@Merlin5x5 Hi mister corporate shill. It took 8 months for you make up all that bullshit to make a reply lol. And even if any of that is true, It requires none of it to make 9/11 a False Flag operation which everybody knows it was. All that has nothing to do with whether it was a FFO. What the hell are you talking about? So basically, eat shit and die and Go To Hell.
Hi mister Kooktard Bastard Conspiracy CD salesman. How does False Flag operation square up with Al Qaeda attacks on 26 OTHER nations since 1998? Did George Bush convince 26 nations to attack themselves also? You belong to the same community that denies the Holocaust, so change your name to the 911 DENIAL MOVEMENT, as it has NOTHING to do with Truth.
Ok, Personally, you are cockroach shit, small and filthy, but hey, that's from your family.
@Merlin5x5 Oh I see, 5x5 is the size of your brain in millimeters. You chumps just can't handle it when somebody tells the truth about what really happened and exposes you for the corporate ass fungus you are.
Nope, we can handle when a bunch of ill educated assholes decide they are better than the US Government without a SHRED of evidence for it. I bet you are such a drunken asshole your grandmother has to rely on checks from the government rather than you.
Better Watch it, George Bush turns out to be smarter than you, in fact, his shit is smarter than you.
@Merlin5x5 Thanks for displaying for us all what an ignorant inbred neanderthal you are by showing support for bush the war criminal and dumbest president in history and who's 37% approval rating was the lowest for any 2nd term prez in history since Truman, and who's rating plunged even lower in 2007 to only 24%. Now go back to sleep brainiac.
@Merlin5x5 Congratulations on being an assuming asshole. I never SAID I believe S. Jones. There is a lot of disinfo about 9/11 and all kinds of things going around the web and the corporate-controlled media. That doesn't mean it wasn't a False Flag Operation, which it was. Gullible? You ought to know about THAT, believing the 9/11 Coverup Commission's cartoon version of events. Grow a brain dumbass, THEN write a comment, so you won't make such a complete fool out of yourself in front of everyone
A false flag operation requires that the enemy NOT have sentenced your citizens to a FATWA of Death since 1998, Conducted Terror Attacks in 26 nations, blown up the same building in 1975, or attacked India, Indonesia, Spain, the United Kingdom on 7/7, Italy, Turkey, ISRAEL more times than I can count, or be attacking American Soldiers as we hunt these animals down.
It seems there are many who can't get their heads around the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy. They say it was too complicated to pull off and that it would take hundreds if not thousands of people involved to make it all happen. My reply to those who have their heads buried in the sand is - The Nazi death camps. How many people did it take to run all those camps? Thousands! All goose stepping along getting the job done - killing millions... Only a fool would believe it couldn't happen again.
I think anyone who wishes to swallow steven jones bullshit should read his paper entitled. "Behold My Hands: Evidence for christs visit in Ancient America" (Google it if you dont believe me) In it, your "scientist' tries to prove jesus christ walked around america and there is evidence of it in ancient peoples art. He handed in this piece of garbage for peer review as well...
keep following religious nuts who think that Believing is the same thing as knowing. I'll stick with science.......
do you guys understand that there has never been a comprehensive plot out line presented by any of these 9/11 idiots as too how any of this can be pulled off. the logistics are insane and impossible.you can just say "they planted thermite in the buildings and they fell down" tell us how,where,when,how many people were involved.(this is the biggest controlled demo in history you know). did you know the loose change guys started wiring a story about bombs in the towers a year before it happened?
if you crash two planes fully loaded with enough jet fuel to carry a HUGE plane and more than 200 passengers and cargo 2600 miles and crash it full speed into a 110 story steel building and make everything inside it burn for almost an hour at an intense heat enough to weaken THE BOLTS AND RIVETS that hold it all together (not the huge girders) the building will fall.
I dont have to tell you how, i have almost every qualified person on my side. you have about 10 kooks with supposition and fear
"that's the whole thing genius, plane fuel can not melt steel...." true but it doesnt have to melt steel . just weaken it. and weaken the rivets that hold the beams together. and the thin lightweight girders that make up the concrete floors......your 'scientists" keep bringing up the temperature where steel becomes molten. not weakens and you frightened retards just trust it.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Larry Silverstein said "pull it", demolishing WTC 7 and collecting billions in insurance. Why would the insurance company pay the claim when there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & NOT damaged by fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads?
Why doesnt Steven Jones say HOW he obtained the WTC dust samples and WHERE they were stored for the past 7.5 years?
ROFL @ FUSHION!!! It's fusion and do you realize the inherent energy and gas generation along with the substrates and plasma you must use for muon-catalyzed FUSION that are involved? They are chemical in nature, you have to use this stuff. Please search, and actually read, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. It is a detailed chemical and physical analysis which has been accepted and printed in scientific journals. READ IT!!!!!
Really so after my comment you searched this paper, found it, read it, and commented back? That's funny because at 29 years old and formal training in engineering, chemistry, and physics it took me longer than that to comprehend this report.
3 QUESTIONS for you
1. Where are the engine hole at the pentagon?
2. How can you explain, physically, 3 skyscrapers failing in global symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical plane hits?
3. Can you explain FL175 and FL11 airspeeds listed by the NTSB?
I read it last April when it first came out moron.
Refute these critiques:
Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum.
Alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C.
Ok bizzsnatch, I'll just reduce my nanothermite questions to one:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
I'll ask the question again, because I know how much 911 twoofers like NOT answering questions that refute their magic theories:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
1. Because the court decision was based on NIST and 9/11 Commission findings....which are garbage. We spent more investigating Clinton and Lewinski.
