Since the Jones/Harrit nanothermite paper caem out about 2 years ago, it has had zero impact in the scientific community. Instead, it sank like a stone because of its sloppy methodologies and leaps to conclusions. No one has ever corroborated that their red-grey chips are unexploded nanothermite & they've acknowledged that the energy density of the chips is too low & so conventional explosives had to also be used. So they're back to having to prove that. No demo experts agree with them.
It has had zerop impact because noone dares to psychologically adress it. It points TOTALLY to an inside job, so the few who know about it has to either say "It was an inside job" or make up all sorts of excuses that it was found.
The nano-thermite hasn't been scientifically debunked or shown on FOX.
The debunkers don't realise that they are the conspiracy theorists & the truthers don't realise that they are the ones debunking the official version of 9/11 which is nothing more than a trumped up ridiculous conspiracy theory that is blatantly flawed in every way.
The "official" story of a group of foreign nationals commandeering 2 airplanes into the WTC which lead to the destruction of 3 buildings falling at the speed of gravity, with no one charged, and no one 'wanted' on any FBI poster for this crime, is by definition a conspiracy theory, but conveniently does not explain the presence of thermite.
@KevinMerck the people who brought the wtc down , can only come from the Pentagon and other military secret places! Niels Harrit and 8 other scientists found nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center!
This whole thing is so stupid, all conspiracy theories has been debunked. I'm not a fan of the us, but their goverment did not cause the collapse of these buildings.
Am I paranoid for filming web-like chemtrails and crazy electromagnetic clouds? (my vids) :S NWO is real. Check Infowars featured articles for independent news from many sources.
Infowars! LOL! Yeah trust Alex Jones. He has been saying the NWO is coming for over 10 years, but it's really going to happen this time! Remember Y2K? Yeah he sure hit the nail on the head with that one.
Just keep repeating yourself, that will make it true.
Ahh, you're one of those people who mistakenly reads "independent news from many sources" as "from Alex Jones himself personally - every article". It's quite common. Despite what you may believe Alex does not personally post each article. Many are from other sites. It's a news feed. I didn't say listen to his radio show.
Oh well so does the National Enquirer. Bat boy must be real, many people write about it. Doesn't matter where it comes from initially, if it;s on Jones's site its either complete BS or has been twisted so far out of context it's turned into it.
Maybe you should think about what you just wrote next time you say something like "the government lies!".
Who are you to assume what little news I read is swallowed like tripe? Surely there is some respect to be found among your ranks?
I don't think anybody, anywhere, has ever had the fortune of being able to say "the government lies" and be wrong.
Do you believe the "official story"? Missing black boxes and security tapes and all? Hogwash. If you fail to question and hold them accountable, you deserve what you get.
LOL! Well given that the government is a collection of a couple thousand, maybe more, people such an argument is purely fallacious from the onset. It's a shortcut to thinking so one can avoid evidence without any valid argument. But thanks for closing with the argument from incredulity. Sure showed me.
No I mean the premises of your assertions. For some reason you keep dancing around the fact that they are totally fallacious. But so is the nature of the twoofer faith.
Yes, I believe "the official story"; not the strawman truthers want to think. I also believe that the Bush administration wasn't totally forth coming. However, if we follow Occam's Razor, the only rational conclusions are incompetency & opportunism. I would concede that the Bush administration should be required to answer.
@SOAS007, There is plenty of evidence supporting the no-plane theory. I think it should be considered. Check out this whole series and tell me you don't have questions: watch?v=gBpTWYUgvcM
"There is plenty of evidence supporting the no-plane theory"
so the flights were fabricated including everyone invoved. Where did these 'no planes' come from.? You just guess at assertions and call it evidence.
@SOAS007, All I've seen is the investigation into the footage seen on TV, as found in the series I recommended last post. Moving bridges aren't exactly normal, are they? :)
BillBJJ78 is obviously the thought police. Do not post your own opinion or he will promptly ram his down your throat. LOL. Obvious disinfo agent.... here everyday.
I'm just curious..if 2 truthers disagree and they start calling each other disinfo agents/shills/liars, how do you decide who is right? Do you just go with whoever says it first?
Plus he lies in the first fifteen seconds. "All three fell exactly in the same way" WTC2 -Collapse initiated 1/3 down -Top of building tilted 20 degrees -Collapse progressed in top to bottom fashion. -Debris spread across blocks. WTC1 -Collapsed 1/5 down. -Collapsed top to bottom. -No noticeable tilt. -Debris spread across blocks. WTC7 -Collapse initiated with the penthouse & a 2-3 second pause. -Collapsed bottom up. -Debris in a 1 block area.
yes, you are right, its all lies, its one big conspriacy: all of the american government, thousands of people cover this up in order to please emperor bush and his puppet obama.
its so obvious.
no one ever dreamed of nano-termite before this guy dreamed of it. But if someone can theorize about something that will take decades to refine and produce, then CIA must have used it on a large scale 10 years ago, obviously. And if this theory is disproven then CIA must have used sub-atomic termite.
SOAS007: Are you Danish? If so, your English is very good. I am hoping you can help us: have you by any chance followed Prof. Harrit in the Danish press?
If so, is there anything in his past that would lead you to question his honesty or competence?
You are right, but I am not a professor of chemistry. I have to decide who to believe. If a man has been dishonest or shown incompetence in his professional life then I will not listen to him. However, if he has a reputation for honesty and competence in his professional life then I will listen to him and consider the evidence he presents. Academic fraud happens in the US and, I suspect, elsewhere.
Steven Jones has been criticised for the "cold fusion" debacle. However, in that case Jones was very cautious in his claims. Two shysters named Pons and Fleischmann made claims for cold fusion that they could not support. Jones was tarnished by association with them.
I am wondering if there is anything similar in Harrit's background. If not, I would tend to believe his evidence. Of course, interpretation of his evidence will probably remain a matter of debate!
I was talking about Harrit's work on the chips recovered from the WTC dust.
IMO, the best evidence that they are something very unusual is that they ignited in the DSC at about 450 degrees C, and released energy rougly equal to what we would expect from the oxidation of aluminum combined with reduction of iron oxide.
I don't claim to know what those chips are or who made them. Harrit reported that they ignited at 451 C and released energy consistent with oxidation of Al and reduction of Fe. The reaction product was iron metal. We know the chips contained aluminum metal. All one can conclude is that an oxidation-reduction reaction took place at a low ignition temperature. Most thermite mixtures ignites at a much higher temperature.
If Harrit is telling the truth, these chips deserve to be investigated.
"". this paper was published eight years after the 9/11 Attacks and its sample were collected over a period of a week by three different people. The samples were not collected by the authors of the paper, so there is not accountability for how the samples were collected and how they were stored between the time they were collected and when they were tested, which are topics that would come up in peer review.""
Its not about reputations either. Einstein was wrong about somethings, and even Darwin. Its about evidence. Some shysters tell the truth sometimes, and even when they don't its not always deliberate. Stick to evidence only for the claims.
Good questions, that all need careful consideration.
I think reasonable people can sit down and find a way to answer these questions and any others that may arise.
Of course, none of this will happen unless the people demand it. Over half the people want a real investigation, but they will have to force the issue like no other issue has ever been forced in the past.
Will this happen? God only knows. They may escape earthly punishment, but they will not escape God's wrath.
There are now 777 Architects and Engineers demanding a real investigation into the events of 9/11.
More importantly, over half of the American people have serious questions about 9/11 and want a real investigation.
Any questions about the fact that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition can be answered by watching *Blueprint for Truth*. Virtually everyone who sees it comes away with the understanding that 9/11 was controlled demolition.
please learn what the terms you use actually mean. its called an analogy. he at not time proposed that KM was arguing about creationism, just comparing like arguments from fallacy. sadly twoofers have a hard time recognizing that their reasoning is identical to that of every other collection of nut jobs and go to great lengths to avoid recognizing the irrational premises their arguments stand on.
Sadly you criticize me over stuff you do not comprehend and it's a bit ironic you even say anything when you're grammar alone is horrific, I mean for cerial.
Dude you went and dug up a 3 month old comment of mine you stupid troll, you don't even provide contingent arguments for the topic at hand, you hypocritical fool.
@BillBJJ78 You need a peer reviewed article to know that thermite can be applied in paint and melt through steel beams, when it has been experimentally proven(it's not hard to find, it's been on Jesse Ventura's new show, XD). Your ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, and lack of research are being clearly exposed now.
