The reports the truthers quote DOES NOT support their theory but they carefully select words to keep it mysterious....
Normal people fall for it as you would expect. It's just disgraceful.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
What issue am I avoiding? I simply explain that the NIST reports are BS that you want to protect. They hold no weight at all. What really happened to the WTC is covered up, so, of course truthers can't get hand on all the answers. Still, enough evidence is produced to demand a new investigation.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "What issue am I avoiding?" - They quoting experts who don't agree with them but carefully selecting sentences and ignoring the ones they don't like....
" I simply explain that the NIST reports are BS " - So you keep saying... over and over... but when challenged to critique the report on the towers you couldn't come up with ONE thing. You're just making guesses based on your faith in the cult... you don't have a clue yourself...
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "They hold no weight at all. " - Yes yes you keep saying such things but have demonstrated that you're preaching based on faith. normally when you debate a topic you do some basic research. On this truthers don't seem to feel they need to.
They are very similar to the creationists.. both repeat long dead arguments that might seem convincing if you aren't interested in investigating them.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "What really happened to the WTC is covered up" - Well there is that report that you don't have a clue about.... oh no that's right lets pretend its all a mystery because you're ignorant.
"Still, enough evidence is produced to demand a new investigation." - Not only have you not come up with any valid criticism of the NIST investigation you haven't produced any evidence to the contrary. It's a pitiful situation.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
Most normal people fell - and are still bound to that brainwashing TV bible - of "Osama, al-Qaeda, the 3 normal Boengs and office fires."
That's quite normal to believe in what your leaders told you. I am not "normal" in that manner that I am one of the few hwo dare disbelieve the official BS. It has always been like that through history - only a few will by time change the current stronghold of evil powers.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "No one has - except with thermite which is the only source of these spheres." - Total wilful ignorance. I gave you several sources. You don't want to hear it. You don't want your conspiracy theory to be ruined.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
You gave me no sources - other than RJ Lee CLAIMING how these occured. It's a scientific fact that only thermite produces these IRON RICH MICROSPHERES. Show us the experiment that proves how normal furniture and office material miraculously created them on 9/11. Go ahead.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "You gave me no sources - other than RJ Lee" - Wait a second.. are you now claiming that R J Lee are experts that you will listen to? That's odd because you are ALREADY IGNORING what they say... They say the fires and the collapses were responsible ... you're not listening to them...
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "It's a scientific fact that only thermite produces these IRON RICH MICROSPHERES" - Your stupidity is remarkable. Do a little research you fucking moron. I gave you several. Go read and validate if what I said is true. Because you are taking an unscientific, unreasonable approach, you just waved away what I said and are now issuing stupid challenges (R J Lee have to tell you before you will believe of something)...
Go do some research for a change halfwit.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "Show us the experiment that proves how normal furniture and office material miraculously created them on 9/11" - Your challenges are getting more stupid. I never said office furniture created them....
You're a mess.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "So the most obvious hypothesis is CD" - Sorry but this comment is based on ignorance and faith in dishonest conspiracy theorists...
There is no evidence for a CD.
"How excactly the encendiaries worked together with the conventional explosives" - You say NISTs report is unscientific (but can't show why) yet support this fantasy which has no evidence at all to support it..?! Do you don't see a problem with this?
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"There is no evidence for a CD."
And there's no evidence that woman have a sexual appetite and that the earth is round. You can always decide your own fantasy world.
I just tell you once again: NIST is unscientific for standing out as "explaining" what happened with the WTC, THey do NOT explain what happened. They rule out anything that doesn't fit the "2 767's and fires." 10,000 pages of toilet paper.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "NIST is unscientific for standing out as "explaining" what happened with the WTC" - Which they do in their report. You have shown that you can't find one thing wrong with what it is in it. That is amazingly poor considering the claims you make.
"THey do NOT explain what happened" - Actually they do. Educate yourself. At least read their FAQ.
"10,000 pages of toilet paper." - So you claim but are unable to come up with ONE thing that is wrong in it.
Keep the faith!
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"Do you don't see a problem with this?"
I don't see a problem with demanding answers to all the unanswered questions and focusing that NIST simply don't di the math on just calcukating on 10,000 pages what the impacts and fires caused - leaving that be the faithful account of the following, powderizing "collapse" which doesn't add up.