2. Right before you see molten lava from one corner of the south tower. The stricture buckles at the point demolition charges are started at the core column. This is what you see, the weakened part giving way first due to controlled demo.
3. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from 9/11 WTD Catastrophe...you wouldn't read it though.
Photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings.
DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer.
And why was the paper printed without the chief editor's review or approval?
Hey I gave up on you. If you believe that those planes caused a catastrophic global failure in those buildings and caused them both to fall in their footprints???
They painted the shit on....real easy to see this...and btw you never did explain the PHYSICS behind your little plane caused the towers to collapse theory.
Just remember those that have the power and money will use all their power and money to keep that power and money.
alternative findings??? Ok hot shot, what the hell is your problem. You're smart enuf to pull these critiques off some website because there is no way you would ask this type of question and believe the towers were brought down by the planes. If you had enuf smarts to ask this question yourself, you would have enough basic understanding to:
a. not just fire responses from whatever website you read
b. Be able to understand physics behind a global collapse.
listen if you have a degree, you should understand. buildings don't collapse like that unless you make them. however improbable the conspiracy may seem think about it. please. that's all i ask.
"The university is aware that Dr. Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of WTC buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
we are not refusing because we are afraid or blind you nutballs!! we are refusing because all you have come forward with is conjecture and supposition. you claim that ther is eveidence everywhere but also claim it all was hidden away by the same forces who engineers what would have to be the most complicated conspiracy known to man and would require at the very least 1000 americans to be trusted with the biggest secret ever created. americans cant keep secrets. especially billion dollar ones...
proof that he is incorrect comes from the 99.99% of scientists,metallyrgists and engineers actually qualified to write actual peer reviewed papers on this subject. if we allow every crackpot that gets shot down and laughed at by the scientific community in 10 seconds to act like they are being suppressed the inmates will end up running the asylum.
this is the same crap creationists are pulling. spout bullshit and then when EVERYONE says you are completely incorrect, say there is a conspiracy.
Ole Steven Jones is becoming a household name...he seems to be very genuine and his research is clearly...how can i put this....research... and that's what I like about him.
Steven jones ' 'scientific' paper before this was called "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America". In it he points to circles in what seems to be the palms of south American deities suggesting they are the hands of the crucified Jesus.. As with the WTC paper, he ignores evidence like the other circles all over the artwork to make his case.
Hes a nutball morman that believes christ existed and most of his life and walked around amerca.
Your statement is bullshit ... a total distortion of the truth ..... a lie in fact ...... which makes you a filthy dishonest hate-monger. Let me guess ..... a Bush fan as well?
was his paper called something else? i dispise bush and i fully believe that he conspired along with 5 or 6 people to hijack the emotion from a catastophe to further his own intrests and to pass the patriot act which was written 12 year+ earlier. But something like that doesnt leave massive amounts of evidence behind when executed. it doesnt leave a 1000 people who are corrupt themselves,and trust them to keep a secret that would net them 100X the cash they originally made to expose it.
This naive comment suggests they sat around a table to put this one together. They didn't need to. And who's going to talk? Who doesn't mind if he, or a member of his extended family, dies painfully? You have NO idea how deeply cynical and vicious these bastards are.
none of them wish to spent their lives in prison. why hatch a plot that leaves behind a thousand material witness as corrupt an money hungry as themselves who would kill without compunction and sell their soles for money. how does any bosy trust anybody with a secret worth billions?
and why hatch a plot that leaves behind thousands of detonators wires timers recievers bomb casings and thermite residue to encase it all in?
yeah but people who are criminal enough to kill 1000s of americans would be aware that the government would have to kill them .Even fbi and nsa would know that because they would have killed others for less.
Anyone who knowingly did this would have to suspect that they would be killed.because even if the government did pay them, the gov couldnt be sure they wouldnt rat anyway to someone the gov didnt pay off and wants to make money off the biggest secret on the planet.
fifty? to wire enough explosives to take down 2 110 story buildings and a 52 story? it would take them 2 years
And if one bomb in that 2 years was found, its all over. so, everyone would have to be bought off. or be killed off. cant fire em, thell go straight to the press "bombs in wtc!!" headlines shut down 9/11 plans pretty quick.
Any one thats approached is a liability.they must be crooked enough to kill innocents for money but noble enough to keep the secret that could net them 10x more..
1) It wasn't a safety job. 100 or so well placed charges would have been enough. And the had months. Wiring first. Charges would have placed in the last couple of weeks.
2) see above....
3) Silly point. Anyone involved would be totally tied down .... or, along with their close family, dead.
Before the cyber sniper struck, brian78045 wrote: There are four interesting articles on N O R A D at D N O T I C E (org). They are "The N***D Papers", "The N***D Papers II", "The N***D Papers III" and The N***D Papers IV. The last article (for the first time!) explains the mechanics of how N***D radar operators monitored and identified aircraft flying over American airspace.
noah0725 said: "everyone who wants to know the truth about 9/11 watch FABLED ENEMIES on you tube and you'll see that there's more to 9/11 than you think, and our own government along with Israel helped. Google deletes this movie everytime it gets re posted. Don't be blind to the truth."
Thanks for the info. Interesting video. Please also C/O The Power of Nightmares.
And you still haven't told me who "reckoned that the FBI was withholding at least 84 other surveillance tapes." Why do you keep ducking this question?