Yes I do. And no it wasn't. I am obviously talking to someone who has no idea how the scientific method works or its purpose. The reason academics do this is so other scientists can be validate claims and check for errors in methodology. Essentially your argument just boiled down to, well it was on the tay vay so it must be true. I saw a rabbit run through a brick wall on TV, must be real. Morons.
@BillBJJ78 Yeah I do know how the scientific method works, if you actually took the time to look, I actually have a few video's fav'd that break it down for people like you. If you think stephen jones' compound for his "super thermite" doesn't work, then experimentally disprove it your self, that is REALLY the only scientific way to do it. The thermite heated up to over 2300C/4100F in the experiment, which is easily hot enough to melt steel, vertically or horizontally.
Like I pointed out though, this is merely all jibber jabber between us, I mean, I'm actually citing a professionally conducted experiment done by a los alamos laboratory professor, and you're just....well, I guess what I meant to say is that what you're saying is merely jibber jabber once you bring up scientific method because you have not conducted experiments that disprove/prove otherwise the conclusions that have already been laid down.
Yeah peer review is jibber jabber. trust me, I know you have no idea what science is and want its standards suspended because you know your religions can't stack up. An experiment has specific conditions and meticulously records all observations, including the result which they didn't show. In fact Van Romero says "Did the nano thermite heat the steel enough to melt it?". And they leave it at that. They never show you the effects. I don't have to disprove shit. The burden is on the claimant.
I never once said peer review is jibber jabber. Can you please quote me here? All I basicly said was that you need a peer reviewed article when you can see the experiment done in front of you? I'm sorry you don't believe anything on TV or the internet, you must really hate the news, discovery channel, national geographic, etc.
Keep talking, it's becoming more apparent of what kind of person you are.
I also mentioned if you want to truly debunk it, disprove it, whatever, do it in the most scientific method possible, do the same experiment, and if the results don't repeat, then you have debunked it! Einstein had many debates with Neils Bohr over quantum mechanics(classical mechanics vs quantum mechanics), but in physics/science, the only way to settle something is to do an experiment, Einstein ended up being wrong and Bohr was right.
And? How did they validate their claims? Through the same process everyone else has to follow. It is only conspiracy quacks like yourself who run away from it because you guys know it can't stand up.
Again when your priest claims get validated then it is the job of someone to disprove. Seriously guy, you're just showing you think science should go in reverse. Jones 1 has to show he has nano thermite and 2 needs to show in a real academic forum his conclusions are correct.
Yet here you are saying that what I am saying is jibber jabber when that is what I am asking for. It's OK, I am well aware truthers are 90% of the time in full reverse.
Firstly, you are assuming what Van Romero had is what Jones has. He hasn't established that because he avoids peer review. So we have two problems. We have never seen NT do what they claim it can (they never showed the results) and 2 we don't know Jones even has it to being with because he will not get his research corroborated.
No, no no, what I said is that all this jibber jabber, this isn't even a debate, if this was in real life, you'd likely the one guy trying to get loud like bill o'reilly and be like, yeah well I've said more and I've been louder so I win. And yes, this is jibber jabber because I said, people got an experiment done, on your side, you're criticizing the experiment without offering to do your own, that's how science works, they proved superthermite when painted on reaches over 2300C. Disprove it.
Trust me. I am well aware this is not a debate. A debate requires both sides adhere to logic, something you keep discarding.
Go ahead keep pretending what you want about what I would do. As usual a truther is replacing facts and logic with his imagination. The sad fact is that you can't demonstrate one thing so here you are constantly changing the subject and shifting the burden of proof. This might work on uneducated people, but not here.
Oh of course. Elementary logic is completely trolling rhetoric. It's not convenient to the truther religion therefore it must be. Let us know when you guys can play like big scientists...mmmkay?
I can't handle the subject? You're still ducking my questions? How does that make sense...? You're delusional, later I'm going to continue on with my non-delusional wonderful life. :D
Sure guy. Keep making shit up. I have addressed every point you have made. I addressed why Jones research hasn't been validated (no peer review). I have addressed why Ventura's show did not demonstrate NT can do what you claim it does (no results). I have addressed how you cannot connect Van Romero's demonstration to Jones's research (still not validated). And I have repeatedly cited the 1/2 dozen fallacious arguments you endlessly employ. That it? Probably not.
No experiment was done. They didn't prove anything other than it does exist. A demonstration on TV was shown w/o controlled conditions, peer review, or the results shown.
Secondly I love how you skirted the fact that Jones has never demonstrated what he found was nano thermite to begin with. Its OK little twoofer you can keep your box of stupid just stop trying to push it on others.
When you can actually deal with the facts & stop trying to play smoke & mirrors maybe you'll have something.
Wow...you sure showed me. So basically you're an atheist who can't back his nonsense up. I pray to whatever that you don;t argue with young earth creationist and evangelicals like this. People like you give the idea that there are no legitimate arguments to be had.
There are all kinds of religious beliefs. Yours just substitutes the devil with "the government" and god with "the truth". All faith based avoidance of evidence and reason. Keep dancing.
Wow...thats doubly stupid. You know how the process works, yet here you are ignoring the process of peer review and them doubling down by reversing the burden of proof. Damn..you went from 0 - dripping stupid at "free fall speed".
Why is it that truthers always say they have a grasp of subject then continue to parade their ignorance around without even going to a wiki page to vaguely make it appear they have a clue of what they are talking about?
"Really the only scientific way" is for Jones to validate his claims in the same forum everyone else does. He doesn't get a pass because he convinced loons & the ignorant he is trustworthy. But thanks again for backing up your claims w/ "I saw it on TV".
I'm sorry but your opinion on nano thermite is of little consequence. The reason they had to run around to get nano thermite is because regular thermite wont work like that. They claimed NT would because it would stick. But they didn't show us.
@BillBJJ78 Wow, retard alert, NOBODY IS CLAIMING NORMAL THERMITE DOES THIS, the particles examined were not of normal thermite properties, they had trace amounts of sulfur, which accelerates the process. Also NANO thermite would mean all the crumbs of iron oxide and aluminum would be miniscule, measuring in nano meters, restricting the electrons flow(youre cutting the amount of space it has to move, which will cause it to move faster), which causes more of an energetic reaction.
Honestly I really think you don't even know the process of nano engineering, so you're criticism of nano-thermite, is practically void, hell, your whole argument is void because you haven't decided yet what your argument is even about yet! Oh man I have to admit this is funny though.
Trust me its hilarious how a guy who can;' even grasp basic scientific reasoning is trying to pretend his opinion is a good substitution for actual scientific validation. So no real science for the twoof movement then? Oh well.
Holly shit you're an idiot. In 2006 Jones wrote a paper on thermite &how he believed he had evidence of its presence at the WTC. It turned out that he found sulfur which is common in any number of household items, plus it was totally unrealistic to think it would work as it won't burn in set patterns. So in order to keep his delusions he found nanothermite & now he claims that can be used and will work; though he has never demonstrated it. Seriously, you can't be this stupid.
Jones' Paper includes use of superthermite....you retard? Have you even been to A&E for 911 truth? I don't know anything about "journal of 9/11 studies" except for that the person who headed it split after jones and him had differences, jones not accepting his wacky conclusions like nuclear missiles/lasers from space, pretty rediculous claims. However I do not think Nanothermite is a rediculous claim at all, I've already explained why it is more reactive, calling me stupid? ahaha please.
Dude...stop now. You don't even know wtf your own sources say.
In 2006 (not the april of 2009 paper, The Nano Thermite paper), Jones put out a paper contending thermite, just thermite. You just admitted you don't anything about the Jo911Studies and you're telling what the paper says. Secondly Jones split from Jim Fetzer for Scholars of 9/11 Truth, not the Jo911 Studies.
journalof911studies . com / volume / 200609 / WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse . pdf
Youre talking about jones' old studies in 2006 because that is the most easily debunkable thing you have, the fact is, you still cannot debunk what you're talking about until you experimentally disprove it. You think it matters if a steel column is placed vertically or horizontally when it reaches over 2300C? That's 4100F and about 1400F over the temperature required for steel to melt. It's going to burn through and go downwards and burn up the rest of the structure...
That's because, like I said you moron , I don't follow journal of 9/11 studies, I ADMITTED IT, I've taken looks at alienscientist's explanation and his best fits it, also stephen jones, they just have different materials in question. It's like you're so caught up in your own personal beliefs you'll read like the first two lines of what I say and get offended by them so much you won't read the rest and post something, which is apparent because you're still dodging my questions.
Well you're the jackass saying no one contended that thermite was used. Jones did. And his whole reason for going with nano thermite is because thermite couldn't work. But he claims NT will because it will adhere to vertical columns.