You don't see any problems with the NIST report? Well, YOU have a problem sir.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "I don't see a problem with demanding answers to all the unanswered questions" - haha the answers to these questions are usually available with a few minutes looking, but you will never do this. You don't want answers. You want the mystery to remain.
"You don't see any problems with the NIST report? Well, YOU have a problem sir." - I asked YOU to give me some and you FAILED MISERABLY.
You keep claiming it over and over but can't BACK IT UP.
Hopeless.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "powderizing "collapse" which doesn't add up." - You've had your chance to demonstrate where it fails but can't come up with anything apparently...
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
" You've had your chance to demonstrate where it fails but can't come up with anything apparently..."
Apparently you didn't get my expaination - because YOU don't want your modern religion to fall apart. But since that post is long gone form the fron page here, I'll repeat it to the audience. (That's actually good that you bring it up once in a while):
NIST:
- didn't look for explosive residue
- Hid data about 7's collapse
- aren't open for public debate
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Apparently you didn't get my expaination " - Got it and responded to it nicely.
"I'll repeat it to the audience." - You mean the posts I already responded to... right.
"didn't look for explosive residue" - Addressed and educated you on this one.
"Hid data about 7's collapse" - We were discussing the towers why do you need to change the subject? You must have nothing...
markh1011 1 month ago
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Sorry, must have missed some" - Sure sure... some people tend to "miss" things when it all gets to hard...
"Seriously, nutjob, do you really want me to list them again?" - Let's go retard. One at a time. Keep them about the towers thanks. We can get to WTC7 later.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "aren't open for public debate" - Oh god I ask you for the lies or mistakes in the report and that's the best you can come up with?
lol
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
Part of NIST's unscience IS not wanting to debate - and thereby not wanting to respond to what you think you're doing here as an anonymous nutjob.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "Part of NIST's unscience IS not wanting to debate" - You're confused. It is not up to NIST to host debates. That is not what they were expected to do. They were asked to to explain why the towers collapsed. They did that.
They are not a debating club nor are they there to keep conspiracy theorists happy. They are scientists and have work to do. If this is the best you can come up with as a criticism then you are scraping the bottom of a barrel.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
- can't/won't explain free fall of 7, the powderization of everything, how debris cam fly around with white tails of alu oxide behind them when buildings collapse, the nano-thermite, the iron rich micro spheres etc.
- can't be peer reviewed
- was ordered/paid to explain how/if this could happen from 2 767's and fires - not HOW it happened
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "was ordered/paid to explain how/if this could happen from 2 767's and fires - not HOW it happened" - So the first time I responded to all this was too much for you?
Did you do so badly you're going to pretend not to see my posts?
How fucking hopeless are you that you just ignore me to spam the posts I already responded to...
Fucking imbecile.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"Did you do so badly you're going to pretend not to see my posts?"
I simply just didn't see any respond to the certain subjects raised. Just go ahead and repeat what's still missing.
"How fucking hopeless are you that you just ignore me to spam the posts I already responded to..."
How f'cking nazionist Hitler fascist Cointel evil "end of the Constitution" endorsing no-investigations and the killing of thousands of innocents screwed are you? At a scale of 1-10, I'd say a 8.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "I simply just didn't see any respond to the certain subjects raised." - Of couuurse you didn't....
"How f'cking nazionist Hitler fascist Cointel evil "end of the Constitution" " - lol yes you clearly have a good connection to reality.... hitler... lol idiot.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@markh1011
- won't adress and explain the squibs seen before the collapse and way to far below the impact points to be having anything to do with "air pressure."
- will only let their reports of towers 1 & 2 "explain" what happens before the collapses - and they don't even there adress anything that contradicts their "2 767s And Fires" bible.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@markh1011
The steel wasn't fully inspected - it took years for endependant scientists to do so - and they also looked in the dust.
Besides that, the eutectic defmormated steel was observed and not explained either. And there were TONS of this sh*t.
Everything support the hypothesis that these were highly sophisticated "black op" demolitions. Only fear of the truth and a cover-up protect the modern bibles: the 9/11 Commission and the NIST Reports. That's how religion has always been supported.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "The steel wasn't fully inspected " - Fully? It was inspected at the scrap yards by teams looking for failure signs and clues. Damage from explosives would have been seen instantly. Think about it. None were found. It is fantasy.