If the anti-truthers goal was obfuscation, they have in that succeeded. This whole page is one big mess. Few who are disinterested will bother to wade through all the JREF lies and 911 Truth counter points. And this is where the JREF community fails. The only ones who will look at any of this will be people who have already formulated their own positions. The unbiased will likely just watch the movie and move on, making up their own minds one way or the other.
First, Thedman, I used the referenced letter you cited several weeks ago. I read the letter, then went to the MEI report. Unlike you, I understood what Dr Jones was doing. The MEI report was cited to show (OMG- ONE MORE TIME!) that thermite could be found in residue using micro probe methodology. I knopw this is all WAY over your head, Thedman. Your poor double digit IQ just can't comprehend what Dr Jones' work is about. Are your parents cousins?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"The MEI report was cited to show (OMG- ONE MORE TIME!) that thermite could be found in residue using micro probe methodology."
But that's not at all what it shows! If you were actually able to comprehend the quote, you would see it says that the EDS ALONG WITH VISUAL EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE was used to prove the existence of thermate. So again (OMG! - AGAIN!) you are stuck with telling me how the heck visual evidence from the 1996 arson realtes to 9/11!!
For those who might be interested, MEI conducted what may be the first use of E-Probe analysis of possible thermite residue in a forensic investigation. To cooberate their data from E-Probe, they would need supporting evidence from an on site investigation. Once established by this report, E-Probe analysis can now be used independently for such work. Dr Jones correctly sited this paper to re-establish this basis, in case NIST, etal, had any heart burn with his methodology.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Nice attempt to spin it away. Nowhere in Jones' paper does he say, "Here's a forensic analysis from a different investigation that used the same methods I did", or anything of the sort. He simply throws it in, knowing full well that stupid twoofers are going to take it and run with it, like this guy:
You anti truth pukes are amazing. If you carefully read his letter, he clearly cites the MEI paper as a basis for using E-Probe analysis to reveal thermite. This is inductive reasoning. It's beyond your limited abilities.
How can I explain this to you? You've revealed that you have no clue about the scientific process. I understand that this is over your head, Thedman. Too bad, but this is how it is done in the scientific community.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Does the scientific process include not looking for other sources of your findings? Maybe you can show me in Jones' paper where he rules out drywall or diesel fuel as possible sources of the sulfur he found.
Oh Thedman, you are still trying to use that worn out ruse. I told you to read Dr Jones work and to attempt to understand why the 'dry wall' and 'diesel fuel' gimics are false. You just don't understand the physics, do you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"I told you to read Dr Jones work and to attempt to understand why the 'dry wall' and 'diesel fuel' gimics are false."
Have we ever spoken? How could you have told me anything when you just joined Youtube on Friday?
Anyhow, I've read Jones' report and the word "drywall" doesn't even appear in it. Why not? How am I supposed to learn why drywall can't be a source of sulfur if he doesn't even mention it?
Well, yes we have spoken. On this very topic about two months ago. Femaguard is an alter ego I created a couple of days ago when I encountered problems with my youtube account (said "too many posts.") I would have thought from the contest you would have figured that, but no matter. Femaguard=machstem.
Your failure to understand the basic chemistry and physics involved place this topic beyond the scope of the instruction you require.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Your failure to understand the basic chemistry and physics involved place this topic beyond the scope of the instruction you require."
So in other words, I've called your bluff on the sulfur issue, and you're too afraid to admit that Jones doesn't even try to account for other, more logical sources of his findings at all. This is your way of trying to weasel out of that. Didn't work, but nice attempt.
I can lead you to knowledge but I can't make you think. Thedman, you just don't understand what you need to in order to comprehend why Dr Jones didn't cater to your simple minded view of the world. If you refuse to even acknowledge your considerable short comings in this regard, you are beyond all hope. All you show by your persistence in this matter is your stupidity.
I suggest a remedial course fo study for you. Obtain some texts in general physics and chemistry, to start. Work up through statistical mechanics, quantum physics, solid state physics, etc into the graduate level. Then you can begin study of X-Ray Spectorscopy. Perhaps after extensive study in these areas, you will (maybe) begin to have a clue.
Don't continue to ask stupid questions like that. You show your total lack of understanding.
You've been hanging out with the JREF bunch again, haven't you. It's obvious you are incapable of original thought. Problem is, when you lift the work of others, you often fail to see their fallibilities. If you look through this document (journalof911studies * com slh volume slh 200704 slh JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC * pdf) you will find a valid explanation of why the yellow colored liquid Dr Jones describes is molten at 1000 C.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Took you hours to Google up a response, eh? Dude tells me "It's obvious you are incapable of original thought", then links me to someone else's paper. Gotta love the irony.
Anyhow, that document gave me a valid explanation as to why it could NOT have been thermate - it says the mere 2% sulfur content of thermate could not have possibly resulted in the mixture he dreams up! LOL! You're really helping your cause here.
At least I comprehended what I read, unlike the fool Thedman who rattles off pure anti-truth crap without even questioning its validity.
Your incredible lack of understanding of chemistry and physics continues to amaze: the reaction zone would for a eutectic mixture with behaviors not unlike an azeotrope. One would reasonably expect to see end members and a full range of mixtures in between.
Again, you are just too simplistic to hold an intelligent discussion with.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sure, and you can get all that from a video of the stuff pouring form the side.
You're right; I'm way too simplistic to be discussing this. Lobdill and Jones should publish their papers in Tier 1, peer-reviewed journals so they can be discussed among the global scientific community.
What? They haven't done that? Why haven't they? Certainly if they did, the behavior of the eutectic mixture in the reaction zone would be confirmed! What are they waiting for?