Name 1 question I have dodged. I have refuted everything you have said either through logic, real logic, or actual science based evidence and methods. Please this little subject change and strawman game of yours is getting boring.
Yes I have been to AE911 truth. A collection of idiots thinking a list replaces science. There are similar lists of scientists who don't believe in evolution. Yup...truthers took a page from the creationists. Congrats.
How you guys can follow a clown who thinks card board boxes simulate steel framed buildings is beyond me.
Man you're retarded. It is not my job to disprove something that has not been validated. Jones never demonstrated he has nano thermite. They never showed you the results of the test.Yet again you are shifting the burden of proof. Yet again you are demonstrating you are a typical uneducated twoofer. I have addressed nano thermite research which I did just now but you;ll pretend I didn't. I only explained the thermite research in relation to the NT research. Nice strawman keep dancing jackass.
I never said they painted it on 1 column. Nice strawman idiot. And you accuse me of making up fake arguments? Delusional twoofers...you're all the same. Seriously, stop pretending you have a clue of what you're talking about and pick up a text on basic research methods. There you will find that its the researchers job to prove his affirmative correct, not the job of others to prove it wrong. You don't even get the friggin fundamentals.
Go to the Journal of 9/11 Studies (ROFL! Can't believe they thought people would buy that this is a real journal). And read "Why Indeed Did the World trade Centers Buildings Collapse". There he describes why he thinks thermite was used.
What Jesse showed you was NT being applied to a small section of beam horizontally (because they know the reaction will not adhere to steel vertically, how the WTC columns were) & its reaction, no results. Before you guy crying that you saw something molten, thermite produces molten iron by itself.
Stop looking up the names of fallacies & throwing them around. We both know you've no idea what they mean. Youtube, prisonplanet, and Jesse Ventura's paranoia show are not research. again...morons.
@BillBJJ78 How else do you want the research to be validated? You guys are never happy. It's not like all steel beams are placed vertically as you imply, that is a silly statement, have you ever seen the skeleton for the building? You must be out of your mind XD.
Research should be validated int he same way every other academic has to do it.You do your research, perform the experiments, record the data, and submit ti for peer review. This is how it is done.You're pretending this is something new. It only shows you're in no way competent in this matter and just another twoofer showing his ignorance.
Seriously take your faith somewhere else and stop demanding academics put in a handicapped ramp for the twoof movement.
1. Who would fund this un-biased investigation and how will the the finances be channeled to ensure the system doesn't taint or manipulate research?
2. Who will elect the panel that conducts it?
3. What govt. bureaus and degree of access do you wish to obtain?
4. Finally, if the investigation turns up nothing more than the official report, will this put conspiracy theories to rest or just insinuate evidence was destroyed - imply govt. intervention etc.
By setting the United States up to fight a "Global War On Terror", it can be assured we always have a war to go to. And by creating fear and tension here in the "Homeland", we can also have an ongoing "War On Terror" right on our own turf.
Just think, maybe someday soon we can make "depleted" uranium munitions for our own police departments. Paul Turner
Our Global War On Terror is putting more people in harms way. I have more fear of what our own administration will do next than what people of other countries will do to me.
The "Global War On Terror" will be mellowed out into something more like "Overseas Contingency Operations". Different players in the administration, but same game. We will also continue to have our "War On Terror" right here in the US of A "Homeland" where we can now classify and target half the population as "extremists".
After researching both sides of the 9/11 issue and seeing the deception behind "weapons of mass destruction", finding out that false flag attacks are more common than not, financing both sides of a war really does happen, and all the legislation which has been passed in order to "protect" us against terror, it really doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch to doubt the validity of the 9/11 NIST Commision Report. Paul Turner
The hypothesis is the government planted bombs in the buildings, to allow us to go to Iraq, and in turn allow more wars to occur, also to pretty much strip your rights away, patriot act anybody? I don't know why you'd lump us with creationists, because creationism is just a misunderstanding of science, not really like 9/11 where-as if you beleive the official explanation, you have a misunderstanding of science. I don't feel obliged to explain it to you, if you require evidence, one word= PHYSICS
Creationismm says, we don't accept certain bits of evolution( the official version) , even though they cannot falsify them,so by default our idea is correct even though there is no evidence to support it .
The same goes for the official version of '9/11' and the conspiracy theories/"truth" movement.
Oh and creationists like most religions user the word "truth" a lot too, but always fail to demonstate it.!
We're calling for an non-biased investigation to seek the truth, creationism already has a set conclusion and presents distorted facts to support their conclusion, which is not the scientific method. Most people against the truth movement just simply say " I don't know " when they're asked certain details about the collapse, and usually retort with an insult or a strawman that had nothing to do with the original statement. That's what I have noticed. I do not offer any theories, just questions .
Questions, although I do see lots of motive for the collapse of the three towers, it allowed for alot of bills to pass that probably would not if we weren't scared shitless. So all in all your government are the real terrorists.
SOAS007, since you insist on comparing this to the creationist/evolution debate, consider which side is desperately clinging to a DOGMA handed down by an AUTHORITY figure, and which side is independently investigating and questioning the OFFICIAL DOGMA. That's right, you got it backwards. Don't feel too bad, it's a common mistake. Let me guess, you like to hang out on jref.
I hear creationists say the theory of evolution described as dogma handed down by 'authority'. In both cases the authority is independent, scientists with no agenda, and the creationists say goddidit like truthers say govmt did it.!
"n both cases the authority is independent, scientists with no agenda" NO! In the case of 9/11, the official DOGMA has not been from INDEPENDENT sources!! What on earth would give you that idea?? And NIST's WTC7 report requires a bigger leap of faith than any bible story I've ever read. It's complete and total nonsense!!
the idea of terrorist hijacking planes. and islamists ones commiting suicide attacking their enemies requires a leap of faith? If wish you were correct. !
Most alternative scenarios to the planes suicides arn't even believed by 'troofers'.
Did you read what I wrote?? I didn't say anything about the hijackers or planes!! I was talking about WTC7, which was not hit by a plane!! NIST concluded that in WTC7:
- NO core columns were damaged by WTC1 debris
- NO core or perimeter columns were weakened in the fire
- Fire was only on 6 out of 47 floors, and NO diesel fuel!
- Computer sim of fire-based collapse did NOT match the videos
- Free fall for more than 2 sec
- But fire caused the collapse? THAT is the BIGGEST leap of faith!
You need to do more research. NIST says "The collapse of WTC7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires"
do NIST's findings support this though, or do we need 'faith'?
-- ordinary office fires going from cubicle to cubicle
-- fireproofing did it's job and the columns were not even weakened in the fire
-- the building was built to code
-- they have NO physical or video evidence for fire causing collapse
David Chandler of ae911Truth originally measured frame by frame and found that WTC7 accelerated in free fall. NIST then did a similar measurement and verified that, in fact, the building was in total freefall for more than two seconds!! They fail to explain how a fire based collapse could cause this.
As to your other point, this is what NIST says: "Other than initiating the fires in WTC7, the debris from WTC1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7"
Yup read the nist report, like you I agree, it makes sense. If you heat steel it bends ( not melts) try a paper clip and lighter. Obvious really. Also read reports by the fire chief in charge that day. no faith required
"If you heat steel it bends" NIST states that the temperature at which structural steel columns lose a "significant amount of strength" is 578C. The highest core column temperature was only 200 C!!! 200C is NOT enough for the columns to "bend" in the heat, and this is NOT what Nist is claiming either.
And did you seriously just compare a huge steel framed skyscraper with a lattice of interconnected I-beams, trusses, and other support mechanisms to a paperclip?!?!
the paperclip analogy stands. It is the same element, and it dispels the truther fallacy that it wasn't hot enough to melt steel.
The fire chief abandoned fightig the fired and ordered the building clear hours before it fell, how do you know what the temperature was? I took longer to fall than the towers. It didn't fall alltogether either which is consisitant. Some building had no fires and were left unstable too.
"the truther fallacy that it wasn't hot enough to melt steel." 200C is NOT hot enough to even weaken structural steel columns, let alone melt them!! That number is straight from NIST and is so low because of the fireproofing!!