" it took years for endependant scientists" -By "independent" you mean crackpot conspiracy theorists... apparently they are the only ones who can be trusted...
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"It was inspected at the scrap yards by teams looking for failure signs and clues."
Sure, it was inspected - and the deformated eutectic and the "comet" like erodet chiunks were ignored Big mistake in order to write one of the world's latest Bibels: The NIST Reports.
No, I don't mean "crackpot conspiracy theorists." We don't need those in our community. I mean brave independant researchers who after having checked the NIST reports and the evidence find that something is wrong.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "and they also looked in the dust." - The dust was already examined by real experts just as R J Lee and USGS. They found nothing that they didn't think was from the fires and collapses..
When real, non biased, experts investigate the subject they agree with NIST.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@markh1011
"They found nothing that they didn't think was from the fires and collapses.."
It's funny that they didn't want to adress the true cause of IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES, which can only be thermite. Someone leading that examinaiton should be fired. But that's how it is in this world now adays: Those who want to tell the truth - that the earth isn't flat - get fired. Those who support the modern leader's bibles get to keep their whores' jobs.
History repeating itself.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "It's funny that they didn't want to adress the true cause of IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES" - I did. I gave you several causes.
are you just ignoring my posts now?
Is this a truther tactic for when things get too hard?
" which can only be thermite." lol except for all the others...
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"are you just ignoring my posts now?
Is this a truther tactic for when things get too hard?"
I'm not ignoring anything. YOU're ignoring the fact that these micr spheres can only come from thermite and that RJ Lee apparently had to conclude that they were miraculously made in the WTC collapses form drywall and gypsum etc. Well, you STILL need to sg´how the experiment of how these materials created those. Claiming so whether you call yourself "RJ Lee" or "markh1011" isn't helping.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "I'm not ignoring anything" - Right. Except for the posts you are ignoring... you're a pathetic dishonest loser...you couldn't respond the first time so you hope spamming will compensate for your incompetence...
It doesn't loser.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"you're a pathetic dishonest loser.."
A person with this type of language is in deep mental problems and a need of putting others down looking for a slight excuse to do so. I simply ain't running away from anything, but I'm propably missing something that maybe gets "pushed away" away from the front page because of the many posts we make. YouTube is not working very well with this - it used to a couple of years ago, but these days you sometimes have to look for ages for a respond.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 A person with this type of language is in deep mental problem" - anyone who thinks you're a pathetic dishonest loser has mental problems?! Yeah ooookay. This from the guy who compares me to hitler....
"but I'm propably missing something" - You haven't even opened the report you think is incorrect.... you're probably missing lots of things...
' front page because of the many posts we make." - oh yeah that must be it....
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
So, please just relax and repeat your adressing.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "So, please just relax and repeat your adressing.
Start with the possible sources of the spheres.
- The clean up
- the initial construction,
- friction from the collapse,
- flyash in the concrete,
- eutectic causing localized melting... there are others. Even print toner has them.
markh1011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 " YOU're ignoring the fact that these micr spheres can only come from thermite" - You're a twit. I gave you several ways they can be produced....
Did you even look up what flyash is?
Moron.
"RJ Lee apparently had to conclude that they were miraculously made in the WTC collapse" - Fire is probably a miracle to morons like you. You're probably amazed when you see a tv.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Claiming so whether you call yourself" - So you saw evidence you don't like... you wont even validate it...you just accuse me of making it up and need to see an "experiment" to believe it.
That the spheres could come from flyash or friction is well and truly understood. Do some basic research idiot and stop bringing up diversions and excuses...
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"So you saw evidence you don't like..."
What evidence excactly are we talking about? I like EVERY evidence out there as I - on the contrary to you - are searching the truth of 9/11. So bring it on.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 " I like EVERY evidence out there as I - on the contrary to you - are searching the truth of 9/11." - You're searching for the truth but haven't even looked at the NIST report?
Obviously lines like "searching the truth" are empty slogans for truthers.. you won't even see what NIST say... to see if it's wrong?!
That's just basic stuff yet you don't think you need to do it..