BTW, Thedman, most material I post here is my own. As for taking up time, it seems you disappeared for a month after our last engagement and you never did understand what I asked you to read, obvious by your continued stupid remarks.
To explain these things to you would take excessive space when a reference would do, and it's clear you don't like too many big words, so I selected one with pictures.
Well, Thedman, talking with you is like talking to my dog. She understands her name but little else. You attempt to hide your stupidity by obfuscating and pretending the response didn't asnswer the question. The answers were spot on. It's just you who don't understand. No one is ducking the truth but you.
cont'd: Since there are a 'lot of words', this may leave you clueless, but there are nice graphs (pictures you can color) but before you get your crayons, consider what those graphs point out: 31.4% sulfur/Fe will produce the molten mixture Dr Jones describes; at or below 1000 C.
Now, is it Dr Jones who is stupid, or is it Thedman? Thedman, you have only to open your mouth to show your incompetence.
There's so many shill's in these threads, like 'thedman113' and 'leftysergeant'. Just ignore them, people. You're wasting your time entering into dialogues with them. You may or may not know that the US government and the Pentagon actualy employ people to write blogs and things on the likes of YouTube to support whatever bullshit they want supporting; or to contradict anything that threatens their objectives. If anything, it serves only to confirm the legitimacy of Jones work.
You're right. Playing with them just encourages them. Still, it's fun to watch them run like a puppy with its tail between its legs when it gets nipped by one of the big dogs. Looks like Dedman113 and Leftyprivate got more than their back sides nipped.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL! You wish. I've destroyed Jones so much that he's too scared to come here and play with me, he already knows I'd blow his whole scam out of the water. If you think he's right and I'm wrong, then by all means, give me the reason why he quotes a 1996 arson investigation from the MEi website!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes, don't look at the man behind the curtain! Don't question why Steven Jones tries to pass off a 1996 arson investigation quote as being from 9/11! Just follow him blindly and don't ask questions!
And you guys call yourselves the "truth" movement... who's the one asking questions here but not getting answers? Your only response to my legit questions is to childishly bury them under thumbs down, so that no one will see them and question Jones for themselves. Pathetic.
Thedman, if you had done your homework instead of spouting rhetoric, you would have realized that Dr Jones used the 1996 arson investigation as a reference to show the validity of using microprobe analysis in search of thermite. Please don't continue to show your stupidity. It's just too painful to watch.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"you would have realized that Dr Jones used the 1996 arson investigation as a reference"
Oh he did, eh? Wrong. Let's look at the quote again:
"MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So tell me, how does conducting EDS on residue from a 1996 arson prove anything about the WTC towers? What does "visual evidence at the scene" of a 1996 arson have to do with 9/11? Why doesn't Jones specify that these results from MEi are NOT from any WTC investigation? He's not trying to mislead people, is he?
You are really that stupid? Did the person who read that report to you use too many big words? Or is it that you just try to twist the truth to fit your limited view? Dr Jones refered to the 1996 report in his letter to under line his point that E-Probe analysis could be used successfully to find thermite in a forensic investigation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The fact remains that Jones found nothing that could not have other expalnations, and he shows no other evidence that thermite was used. None. Not one fire fighter, cop, engineer, or iron worker noticed anytrhing about the steel they removed to suggest thermite.
"Other explanations"??? Pools of molten steel / iron that flowed for weeks, molten molybdenum, molten silicates, partly evaporated steel members from a building that collapsed yet was not even hit by a plane that just might have knocked off _some_ of its gypsum-based Monokote fireproofing, heavily sulfidated steel that resembled Swiss cheese, a Fe-S-Al-O spherule including sulfur without calcium, molten iron that poured from WTC2, etc. Why not go for _the_ explanation: thermate demolition?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
First off, there were no molten steel pools. Molten silicates mean nothing. If you think they do, please show me where i can find further information. The sulphidated steel from WTC 7 is acid etched and you are an idiot if you do not understand how that would happen in the presence of lead-acid batteries. That there is no calcium eliminates a wide range of thermite formulae, including damned near every one of the that would be useful in building demolitions.
Countless reports include "massive amounts of molten steel", "rivers of molten steel", "molten steel running [...] like [...] a foundry", and "steel [that] flowed in molten streams". Expert witnesses stated that the molten metal was steel; this was later confirmed by spectroscopic analysis. This molten metal was running for weeks. Hence, the amounts involved were not tiny. Building fires cannot melt steel, period. The new consortium took over the lease a mere 6 weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Expert witnesses stated that the molten metal was steel; this was later confirmed by spectroscopic analysis."
LOLOL!!! Who?? Show us! Nobody in the whole twoof movement has ever been able to produce that proof for 7 years, and now you're saying you have it? Can't wait to see it!
Alison Geyh, Ph.D., and the Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah both mentioned "molten steel". Dr Jonathan Barnett said that steel members in the WTC7 debris pile had been "partly evaporated".
The CD deniers used to claim that Dr Jones would never get 9/11 papers accepted through the peer review process, and that no structural engineers challenged the government account of "hydrocarbon fires caused collapses". The CD deniers are the new Flat Earthers!
Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Dr. Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Dr. Crockett Grabbe found an "abundance of tiny solidified droplets roughly spherical in shape (spherules) in the WTC dust samples". Many of these spherules were found to be iron-rich, indicating that iron had melted.
Jones et al have had "Fourteen Points of Agreement..." published in the Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Many of these spherules were found to be iron-rich, indicating that iron had melted."