To make it utterly clear what the official dogma on WTC7 says: "WTC7 did not collapse due to fire-induced weakening of critical columns" NCSTAR 1-A pg.53
but this report does say how it did happen to to heat expansion, which I learn't about in Physics @ 11 ( many years ago) So their report I agree makes sense, not sure why that is dogma. It maynot be as exciting as some x file explanation, but makes sense and fits with science as I was taught so again no faith required.
you're right, metal expands when it's hot. However, there is NO precedent for thermal expansion to cause a structural failure in a steel framed building, and NO evidence that it did in WTC7. But let's say that NIST is right about this, and thermal expansion cause a few floors to fail around one column... how exactly does this progress to the ENTIRE bulding falling straight down in free fall??? NIST simulated this and it did NOT match the videos, and they give no mechanism to allow it...
I ran out of room and you are using this as an opportunity to ignore the main point that I was trying to make by nit-picking at my semantics. Bravo. To be completely correct, I suppose I should have said, "the ENTIRE outer shell fell straight down in free fall for more than 2 seconds!! After this 2 seconds, it continued to gain downward velocity until disappearing from view!! (according to NIST)" Now how exactly can a local "thermal expansion" floor failure cause this?!?!
"Now how exactly can a local "thermal expansion" floor failure cause this?!?! "
I think you will find with one floor missing, or unstable, the one above, then below will soon follow .
Agian perfectly obvious..
Its a bit of a strech to call Nist dogmatic. They laid out their findings based on data that could never be exact, ow could it be. Read the fire chief's reports etc.
NO, nothing even remotely like the collapse of WTC7 has EVER happened from 'thermal expansion', before or since. It took NIST several years to conclude that thermal expansion caused the collapse, even they call it an extraordinary event without precedent, and have NO actual evidence that it occurred. But it's obvious to you?? Give me a break!! Your FAITH in the gov't has reached a new level.
yup that was 11/09/2001 when civilian jets flew into two buildings.!
who would have guessed that some would fall. Last time I visited there is one still standing, being demolished cos it is UNSTABLE. not hit by planes and no fires.? perhaps its a cover up.! nope.!
"yup that was 11/09/2001 when civilian jets flew into two buildings.!" NO!!! Absolutely NOT!! I made it VERY clear that I was talking about thermal expansion causing WTC7 to fall!!! You are clearly not interested in a real debate, yet you continue to respond...
This is what NIST says: "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires—similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings—caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of World Trade Center 7. This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires. "
congratulations. Even after coming face to face with the fact that NIST's "thermal expansion" fairy tale is unprecedented, improbable, nonsensical, NOT backed by any evidence, and is challenged by hundreds of architects and engineers... your loyalty remains unwavering. Outstanding. Make sure to respond to this just to let everyone know that you got the last word even though you don't have anything real to say. I'm done here.
dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
NIST was given authority by Congress to find out what happened. NIST certainly does NOT have adequate grounds and have NO evidence for thermal expansion to cause the collapse we all saw on video, yet they claim it as FACT.
9/11/2011 - Ten Years, No Justice
/watch?v=FxPaebHe3fw
911debunkerschannel 5 months ago
nano thermite! its game over, the official fairy tale is finished!
chronotek2009 9 months ago
Since the Jones/Harrit nanothermite paper caem out about 2 years ago, it has had zero impact in the scientific community. Instead, it sank like a stone because of its sloppy methodologies and leaps to conclusions. No one has ever corroborated that their red-grey chips are unexploded nanothermite & they've acknowledged that the energy density of the chips is too low & so conventional explosives had to also be used. So they're back to having to prove that. No demo experts agree with them.
buddyfreakinhoIIy 1 year ago
@buddyfreakinhoIIy
It has had zerop impact because noone dares to psychologically adress it. It points TOTALLY to an inside job, so the few who know about it has to either say "It was an inside job" or make up all sorts of excuses that it was found.
The nano-thermite hasn't been scientifically debunked or shown on FOX.
Thetan1974 1 year ago
The debunkers don't realise that they are the conspiracy theorists & the truthers don't realise that they are the ones debunking the official version of 9/11 which is nothing more than a trumped up ridiculous conspiracy theory that is blatantly flawed in every way.
Galv140577 1 year ago 3
LMAO. 2 planes and 3 buildings. Something is off.
thnksmarter 1 year ago
The "official" story of a group of foreign nationals commandeering 2 airplanes into the WTC which lead to the destruction of 3 buildings falling at the speed of gravity, with no one charged, and no one 'wanted' on any FBI poster for this crime, is by definition a conspiracy theory, but conveniently does not explain the presence of thermite.
Draw your own conclusion.
Wobbles619 1 year ago
There have been found nano thermite in the ruins of WTC so I am convinced.
zxcnjfrsfg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Place: Mitchell Theatre; Sydney Mechanics School of Arts, 280 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000
Cost: FREE ($10 Donation suggested on entry)
Press Conference: will be held in the Woolley Room next to venue entrance at 6:30pm
blavatsky3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Date: Saturday 17th of July, 2010
Place: Mitchell Theatre; Sydney Mechanics School of Arts, 280 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000
Cost: FREE ($10 Donation suggested on entry)
Press Conference: will be held in the Woolley Room next to venue entrance at 6:30pm
blavatsky3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lecture Time: 7-10pm
Date: Saturday 17th of July, 2010
Place: Mitchell Theatre; Sydney Mechanics School of Arts, 280 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000
Cost: FREE ($10 Donation suggested on entry)
Press Conference: will be held in the Woolley Room next to venue entrance at 6:30pm
blavatsky3 1 year ago
@blavatsky3 can someone please repost this as for some reason I am being blocked
blavatsky3 1 year ago
@blavatsky3 click see all
blavatsky3 1 year ago
@KevinMerck the people who brought the wtc down , can only come from the Pentagon and other military secret places! Niels Harrit and 8 other scientists found nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center!
Nano thermite is used ONLY by the military!!
This is sick and scary!
remember that W cooper said this 9 years ago!!
timesplitters333 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If ordinary office fires can bring down three tall steel reinforced towers on 9-11 who needs controlled demolition .....just light a match.
Buildings do not fall down from office fires.....that is negligence
Who are they trying to kid.
BUT really we already should know by now it is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
No buildings reinforced with steel have fallen before or after 9-11
suddenly into their own footprint.
Wake up people
vv vv vv dot 911oz dot c om search Building 7 or Thomas Gordon
blavatsky3 1 year ago
Nogen der ved hvordan jeg kommer i kontakt med Niels Harrit?
kenersej 1 year ago
This whole thing is so stupid, all conspiracy theories has been debunked. I'm not a fan of the us, but their goverment did not cause the collapse of these buildings.
Krygeryo 1 year ago
This would never be allowed on TV in the United States lol
BusBoyIsBack 2 years ago 2
yeah... hes a big problem to bush and his co-terrorists
zelenko2 2 years ago
@BusBoyIsBack
I agree, the guy is almost bald.
taledarkside 1 year ago
@BusBoyIsBack are you serious? why not, I'm not american so I'm just curious!
MikeLtheSoulChild 1 year ago
9/11 wasn't Al-Qaeda or the "US govt" it was the NWO, bilderberg, UN, IMF, WHO, FEMA, DHS, CFR, FBI, CIA
Check NufffRespect's "9/11 Coincidences" watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw
Am I paranoid for filming web-like chemtrails and crazy electromagnetic clouds? (my vids) :S NWO is real. Check Infowars featured articles for independent news from many sources.
TrutherD1 2 years ago
Infowars! LOL! Yeah trust Alex Jones. He has been saying the NWO is coming for over 10 years, but it's really going to happen this time! Remember Y2K? Yeah he sure hit the nail on the head with that one.
Just keep repeating yourself, that will make it true.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Ahh, you're one of those people who mistakenly reads "independent news from many sources" as "from Alex Jones himself personally - every article". It's quite common. Despite what you may believe Alex does not personally post each article. Many are from other sites. It's a news feed. I didn't say listen to his radio show.
TrutherD1 2 years ago
Oh well so does the National Enquirer. Bat boy must be real, many people write about it. Doesn't matter where it comes from initially, if it;s on Jones's site its either complete BS or has been twisted so far out of context it's turned into it.
Maybe you should think about what you just wrote next time you say something like "the government lies!".
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Who are you to assume what little news I read is swallowed like tripe? Surely there is some respect to be found among your ranks?
I don't think anybody, anywhere, has ever had the fortune of being able to say "the government lies" and be wrong.
Do you believe the "official story"? Missing black boxes and security tapes and all? Hogwash. If you fail to question and hold them accountable, you deserve what you get.