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
You keep talking about POSSIBILITIES of how the spheres could be created. Listen, buster, I know you really need to see that as "proof." But I have listed for you how to create PROOF:
You get out of YouTube, show your face and your name and make the experiment of how anything else but thermite could create these IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES. You anonymous rambling as the reat "markh1011" is not proof.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "You get out of YouTube, show your face and your name and make the experiment of how anything else but thermite could create these IRON RICH MICRO SPHERES - Desperation. Some things are well established. Even the leaders of the truth movement, when pushed, would concede that there are other sources of the spheres. But blind sheep like you just keep making uneducated assertions... so now you demand and experiment for well understood facts? .. Just diversions and stalling....
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "You anonymous rambling"
- So do a little research and check what I said?!
WHY WON'T YOU?
No instead you've retreated to your position where you won't accept even basic things unless someone does a youtube experiment for you... Do you even understand that there is flyash in the concrete in the towers?
Have you looked this up?
Of course not. You don't want the truth.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Besides that, the eutectic defmormated steel" - Again you are showing that you're just repeating what the leaders of your 9/11 church told you. The eutectic was identified by Barnet, Biederman and their team and they explained that sulfur was responsible and have given multiple possible sources for it.
Truthers are cherry picking bits and pieces to mystify everything and you are falling for it.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
Barnet, Biederman and their team just CLAIMED their sources. Never provided any prove as to what actually created this eutectic. Please do the officie fire experiment that gives is the result, ok?
If someone is cherrpicking in this matter, it's NIST and the debunker community. That's what you have to do to survive. Truthers admit their mistakes and fight for a new investigation that don't need to cherrypick anything.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Barnet, Biederman and their team just CLAIMED their sources" - so once again you're referring to someone who doesn't agree with you.
It's the best truthers can do apparently.
"Never provided any prove as to what actually created this eutectic." - Yet they mentioned multiple sources...
"If someone is cherrpicking in this matter, it's NIST and the debunker community." - You're now just reduced to hollow accusations... sad. -
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"It's the best truthers can do apparently."
No, the best truthers can do is public presentations in front of a critical panel of scientists: watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4
The "best" that debunkers can do is divert from certain facts and trying to "explain" the unexplained with mere guesses that support unproven miracles on 9/11. Sorry, you're way off.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "The "best" that debunkers " - lol so clueless. There are multiple analysis from different organisations that supports NISTs theory... you wouldn't know because you are apparently clueless about this topic...
There are also dozens of peer reviewed papers in respected journals that support it...,.
But hey the truthers have some youtube videos...
hahahaha
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
" There are multiple analysis from different organisations that supports NISTs theory... "
That's great. Now did any of them actually scientifically SHOW how these IRON RICH MICROSPHERES were or could have been created? Or did they just go "Well, they can't be from (nano)thermite, because that would mean that someone put that in the buildings. So we have to state that "something else" which we don't know for sure, did it"
Was that their unscientific backing of the NIST Reports?
Thetan1974 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "hat's great. Now did any of them actually scientifically SHOW how these IRON RICH MICROSPHERES were or could have been created?" - You're not quite getting it. Everyone but you knows (including R J Lee) that there are sources for the spheres that are not suspicious. It's a non issue and has nothing to do with their report. You just can't understand that.
They also don't discuss energy weapons and nuclear bombs in the reports either. Does that mean its a conspiracy? Nope.
markh1011 1 month ago
@Thetan1974 "Or did they just go "Well, they can't be from (nano)thermite" - lol you're in a fantasy world. These analysis explain why the towers collapsed. The spheres have mundane explanations and everyone knows this except for you apparently... they are not going to address irrelevant things in their report for the sake of the deluded and uneducated.
markh1011 1 month ago
@markh1011
"These analysis explain why the towers collapsed."
Said the anonymous "markh1011" on YouTube.
At the Toronto Hearings, on the other hand, you have a selection of PUBLIC scientists who can explain why the NIST reports are unscientific.
"they are not going to address irrelevant things in their report"
I don't know what irrelevant stuff they ignored. What I know is that they ignored tons of relevant facts.
Thetan1974 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thetan1974 "Said the anonymous "markh1011" on YouTube." - ah so your method of avoiding research or scientific analyses you don't like is to say I mentioned them so they don't count.
Sure keep making excuses to stay ignorant.
"At the Toronto Hearings, on the other hand, you have a selection of PUBLIC scientists who can explain why the NIST reports are unscientific." - Right so you don't have a clue. You can't debate the topic but you hear some guys in a room could ... or something.
markh1011 1 month ago