Wrong. Iron-rich microspheres are found in normal building fires of this nature, which is why the EPA reported that they would be present in the dust after 9/11. Jones stupidly compares the percentage of microspheres in WTC dust to the percentage found in ordinary building dust WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN ON FIRE. Stupid science. And that's just one of the MANY errors with his report.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Such a fire does not melt steel."
What evidence do you have that steel needs to melt to produce such spheres? From nyenvirolaw*org:
"Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Jones et al have had "Fourteen Points of Agreement..." published in the Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal."
Is Kevin Ryan a Fire Scientist of some kind? And what is the "Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal"? You pay them money, and they'll publish your 'peer reviewed' article. LOL! Next thing you're going to tell me Jones was in the Who's Who of American College Students!
Let me know when he gets published (or heck, even SUBMITS an article) to a real peer-reviewed journal.
The people who told us that it was necessary to invade Iraq because of its 'WMDs', or Afghanistan in order to capture 'bin Laden', just pay their minions and maybe even tell them they'll get a knighthood, and they'll publish a dodgy dossier based on 'intelligence' that is 'extensive, detailed and authoritative'. LOL!
NIST can't even concoct an 'explanation' for the Building 7 collapse that the shills can believe in. In all three collapses, although the official account may claim "structural damage" as having played a part, their version must hold that regular hydrocarbon-based office compartment fires - in oxygen-depleted conditions - were the straw that broke the camel's back and effected three global collapses.
"Their final report on 7 isn't out yet, but we all certainly agree on the general mechanism."
Yes, a thermate-based demolition.
Compartment fires are not open-air fires. The stoichiometry becomes increasingly fuel-rich for areas further from the vents. That lowers the adiabatic flame temperatures and reduces the energy released per unit mass of fuel.
"Can you name the third?"
Muslim 'suicide hijackers' / 'kamikaze pilots', half of whom were later found alive.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Yes, a thermate-based demolition."
No. Thermate has never been used to demolish a building.
"Muslim 'suicide hijackers' / 'kamikaze pilots', half of whom were later found alive."
No, none were later found alive. If they were, Alex Jones would've had them on his show. Also, we've already said structural damage, I asked you to name the third. Certainly you know what you're arguing against, don't you?
"Thermate has never been used to demolish a building."
The evidence here shows otherwise.
See guardian*150m*com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive*htm re the 'hijackers'.
Sagging floors pulling perimeter columns inwards is really structural damage, or structural plus fire. Total collapse of 5 floors, or 4 if the core columns were very hot, could effect global instability by raising the core columns' slenderness ratio. But the aircraft impact damage would not have been sufficient.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"The evidence here shows otherwise."
Dude tells me I'm wrong about thermate never demolishing a building, then proves it by giving me a link to a story about the hijackers. You can't even follow your own train of thought.
Anyhow, about that article, apparently you missed the retraction from the BBC where they stated the people they found weren't the hijackers, just guys with the same names. Imagine, there's 2 Abdul Aziz's in the world! Too much for twoofers to comprehend.
You asserted thermate had never been used for building demolitions (with no evidence), then went on to discuss the 'hijackers'. The evidence for thermate demolitions is provided in speeches by Jones et al and in comments here.
One Abdul Aziz Al-Omari had the same name and birth date as one of the FBI's 'terrorists', yet could not fly. Then there was Abdul Rahman Al-Omari, slightly different name and a different birth date, but the FBI used his picture. They'd cobbled the two together. LOL!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"You asserted thermate had never been used for building demolitions (with no evidence), then went on to discuss the 'hijackers'."
I was responding to different parts of your post, which apparently was too tough for you to follow. Anyhow, thermate hasn't ever been used in building demolition, it's an uncontrolled reaction. It can't make horizontal cuts through beams. If you think it has, the burden of proof is on you to come up with an example.
"I was responding to different parts of your post"
As was I!
Thermite cutting is shown on YouTube. In any case, for hollow columns, you don't need to make cuts. Pump thermate through the access holes and it can easily raise the column temperatures to simulate "fire-induced collapse". The hollow cross-section is about ten times the steel cross-section. It only requires a thermate cross-section roughly equal to that of the steel in order to weaken it sufficiently. A little more can melt it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Thermite cutting is shown on YouTube."
Great, then you'll have no trouble giving me the link where it makes cuts across building-sized steel beams. Then you'll have no trouble showing me that it has been used to demolish buildings.
"Pump thermate through the access holes and it can easily raise the column temperatures to simulate "fire-induced collapse""
I thought they made diagonal cuts on beams? that's the standard twoofer mantra.
The hollow column approach would have worked well for the perimeter columns. Tenants had to vacate their offices for the fireproofing upgrades. Each upgraded floor had some 56 tons of fireproofing. With the average upgrade amounting to a doubling of thickness, 28 tons of FRC had to be delivered per floor.
Security: "That's the 2nd load of FRC today. You people are sure busy! Okay, take it up."
The "diagonal cuts" theory originated with Eric Hufschmid, Rupert Murdoch's nephew-in-law.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"The "diagonal cuts" theory originated with Eric Hufschmid, Rupert Murdoch's nephew-in-law."
No, the diagonal cuts theory originated with twoofers like Alex Jones, who found the photo of the firemen standing near some diagonal cuts during the cleanup and thought they had something. Now please quit ducking the issue and give me an example of a building that was demolished using thermate.
Unless you wanted to cover up the fact that the building was being demolished and make it appear like a "fire-induced collapse", it wouldn't make sense to use thermate.