TrutherD1 2 years ago 10
LOL! Well given that the government is a collection of a couple thousand, maybe more, people such an argument is purely fallacious from the onset. It's a shortcut to thinking so one can avoid evidence without any valid argument. But thanks for closing with the argument from incredulity. Sure showed me.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
1. Apparently not. 2. N/A 3. Avoided.
TrutherD1 2 years ago
Just write "NUH UH!" next time mmmkay? Saves everyone time and its at least a realistic rendition of your argument.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
If by argument you mean a single simple question. Do you support the government story?
TrutherD1 2 years ago
No I mean the premises of your assertions. For some reason you keep dancing around the fact that they are totally fallacious. But so is the nature of the twoofer faith.
Yes, I believe "the official story"; not the strawman truthers want to think. I also believe that the Bush administration wasn't totally forth coming. However, if we follow Occam's Razor, the only rational conclusions are incompetency & opportunism. I would concede that the Bush administration should be required to answer.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
You are the anti-truth. Research Planet X and The Great Year.
TrutherD1 2 years ago
ROFL! Thanks...repeating yourself sure will make it true! Research Logic and the Scientific Method.
Keep dancing Truther.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Ahh, but your statement works both ways. :D
TrutherD1 2 years ago
Oh wow..."I know you are but what am I!?"
Not really. I can at least validate what I say.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
"I don't think anybody, anywhere, has ever had the fortune of being able to say "the government lies" and be wrong.
"
the same can be said for any organisation. Truthers do it too. there were no planes according to truthers. ?
Its not about reputations, but EVIDENCE.!
SOAS007 2 years ago
@SOAS007, There is plenty of evidence supporting the no-plane theory. I think it should be considered. Check out this whole series and tell me you don't have questions: watch?v=gBpTWYUgvcM
TrutherD1 2 years ago
"There is plenty of evidence supporting the no-plane theory"
so the flights were fabricated including everyone invoved. Where did these 'no planes' come from.? You just guess at assertions and call it evidence.
SOAS007 2 years ago
@SOAS007, All I've seen is the investigation into the footage seen on TV, as found in the series I recommended last post. Moving bridges aren't exactly normal, are they? :)
TrutherD1 2 years ago
BillBJJ78 is obviously the thought police. Do not post your own opinion or he will promptly ram his down your throat. LOL. Obvious disinfo agent.... here everyday.
TrutherD1 2 years ago
Wow...twoofers running to the ad hom card again. I'm shocked.
Can't validate your claims? Just call them a liar! It's the truther way! LOL!
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
I'm just curious..if 2 truthers disagree and they start calling each other disinfo agents/shills/liars, how do you decide who is right? Do you just go with whoever says it first?
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
BillBJJ78 - tracked 81 posts on 7 videos | 24 hours: 8 | 48 hours: 17 | 72 hours: 23 | 1 week: 81
Right on the money, Krawnikal.
TrutherD1 2 years ago
Absolutely! Don't question the truth. It's the truth! And it is because they say so!
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
AL-CIA-DUH
TrutherD1 2 years ago
9/11 wasn't Al-Qaeda or the "US govt" it was the NWO, bilderberg, UN, IMF, WHO, FEMA, DHS, CFR, FBI, CIA
Check NufffRespect's "9/11 Coincidences" watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw
TrutherD1 2 years ago
Oh you mean the guy who ends every segment with an argument for incredulity? Sounds great!
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
6.5 secounds from it starts to fall till the top hits the ground,thats free fall,. Harrit is not a crackpot my friend..
Mrperleth 2 years ago
amazing you can see the ground through all the buildings!
it starts to fall with the east mechanical penthouse. between that and its disappearance at the building line you get 15+ secs.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
the freefallcollapse of the twins and the Building 7 also give me good reason to doubt the official theory,
no 757 crashed at pentagon
no plane at shanksville
lies....lies...
important witnesses like BARRY JENNINKS disappeared
.....I'm fed up of all the attempts to evade an independant investigation
freidenki 2 years ago
"freefallcollapse of the twins and the Building 7 "
not free fall though only to 'truthers'
SOAS007 2 years ago
yes, you are right, its all lies, its one big conspriacy: all of the american government, thousands of people cover this up in order to please emperor bush and his puppet obama.
its so obvious.
no one ever dreamed of nano-termite before this guy dreamed of it. But if someone can theorize about something that will take decades to refine and produce, then CIA must have used it on a large scale 10 years ago, obviously. And if this theory is disproven then CIA must have used sub-atomic termite.
StrapOnDildoSexRulez 2 years ago
no no no! its super duper ultra bitchin micro nano thermite!
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
barry jenkins disappeared? kind of weird his family know exactly where he is given they buried him.
if the towers fell at "free fall", how did debris precede the collapses? if 7 fell at "free fall", how did it take 15+ secs?
weird no planes crashed there yet they found debris and DNA. i guess occam's razor gets suspended in truther land.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Prof. Harrit et alii have analised the dust of the pulverized wtc.
fact:
they found nanothermite, using the actual scientific methods. not paint!
ok, now I need arguments to NOT believe him.
....and not only blabla or some BS .......
freidenki 2 years ago
@freidenki go to the JREF forum.conspiracy section..you will find plenty of reasons ..
KINGKENNYTHEHOLY 2 years ago
"Prof. Harrit et alii have analised the dust of the pulverized wtc.
fact: "
did they go on site? when?
SOAS007 2 years ago
i guess peer review isn't part of the process anymore.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
SOAS007: Are you Danish? If so, your English is very good. I am hoping you can help us: have you by any chance followed Prof. Harrit in the Danish press?
If so, is there anything in his past that would lead you to question his honesty or competence?
Thanks!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
"If so, is there anything in his past that would lead you to question his honesty or competence?
"
But do you accept arguments from authority or evidence? Honest people often honestly disagree, but evidence is the key not speculations.
SOAS007 2 years ago
You are right, but I am not a professor of chemistry. I have to decide who to believe. If a man has been dishonest or shown incompetence in his professional life then I will not listen to him. However, if he has a reputation for honesty and competence in his professional life then I will listen to him and consider the evidence he presents. Academic fraud happens in the US and, I suspect, elsewhere.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Steven Jones has been criticised for the "cold fusion" debacle. However, in that case Jones was very cautious in his claims. Two shysters named Pons and Fleischmann made claims for cold fusion that they could not support. Jones was tarnished by association with them.
I am wondering if there is anything similar in Harrit's background. If not, I would tend to believe his evidence. Of course, interpretation of his evidence will probably remain a matter of debate!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
"If not, I would tend to believe his evidence."
what evidence..
evidence FOR what?
SOAS007 2 years ago
I was talking about Harrit's work on the chips recovered from the WTC dust.
IMO, the best evidence that they are something very unusual is that they ignited in the DSC at about 450 degrees C, and released energy rougly equal to what we would expect from the oxidation of aluminum combined with reduction of iron oxide.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
"evidence that they are something very unusual "
like what though?
SOAS007 2 years ago
I don't claim to know what those chips are or who made them. Harrit reported that they ignited at 451 C and released energy consistent with oxidation of Al and reduction of Fe. The reaction product was iron metal. We know the chips contained aluminum metal. All one can conclude is that an oxidation-reduction reaction took place at a low ignition temperature. Most thermite mixtures ignites at a much higher temperature.
If Harrit is telling the truth, these chips deserve to be investigated.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
"these chips deserve to be investigated"
who gave them to him.?
SOAS007 2 years ago
"who gave them to him"
The answers are in the paper in the "provenance" section.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
"the "provenance" section"
can you help me with this. Where do I find that?
SOAS007 2 years ago
Google Harrit + Bentham; download the PDF version of the paper.
Look on page 8 under the heading "Introduction" and find "Provenance". This English word means answers to the question "Who owned it and when?"
Skeptic121 2 years ago
mmmm.
"". this paper was published eight years after the 9/11 Attacks and its sample were collected over a period of a week by three different people. The samples were not collected by the authors of the paper, so there is not accountability for how the samples were collected and how they were stored between the time they were collected and when they were tested, which are topics that would come up in peer review.""
SOAS007 2 years ago
Its not about reputations either. Einstein was wrong about somethings, and even Darwin. Its about evidence. Some shysters tell the truth sometimes, and even when they don't its not always deliberate. Stick to evidence only for the claims.
SOAS007 2 years ago
Good questions, that all need careful consideration.
I think reasonable people can sit down and find a way to answer these questions and any others that may arise.
Of course, none of this will happen unless the people demand it. Over half the people want a real investigation, but they will have to force the issue like no other issue has ever been forced in the past.
Will this happen? God only knows. They may escape earthly punishment, but they will not escape God's wrath.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
There are now 777 Architects and Engineers demanding a real investigation into the events of 9/11.
More importantly, over half of the American people have serious questions about 9/11 and want a real investigation.
Any questions about the fact that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition can be answered by watching *Blueprint for Truth*. Virtually everyone who sees it comes away with the understanding that 9/11 was controlled demolition.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
"over half of the American people have serious questions about 9/11 and want a real investigation.
"
Nearly half the American people think the world is only 6,000 years old..
Arguments from evidence only please, not authority or tradition.!
SOAS007 2 years ago
Again this has nothing to do with creationism. Using strawmans are the most laaaame thing you can do in any debate and you just look stupid doing it.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
please learn what the terms you use actually mean. its called an analogy. he at not time proposed that KM was arguing about creationism, just comparing like arguments from fallacy. sadly twoofers have a hard time recognizing that their reasoning is identical to that of every other collection of nut jobs and go to great lengths to avoid recognizing the irrational premises their arguments stand on.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Sadly you criticize me over stuff you do not comprehend and it's a bit ironic you even say anything when you're grammar alone is horrific, I mean for cerial.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
LOL! so basically your argument boils down to grammar and "I am right and you are wrong!". astounding.
parting prizes are at the door.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Dude you went and dug up a 3 month old comment of mine you stupid troll, you don't even provide contingent arguments for the topic at hand, you hypocritical fool.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Actually I did. If you see above I brought up peer review.But I guess you have to be science literate.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
@BillBJJ78 You need a peer reviewed article to know that thermite can be applied in paint and melt through steel beams, when it has been experimentally proven(it's not hard to find, it's been on Jesse Ventura's new show, XD). Your ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, and lack of research are being clearly exposed now.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Yes I do. And no it wasn't. I am obviously talking to someone who has no idea how the scientific method works or its purpose. The reason academics do this is so other scientists can be validate claims and check for errors in methodology. Essentially your argument just boiled down to, well it was on the tay vay so it must be true. I saw a rabbit run through a brick wall on TV, must be real. Morons.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
@BillBJJ78 Yeah I do know how the scientific method works, if you actually took the time to look, I actually have a few video's fav'd that break it down for people like you. If you think stephen jones' compound for his "super thermite" doesn't work, then experimentally disprove it your self, that is REALLY the only scientific way to do it. The thermite heated up to over 2300C/4100F in the experiment, which is easily hot enough to melt steel, vertically or horizontally.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Like I pointed out though, this is merely all jibber jabber between us, I mean, I'm actually citing a professionally conducted experiment done by a los alamos laboratory professor, and you're just....well, I guess what I meant to say is that what you're saying is merely jibber jabber once you bring up scientific method because you have not conducted experiments that disprove/prove otherwise the conclusions that have already been laid down.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Yeah peer review is jibber jabber. trust me, I know you have no idea what science is and want its standards suspended because you know your religions can't stack up. An experiment has specific conditions and meticulously records all observations, including the result which they didn't show. In fact Van Romero says "Did the nano thermite heat the steel enough to melt it?". And they leave it at that. They never show you the effects. I don't have to disprove shit. The burden is on the claimant.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
I never once said peer review is jibber jabber. Can you please quote me here? All I basicly said was that you need a peer reviewed article when you can see the experiment done in front of you? I'm sorry you don't believe anything on TV or the internet, you must really hate the news, discovery channel, national geographic, etc.
Keep talking, it's becoming more apparent of what kind of person you are.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
I also mentioned if you want to truly debunk it, disprove it, whatever, do it in the most scientific method possible, do the same experiment, and if the results don't repeat, then you have debunked it! Einstein had many debates with Neils Bohr over quantum mechanics(classical mechanics vs quantum mechanics), but in physics/science, the only way to settle something is to do an experiment, Einstein ended up being wrong and Bohr was right.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
And? How did they validate their claims? Through the same process everyone else has to follow. It is only conspiracy quacks like yourself who run away from it because you guys know it can't stand up.
Again when your priest claims get validated then it is the job of someone to disprove. Seriously guy, you're just showing you think science should go in reverse. Jones 1 has to show he has nano thermite and 2 needs to show in a real academic forum his conclusions are correct.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Yet here you are saying that what I am saying is jibber jabber when that is what I am asking for. It's OK, I am well aware truthers are 90% of the time in full reverse.
Firstly, you are assuming what Van Romero had is what Jones has. He hasn't established that because he avoids peer review. So we have two problems. We have never seen NT do what they claim it can (they never showed the results) and 2 we don't know Jones even has it to being with because he will not get his research corroborated.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
should be "begin".
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
No, no no, what I said is that all this jibber jabber, this isn't even a debate, if this was in real life, you'd likely the one guy trying to get loud like bill o'reilly and be like, yeah well I've said more and I've been louder so I win. And yes, this is jibber jabber because I said, people got an experiment done, on your side, you're criticizing the experiment without offering to do your own, that's how science works, they proved superthermite when painted on reaches over 2300C. Disprove it.
Krawnikal 2 years ago 9
Trust me. I am well aware this is not a debate. A debate requires both sides adhere to logic, something you keep discarding.
Go ahead keep pretending what you want about what I would do. As usual a truther is replacing facts and logic with his imagination. The sad fact is that you can't demonstrate one thing so here you are constantly changing the subject and shifting the burden of proof. This might work on uneducated people, but not here.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Still not providing answers why nanothermite doesnt work, or superthermite, just the same trolling rheteric. Later.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Oh of course. Elementary logic is completely trolling rhetoric. It's not convenient to the truther religion therefore it must be. Let us know when you guys can play like big scientists...mmmkay?
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Yeah dude you're totally trolling, you've posted about this very same subject over 80 times this week. Wow, that is just a lot of time on your hands.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
So your a stalker? I think you need to start really thinking before posting.
It's ok. I know you can't handle the actual subject. So here you are changing it to me yet again. The twoof will come out! LOL!
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
I can't handle the subject? You're still ducking my questions? How does that make sense...? You're delusional, later I'm going to continue on with my non-delusional wonderful life. :D
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Sure guy. Keep making shit up. I have addressed every point you have made. I addressed why Jones research hasn't been validated (no peer review). I have addressed why Ventura's show did not demonstrate NT can do what you claim it does (no results). I have addressed how you cannot connect Van Romero's demonstration to Jones's research (still not validated). And I have repeatedly cited the 1/2 dozen fallacious arguments you endlessly employ. That it? Probably not.
watch?v=svwGRJA28lY
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
here's a pretty science web page that explains this concept that seems to be escaping you. it doesn't use too many big words so you should be ok.
machineslikeus . com / articles / BurdenOfProof1 . html
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
No experiment was done. They didn't prove anything other than it does exist. A demonstration on TV was shown w/o controlled conditions, peer review, or the results shown.
Secondly I love how you skirted the fact that Jones has never demonstrated what he found was nano thermite to begin with. Its OK little twoofer you can keep your box of stupid just stop trying to push it on others.
When you can actually deal with the facts & stop trying to play smoke & mirrors maybe you'll have something.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Religions? Dude I'm an atheist, wow you're fucking ignorant.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Wow...you sure showed me. So basically you're an atheist who can't back his nonsense up. I pray to whatever that you don;t argue with young earth creationist and evangelicals like this. People like you give the idea that there are no legitimate arguments to be had.
There are all kinds of religious beliefs. Yours just substitutes the devil with "the government" and god with "the truth". All faith based avoidance of evidence and reason. Keep dancing.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Wow...thats doubly stupid. You know how the process works, yet here you are ignoring the process of peer review and them doubling down by reversing the burden of proof. Damn..you went from 0 - dripping stupid at "free fall speed".
Why is it that truthers always say they have a grasp of subject then continue to parade their ignorance around without even going to a wiki page to vaguely make it appear they have a clue of what they are talking about?
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
"Really the only scientific way" is for Jones to validate his claims in the same forum everyone else does. He doesn't get a pass because he convinced loons & the ignorant he is trustworthy. But thanks again for backing up your claims w/ "I saw it on TV".
I'm sorry but your opinion on nano thermite is of little consequence. The reason they had to run around to get nano thermite is because regular thermite wont work like that. They claimed NT would because it would stick. But they didn't show us.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
@BillBJJ78 Wow, retard alert, NOBODY IS CLAIMING NORMAL THERMITE DOES THIS, the particles examined were not of normal thermite properties, they had trace amounts of sulfur, which accelerates the process. Also NANO thermite would mean all the crumbs of iron oxide and aluminum would be miniscule, measuring in nano meters, restricting the electrons flow(youre cutting the amount of space it has to move, which will cause it to move faster), which causes more of an energetic reaction.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Honestly I really think you don't even know the process of nano engineering, so you're criticism of nano-thermite, is practically void, hell, your whole argument is void because you haven't decided yet what your argument is even about yet! Oh man I have to admit this is funny though.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Trust me its hilarious how a guy who can;' even grasp basic scientific reasoning is trying to pretend his opinion is a good substitution for actual scientific validation. So no real science for the twoof movement then? Oh well.