Can you give me any other example of a steel-framed high-rise that collapsed in a fire (a little impact damage is acceptable)? Or better still, three that collapsed in the same day!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So the answer is no, there has never been another building demolished using thermate. Yet on 9/11 you want me to believe there were three. genius.
Another steel-framed building to collapse from fire was the McCormick Place building in Chicago.
So after two days your "thermate based demolition" has proven to be crap, and you can't validate your claims that pools of molten steel were ever found, let alone that they were proven by experts to be steel. Just like a twoofer; all talk no facts.
The McCormick Place building was on three levels - hardly a high rise. It was steel and concrete, and full of highly flammable exhibits. And back in 1967, fireproofing standards would have been comparatively lax.
In contrast, the WTC complex had undergone extensive fireproofing upgrades, it is highly unlikely that "impact damage" would have damaged sufficient fireproofing for both Towers to collapse, and there was no aircraft to "dislodge" the WTC7 Monokote MK-5 gypsum-based fireproofing.
Ah, so the Flat Earthers find that a 3-story steel and concrete building stuffed with highly flammable exhibits was once destroyed by fire in 1967, and they extrapolate that ten Arab hijackers can wrest control of two Boeing 767s, turn off the transponders, outwit the USAF, steer the planes into two steel-framed high-rises, and 3 such buildings will collapse at near free-fall speed with witnesses imagining they saw molten steel that wasn't really there but was detected by delusional physicists.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Ah, so the Flat Earthers find that a 3-story steel and concrete building stuffed with highly flammable exhibits was once destroyed by fire in 1967"
Wait a minute! That's not possible! Are you telling me that a steel framed building collapsed due to fire? But twoofers have told me for years that no steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire! Why are you contradicting them?
They mean collapsed as in global collapse. The McCormick Place building did not totally collapse. Its roof collapsed, and the roof trusses were not insulated.
nist*gov/testimony/2002/abwtc2*html
"The WTC Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role."
From FEMA's WTC Report, Appendix A:
"...prior to September 11, 2001, no protected steel frame buildings had been known to collapse due to fire."
"...the McCormick Place that burned to the ground decades ago was unprotected—an investigation revealed two violations of the building code requirements of the time: Not only was it built with inadequate protection of the structure, its combustible contents were inconsistent with the usage that was assumed in its design criteria."
The McCormick roof trusses never had fireproofing - it wasn't a case of some of it might have been "dislodged". The roof trusses spanned a greater length than the 60 feet maximum of the WTC floor trusses, and were only designed to allow for a snow load as opposed to concrete slabs and office furniture.
Designers - or users - might cut corners with a 3-story, but not a high-rise.
The entire WTC1 fire zone had been upgraded. NIST measurements showed an average thickness of 2.5" (compared to a specified 1.5"). With a standard deviation of 0.6", it was deemed to be equivalent to 2.2" of uniform thickness. Yet the building still collapsed after 102 minutes of fire.
Decades before any fireproofing upgrades, the design team had predicted that the buildings would remain standing even if hit by a jetliner that dumped all of the jet fuel inside, igniting a horrendous fire.
At the time of the study into the effects of a jetliner dumping its fuel load into the building, fireproofing standards were much lower.
Thedman implies we are supposed to believe that the designers were too stupid to imagine a jetliner just might have been loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel. The concept that a plane might be loaded with kerosene is beyond the wit of the Flat Earthers, unless they happen to see a fireball. They project their own deficiencies onto the WTC design team.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"At the time of the study into the effects of a jetliner dumping its fuel load into the building"
What study? No study of the sort for the WTC was ever found. Maybe you can produce it for us.
"Thedman implies we are supposed to believe that the designers were too stupid to imagine a jetliner just might have been loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel."
You seem too stupid to realize that when the towers were built, "jetliners" were smaller than 767s.
You seem too stupid to be capable of comparing the actual impact velocities and fuel loads of the 767s that hit the Towers with the specifications of the aircraft that the designers had allowed for.
To sum it up, Dr Jones gives more credence to the empirical evidence in the NIST report as opposed to their computer predictions, he uses a quote from a 1996 newsletter to demonstrate that NIST should have tested for thermite as such tests can be very conclusive, and for this you accuse him of being a "proven liar". You are then found to have used a quote about iron-rich spherical combustion products whilst omitting a statement about "melted iron" on the very next page of your source.
"One was an arson and the other was a plane hitting a building."
Wrong. Both involved destroying property for gain by purposely setting off thermite reactions. One just involved a house, the other included the immediate killing of nearly 3,000 people and a cover-up involving aircraft and patsies serving to manufacture a "new Pearl Harbor" event as the casus belli for invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to a massive insurance fraud.
It mentioned "melted iron", a forensic signature of thermite reactions, but impossible for a hydrocarbon compartment fire. Flame temperatures in hydrocarbon combustion are lower than temperatures attained in thermite reactions, because of all the nitrogen in the mix that also requires heating in the absence of oxygen enhancement, and due to the higher specific heats of the products H2O and CO2 compared to iron. The thermate in the hollow columns efficiently transferred energy to the steel.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"It mentioned "melted iron", a forensic signature of thermite reactions, but impossible for a hydrocarbon compartment fire"
Because melted iron can't happen any other way than with thermite.
It isn't hard to see the irony here: I have one twoofer arguing with me that the stuff pouring out of tower 2 was molten iron that was at normal fire temps, while another guy on the same video is arguing that molten iron cannot occur at normal fire temps. You guys can't get your story straight.
Since iron doesn't melt in normal building fires, an accelerant is the logical suspect here.
The thermate yields a molten iron plus sulfur mix which cools, the iron crystallizes thereby increasing the sulfur proportion in the remaining molten mix, which gives up its latent heat of fusion at ~ 1000 C when reaching the eutectic point. This temperature, the solidus, separates the melt plus crystal phase from the all crystal phase. See
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Nothing needed to "melt",steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C)
Also do you know of any Physical evidence that was found that supports your claims? you know like the MILES of detonation cord needed to blow 3 wtc buildings? No one seeing anyone plant the TONS of demolitions needed to blow these buildings? it would take months to wire. Plz.
In future you should read a little more to identify the topic of discussion. The principal issue here is not the fact that three buildings collapsed, which has been the subject of hot debate for years, but the fact that iron-rich spherules, molybdenum spherules, molten steel, partly evaporated steel members, heavily sulfidated steel, steel with a "Swiss cheese" appearance, etc, was found.
"Fireproofing upgrades" and "measuring and documenting" was carried out in the years prior to 9/11.
The authors of the RJ Lee report only 'expected' iron-rich spherules after the fact. Spherules that, they admitted, showed that iron melted. Iron should not melt in a normal building fire. So much for the "WTC fires were normal building fires" thesis.
""molten steel""
"was never found"
PhD scientists, structural engineers, firemen, etc, would disagree with you. Their reports are corroborated by molten iron filmed pouring from WTC2, partly evaporated steel members, iron-rich spheres, etc.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"PhD scientists, structural engineers, firemen, etc, would disagree with you."
then they would be wrong.
"Their reports are corroborated by molten iron filmed pouring from WTC2"
The fact that you call this molten iron with no proof completely invalidates you, and is the reason why you twoofers have never and will never be published in a Tier 1, peer-reviewed journal - you have no concept of what "proof" is.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No one know what was burning from WTC2 unless they tested it, it could be aluminum or another metal. Besides that molten metal does not equal demolitions anyways so what is your point?
Was Dr Steven Jones claim that Jesus Christ visited America ever confirmed?
Spindry96 1 month ago
THE 9/11 TRUTHER LAB REPORT, is a TOTAL FRAUD.
THE LAB on the Front Cover (S&J Scientific) in PROVO,
UTAH is just a UPS mailbox by the PROVO airport.
ALL IT TAKES to fool Truther Morons is a $25 business
licence and a $10 a month UPS STORE MAILBOX.
CALL the phone number on the front cover, it's a
prepaid cell phone for a semi-retired BYU Chem
professor, who works in his garage PT, and "borrows"
BYU chem equipment when he needs to.
Dr. Jones is a just a con artist.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
@Merlin5x5
send me a real link of a plane hitting the pentagon please
ladbroke8 10 months ago
@ladbroke8
How about pictures taken the day of the attack, OR you could send a link of your conception.
NOT everything is on YouTube video FAGGOT, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
BUILDING, PENTAGON, JASON INGERSOLL 9/11 PENTAGON PICS
dodmedia. osd. mil/ Assets/ Still/ 2002/ Marines/
Pentagon attack pics are in the upper range, ie
DM-SD-02-03900. JPEG
Merlin5x5 10 months ago
@Merlin5x5
I simply asked for a link and you were offensive. That shows where your menatality is and how credible your thoughts are.
ladbroke8 10 months ago
@Merlin5x5 Hi mister corporate shill. It took 8 months for you make up all that bullshit to make a reply lol. And even if any of that is true, It requires none of it to make 9/11 a False Flag operation which everybody knows it was. All that has nothing to do with whether it was a FFO. What the hell are you talking about? So basically, eat shit and die and Go To Hell.
73849309378 10 months ago
@73849309378
Hi mister Kooktard Bastard Conspiracy CD salesman. How does False Flag operation square up with Al Qaeda attacks on 26 OTHER nations since 1998? Did George Bush convince 26 nations to attack themselves also? You belong to the same community that denies the Holocaust, so change your name to the 911 DENIAL MOVEMENT, as it has NOTHING to do with Truth.
Ok, Personally, you are cockroach shit, small and filthy, but hey, that's from your family.
It's genetic.
Merlin5x5 10 months ago
@Merlin5x5 Oh I see, 5x5 is the size of your brain in millimeters. You chumps just can't handle it when somebody tells the truth about what really happened and exposes you for the corporate ass fungus you are.
73849309378 10 months ago
@73849309378
Nope, we can handle when a bunch of ill educated assholes decide they are better than the US Government without a SHRED of evidence for it. I bet you are such a drunken asshole your grandmother has to rely on checks from the government rather than you.
Better Watch it, George Bush turns out to be smarter than you, in fact, his shit is smarter than you.
Merlin5x5 10 months ago
@Merlin5x5 Thanks for displaying for us all what an ignorant inbred neanderthal you are by showing support for bush the war criminal and dumbest president in history and who's 37% approval rating was the lowest for any 2nd term prez in history since Truman, and who's rating plunged even lower in 2007 to only 24%. Now go back to sleep brainiac.
73849309378 10 months ago
@73849309378
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE of how stupid and gullible you are.
Take a look at Steven Jones report on Nano Thermite, the name of
the lab is "S&J Scientific". That company is a fraud, it doesn't exist
in Provo Utah, it's a semi-retired BYU professor who works in his
garage. $25 business license, and a $25 UPS store mailbox,
and you bought it. Congratulations for being an IDIOT.