Keep changing the subject guy.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Holly shit you're an idiot. In 2006 Jones wrote a paper on thermite &how he believed he had evidence of its presence at the WTC. It turned out that he found sulfur which is common in any number of household items, plus it was totally unrealistic to think it would work as it won't burn in set patterns. So in order to keep his delusions he found nanothermite & now he claims that can be used and will work; though he has never demonstrated it. Seriously, you can't be this stupid.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Jones' Paper includes use of superthermite....you retard? Have you even been to A&E for 911 truth? I don't know anything about "journal of 9/11 studies" except for that the person who headed it split after jones and him had differences, jones not accepting his wacky conclusions like nuclear missiles/lasers from space, pretty rediculous claims. However I do not think Nanothermite is a rediculous claim at all, I've already explained why it is more reactive, calling me stupid? ahaha please.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Dude...stop now. You don't even know wtf your own sources say.
In 2006 (not the april of 2009 paper, The Nano Thermite paper), Jones put out a paper contending thermite, just thermite. You just admitted you don't anything about the Jo911Studies and you're telling what the paper says. Secondly Jones split from Jim Fetzer for Scholars of 9/11 Truth, not the Jo911 Studies.
journalof911studies . com / volume / 200609 / WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse . pdf
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Youre talking about jones' old studies in 2006 because that is the most easily debunkable thing you have, the fact is, you still cannot debunk what you're talking about until you experimentally disprove it. You think it matters if a steel column is placed vertically or horizontally when it reaches over 2300C? That's 4100F and about 1400F over the temperature required for steel to melt. It's going to burn through and go downwards and burn up the rest of the structure...
Krawnikal 2 years ago
That's because, like I said you moron , I don't follow journal of 9/11 studies, I ADMITTED IT, I've taken looks at alienscientist's explanation and his best fits it, also stephen jones, they just have different materials in question. It's like you're so caught up in your own personal beliefs you'll read like the first two lines of what I say and get offended by them so much you won't read the rest and post something, which is apparent because you're still dodging my questions.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Well you're the jackass saying no one contended that thermite was used. Jones did. And his whole reason for going with nano thermite is because thermite couldn't work. But he claims NT will because it will adhere to vertical columns.
Name 1 question I have dodged. I have refuted everything you have said either through logic, real logic, or actual science based evidence and methods. Please this little subject change and strawman game of yours is getting boring.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Yes I have been to AE911 truth. A collection of idiots thinking a list replaces science. There are similar lists of scientists who don't believe in evolution. Yup...truthers took a page from the creationists. Congrats.
How you guys can follow a clown who thinks card board boxes simulate steel framed buildings is beyond me.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
You really think they'd just paint it on one column? What are you fucking stupid?
You can't explain to me why Nano thermite doesn't work
You can't explain to me why super thermite doesn't work
You keep going on about normal thermite because that's the only thing you can provide contingent arguments about, and I'm not talking about that.
Anyways I can you're just some loser on youtube because you posted a whole page of insults with no real arguments.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Man you're retarded. It is not my job to disprove something that has not been validated. Jones never demonstrated he has nano thermite. They never showed you the results of the test.Yet again you are shifting the burden of proof. Yet again you are demonstrating you are a typical uneducated twoofer. I have addressed nano thermite research which I did just now but you;ll pretend I didn't. I only explained the thermite research in relation to the NT research. Nice strawman keep dancing jackass.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
I never said they painted it on 1 column. Nice strawman idiot. And you accuse me of making up fake arguments? Delusional twoofers...you're all the same. Seriously, stop pretending you have a clue of what you're talking about and pick up a text on basic research methods. There you will find that its the researchers job to prove his affirmative correct, not the job of others to prove it wrong. You don't even get the friggin fundamentals.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Go to the Journal of 9/11 Studies (ROFL! Can't believe they thought people would buy that this is a real journal). And read "Why Indeed Did the World trade Centers Buildings Collapse". There he describes why he thinks thermite was used.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
What Jesse showed you was NT being applied to a small section of beam horizontally (because they know the reaction will not adhere to steel vertically, how the WTC columns were) & its reaction, no results. Before you guy crying that you saw something molten, thermite produces molten iron by itself.
Stop looking up the names of fallacies & throwing them around. We both know you've no idea what they mean. Youtube, prisonplanet, and Jesse Ventura's paranoia show are not research. again...morons.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
So how many more responses should I expect of you dancing around the fact that Stephen Jone's avoids getting his research validated?
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
@BillBJJ78 How else do you want the research to be validated? You guys are never happy. It's not like all steel beams are placed vertically as you imply, that is a silly statement, have you ever seen the skeleton for the building? You must be out of your mind XD.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Research should be validated int he same way every other academic has to do it.You do your research, perform the experiments, record the data, and submit ti for peer review. This is how it is done.You're pretending this is something new. It only shows you're in no way competent in this matter and just another twoofer showing his ignorance.
Seriously take your faith somewhere else and stop demanding academics put in a handicapped ramp for the twoof movement.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Too stupid for words. Steel columns are vertical. A column is innately a vertical building support. WTF do you think the building is held up by?
wearechange . org / uploaded_images / wtc-build-up-01-736018 . jpg
Semantics argument in 5,4,3,2...
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
your instead of you're, oh how I hypocritical of me, besides the point though, XD.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
wow the typo card. just as good as any other truther argument i guess.
BillBJJ78 2 years ago
Hey Kevin, Got a few Questions:
1. Who would fund this un-biased investigation and how will the the finances be channeled to ensure the system doesn't taint or manipulate research?
2. Who will elect the panel that conducts it?
3. What govt. bureaus and degree of access do you wish to obtain?
4. Finally, if the investigation turns up nothing more than the official report, will this put conspiracy theories to rest or just insinuate evidence was destroyed - imply govt. intervention etc.
CRSWinston 2 years ago
By setting the United States up to fight a "Global War On Terror", it can be assured we always have a war to go to. And by creating fear and tension here in the "Homeland", we can also have an ongoing "War On Terror" right on our own turf.
Just think, maybe someday soon we can make "depleted" uranium munitions for our own police departments. Paul Turner
wilsonpwt 2 years ago
Our Global War On Terror is putting more people in harms way. I have more fear of what our own administration will do next than what people of other countries will do to me.
The "Global War On Terror" will be mellowed out into something more like "Overseas Contingency Operations". Different players in the administration, but same game. We will also continue to have our "War On Terror" right here in the US of A "Homeland" where we can now classify and target half the population as "extremists".
wilsonpwt 2 years ago
After researching both sides of the 9/11 issue and seeing the deception behind "weapons of mass destruction", finding out that false flag attacks are more common than not, financing both sides of a war really does happen, and all the legislation which has been passed in order to "protect" us against terror, it really doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch to doubt the validity of the 9/11 NIST Commision Report. Paul Turner
wilsonpwt 2 years ago
" it really doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch to doubt the validity of the 9/11 "
best to use evidence though , rather thatn just believe..
BTW what happened to saddams wmd.! He used them b4, guess hes just gave em up eh ? naaaa
SOAS007 2 years ago
The hypothesis is the government planted bombs in the buildings, to allow us to go to Iraq, and in turn allow more wars to occur, also to pretty much strip your rights away, patriot act anybody? I don't know why you'd lump us with creationists, because creationism is just a misunderstanding of science, not really like 9/11 where-as if you beleive the official explanation, you have a misunderstanding of science. I don't feel obliged to explain it to you, if you require evidence, one word= PHYSICS
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Creationismm says, we don't accept certain bits of evolution( the official version) , even though they cannot falsify them,so by default our idea is correct even though there is no evidence to support it .
The same goes for the official version of '9/11' and the conspiracy theories/"truth" movement.
Oh and creationists like most religions user the word "truth" a lot too, but always fail to demonstate it.!
SOAS007 2 years ago
We're calling for an non-biased investigation to seek the truth, creationism already has a set conclusion and presents distorted facts to support their conclusion, which is not the scientific method. Most people against the truth movement just simply say " I don't know " when they're asked certain details about the collapse, and usually retort with an insult or a strawman that had nothing to do with the original statement. That's what I have noticed. I do not offer any theories, just questions .
Krawnikal 2 years ago
Questions, although I do see lots of motive for the collapse of the three towers, it allowed for alot of bills to pass that probably would not if we weren't scared shitless. So all in all your government are the real terrorists.
Krawnikal 2 years ago
SOAS007, since you insist on comparing this to the creationist/evolution debate, consider which side is desperately clinging to a DOGMA handed down by an AUTHORITY figure, and which side is independently investigating and questioning the OFFICIAL DOGMA. That's right, you got it backwards. Don't feel too bad, it's a common mistake. Let me guess, you like to hang out on jref.
smitty121981 2 years ago
"DOGMA handed down by an AUTHORITY figure"
nice one smitty..?
I hear creationists say the theory of evolution described as dogma handed down by 'authority'. In both cases the authority is independent, scientists with no agenda, and the creationists say goddidit like truthers say govmt did it.!
SOAS007 2 years ago
"n both cases the authority is independent, scientists with no agenda" NO! In the case of 9/11, the official DOGMA has not been from INDEPENDENT sources!! What on earth would give you that idea?? And NIST's WTC7 report requires a bigger leap of faith than any bible story I've ever read. It's complete and total nonsense!!
smitty121981 2 years ago
"report requires a bigger leap of faith"
the idea of terrorist hijacking planes. and islamists ones commiting suicide attacking their enemies requires a leap of faith? If wish you were correct. !
Most alternative scenarios to the planes suicides arn't even believed by 'troofers'.
SOAS007 2 years ago
Did you read what I wrote?? I didn't say anything about the hijackers or planes!! I was talking about WTC7, which was not hit by a plane!! NIST concluded that in WTC7:
- NO core columns were damaged by WTC1 debris
- NO core or perimeter columns were weakened in the fire
- Fire was only on 6 out of 47 floors, and NO diesel fuel!
- Computer sim of fire-based collapse did NOT match the videos
- Free fall for more than 2 sec
- But fire caused the collapse? THAT is the BIGGEST leap of faith!
smitty121981 2 years ago
"But fire caused the collapse? THAT is the BIGGEST leap of faith"
I think you will find like tWTC1/2 it has been demonstrrated to be a combination of things.. It did fall though, backwards and to the south east.!
SOAS007 2 years ago
You need to do more research. NIST says "The collapse of WTC7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires"
do NIST's findings support this though, or do we need 'faith'?
-- ordinary office fires going from cubicle to cubicle
-- fireproofing did it's job and the columns were not even weakened in the fire
-- the building was built to code
-- they have NO physical or video evidence for fire causing collapse
-- And don't forget free fall!
smitty121981 2 years ago
Free fall, only on selected pieces of footage.
what started the fires.! noting to do with the matter of wtc1 hitting in when it collapsed.!
I will research more what is said though.!
SOAS007 2 years ago
David Chandler of ae911Truth originally measured frame by frame and found that WTC7 accelerated in free fall. NIST then did a similar measurement and verified that, in fact, the building was in total freefall for more than two seconds!! They fail to explain how a fire based collapse could cause this.
As to your other point, this is what NIST says: "Other than initiating the fires in WTC7, the debris from WTC1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7"
smitty121981 2 years ago
Yup read the nist report, like you I agree, it makes sense. If you heat steel it bends ( not melts) try a paper clip and lighter. Obvious really. Also read reports by the fire chief in charge that day. no faith required
SOAS007 2 years ago
"If you heat steel it bends" NIST states that the temperature at which structural steel columns lose a "significant amount of strength" is 578C. The highest core column temperature was only 200 C!!! 200C is NOT enough for the columns to "bend" in the heat, and this is NOT what Nist is claiming either.
And did you seriously just compare a huge steel framed skyscraper with a lattice of interconnected I-beams, trusses, and other support mechanisms to a paperclip?!?!
smitty121981 2 years ago
the paperclip analogy stands. It is the same element, and it dispels the truther fallacy that it wasn't hot enough to melt steel.
The fire chief abandoned fightig the fired and ordered the building clear hours before it fell, how do you know what the temperature was? I took longer to fall than the towers. It didn't fall alltogether either which is consisitant. Some building had no fires and were left unstable too.
SOAS007 2 years ago
Comment removed
tristimulus 2 years ago
"the truther fallacy that it wasn't hot enough to melt steel." 200C is NOT hot enough to even weaken structural steel columns, let alone melt them!! That number is straight from NIST and is so low because of the fireproofing!!
To make it utterly clear what the official dogma on WTC7 says: "WTC7 did not collapse due to fire-induced weakening of critical columns" NCSTAR 1-A pg.53
smitty121981 2 years ago
"fire-induced weakening of critical columns"
but this report does say how it did happen to to heat expansion, which I learn't about in Physics @ 11 ( many years ago) So their report I agree makes sense, not sure why that is dogma. It maynot be as exciting as some x file explanation, but makes sense and fits with science as I was taught so again no faith required.
SOAS007 2 years ago
you're right, metal expands when it's hot. However, there is NO precedent for thermal expansion to cause a structural failure in a steel framed building, and NO evidence that it did in WTC7. But let's say that NIST is right about this, and thermal expansion cause a few floors to fail around one column... how exactly does this progress to the ENTIRE bulding falling straight down in free fall??? NIST simulated this and it did NOT match the videos, and they give no mechanism to allow it...
smitty121981 2 years ago
"ENTIRE bulding falling straight down in free fall??? "
it didn't. some started to fall then the other side after it lost support..
SOAS007 2 years ago
I ran out of room and you are using this as an opportunity to ignore the main point that I was trying to make by nit-picking at my semantics. Bravo. To be completely correct, I suppose I should have said, "the ENTIRE outer shell fell straight down in free fall for more than 2 seconds!! After this 2 seconds, it continued to gain downward velocity until disappearing from view!! (according to NIST)" Now how exactly can a local "thermal expansion" floor failure cause this?!?!
smitty121981 2 years ago
"Now how exactly can a local "thermal expansion" floor failure cause this?!?! "
I think you will find with one floor missing, or unstable, the one above, then below will soon follow .
Agian perfectly obvious..
Its a bit of a strech to call Nist dogmatic. They laid out their findings based on data that could never be exact, ow could it be. Read the fire chief's reports etc.
SOAS007 2 years ago
"Agian perfectly obvious.."
NO, nothing even remotely like the collapse of WTC7 has EVER happened from 'thermal expansion', before or since. It took NIST several years to conclude that thermal expansion caused the collapse, even they call it an extraordinary event without precedent, and have NO actual evidence that it occurred. But it's obvious to you?? Give me a break!! Your FAITH in the gov't has reached a new level.
smitty121981 2 years ago
"an extraordinary event without precedent,"
yup that was 11/09/2001 when civilian jets flew into two buildings.!
who would have guessed that some would fall. Last time I visited there is one still standing, being demolished cos it is UNSTABLE. not hit by planes and no fires.? perhaps its a cover up.! nope.!
SOAS007 2 years ago
"yup that was 11/09/2001 when civilian jets flew into two buildings.!" NO!!! Absolutely NOT!! I made it VERY clear that I was talking about thermal expansion causing WTC7 to fall!!! You are clearly not interested in a real debate, yet you continue to respond...
smitty121981 2 years ago
This is what NIST says: "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires—similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings—caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of World Trade Center 7. This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires. "
smitty121981 2 years ago
"This is what NIST says: "
hardly dogmatic.. It was an extrapordinary event..
SOAS007 2 years ago
congratulations. Even after coming face to face with the fact that NIST's "thermal expansion" fairy tale is unprecedented, improbable, nonsensical, NOT backed by any evidence, and is challenged by hundreds of architects and engineers... your loyalty remains unwavering. Outstanding. Make sure to respond to this just to let everyone know that you got the last word even though you don't have anything real to say. I'm done here.
smitty121981 2 years ago
"unprecedented, improbable"
that happens every day in some field.
but like creationists have come with no evidence for any other hypothesis.! Thanks for proving my point.
SOAS007 2 years ago
looolooool u are seriously stupid. u just proved ur self that ur a dickhead looooool... idiot lol.
danish786hotmailcouk 2 years ago
from Merriam-Webster's:
dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
NIST was given authority by Congress to find out what happened. NIST certainly does NOT have adequate grounds and have NO evidence for thermal expansion to cause the collapse we all saw on video, yet they claim it as FACT.
smitty121981 2 years ago
"hang out on jref"
what is jref?
SOAS007 2 years ago