S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA; Tel: 801-735-5885
Merlin5x5 10 months ago
@Merlin5x5 Congratulations on being an assuming asshole. I never SAID I believe S. Jones. There is a lot of disinfo about 9/11 and all kinds of things going around the web and the corporate-controlled media. That doesn't mean it wasn't a False Flag Operation, which it was. Gullible? You ought to know about THAT, believing the 9/11 Coverup Commission's cartoon version of events. Grow a brain dumbass, THEN write a comment, so you won't make such a complete fool out of yourself in front of everyone
73849309378 10 months ago
Clearly a False flag operation. I see the usual shill/disinfo agent/would-be-debunker nutjobs are speading their typical lies and b.s. here.
73849309378 1 year ago
@73849309378
A false flag operation requires that the enemy NOT have sentenced your citizens to a FATWA of Death since 1998, Conducted Terror Attacks in 26 nations, blown up the same building in 1975, or attacked India, Indonesia, Spain, the United Kingdom on 7/7, Italy, Turkey, ISRAEL more times than I can count, or be attacking American Soldiers as we hunt these animals down.
SO, basically, Fuck You.
Merlin5x5 10 months ago
It seems there are many who can't get their heads around the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy. They say it was too complicated to pull off and that it would take hundreds if not thousands of people involved to make it all happen. My reply to those who have their heads buried in the sand is - The Nazi death camps. How many people did it take to run all those camps? Thousands! All goose stepping along getting the job done - killing millions... Only a fool would believe it couldn't happen again.
ole9421 2 years ago
You are simply pathetic
zly81 2 years ago
I think anyone who wishes to swallow steven jones bullshit should read his paper entitled. "Behold My Hands: Evidence for christs visit in Ancient America" (Google it if you dont believe me) In it, your "scientist' tries to prove jesus christ walked around america and there is evidence of it in ancient peoples art. He handed in this piece of garbage for peer review as well...
keep following religious nuts who think that Believing is the same thing as knowing. I'll stick with science.......
randypagan 2 years ago
He is Mormon so what, the science is compelling,please try to separate his faith from his scientific work.
organiccarrotjuice 2 years ago
and dude you have no life. every comment ive seen on here is yours. quit jackin it to debunking videos and popular mechanics porno mags
666jewkid 2 years ago
do you guys understand that there has never been a comprehensive plot out line presented by any of these 9/11 idiots as too how any of this can be pulled off. the logistics are insane and impossible.you can just say "they planted thermite in the buildings and they fell down" tell us how,where,when,how many people were involved.(this is the biggest controlled demo in history you know). did you know the loose change guys started wiring a story about bombs in the towers a year before it happened?
randypagan 2 years ago
do you understand that you can't comprehensively tell me physically how those buildings fell or even begin to explain it????
the simple fact that you crash two planes asymmetrically into two 110 story buildings and they fall symmetrically perfectly straight down???
weird, i should start a demolition company...i found the cheap way to do it. common sense. stop being blinded it's soooooo easy to see.
bizzsnatch 2 years ago
if you crash two planes fully loaded with enough jet fuel to carry a HUGE plane and more than 200 passengers and cargo 2600 miles and crash it full speed into a 110 story steel building and make everything inside it burn for almost an hour at an intense heat enough to weaken THE BOLTS AND RIVETS that hold it all together (not the huge girders) the building will fall.
I dont have to tell you how, i have almost every qualified person on my side. you have about 10 kooks with supposition and fear
randypagan 2 years ago
10 kooks huh? there are over a 1,000 architechs and engineers for 9/11 truth and over 40,000,000 truthers alone
666jewkid 2 years ago 2
that's the whole thing genius, plane fuel can not melt steel....
something about :
-physics
-chemistry
-melting/boiling points
you wouldnt get it
makimski 2 years ago
You're only 18?
What the hell do you know about physics,
chemistry, & melting/boiling points?
NOTHING!
ctcole77 2 years ago
"that's the whole thing genius, plane fuel can not melt steel...." true but it doesnt have to melt steel . just weaken it. and weaken the rivets that hold the beams together. and the thin lightweight girders that make up the concrete floors......your 'scientists" keep bringing up the temperature where steel becomes molten. not weakens and you frightened retards just trust it.
randypagan 2 years ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Larry Silverstein said "pull it", demolishing WTC 7 and collecting billions in insurance. Why would the insurance company pay the claim when there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & NOT damaged by fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads?
Why doesnt Steven Jones say HOW he obtained the WTC dust samples and WHERE they were stored for the past 7.5 years?
ctcole77 2 years ago
hahaha oh my god
dust, there was only couple milion tons of it in manhattan....
wtf do you think that white thing was? gold and diamonds?
dust all over manhattan
makimski 2 years ago
Nice try sherlock.
Again we see 911 twoofers REFUSE to answer questions that challenge their magic theories.
Here's another one for you
What is Dr. Steven Jones, who is a physicist specializing in fushion, doing authoring a paper on chemistry?
Fushion = chemistry?
ROFL!
ctcole77 2 years ago
ROFL @ FUSHION!!! It's fusion and do you realize the inherent energy and gas generation along with the substrates and plasma you must use for muon-catalyzed FUSION that are involved? They are chemical in nature, you have to use this stuff. Please search, and actually read, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. It is a detailed chemical and physical analysis which has been accepted and printed in scientific journals. READ IT!!!!!
bizzsnatch 2 years ago
I did read it.
i read how the report itself says the results AREN'T conclusive.
I also read how that shame publisher printed the nanothermite (aka paint chips) paper without the chief editor's review or approval.
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 2 years ago
Really so after my comment you searched this paper, found it, read it, and commented back? That's funny because at 29 years old and formal training in engineering, chemistry, and physics it took me longer than that to comprehend this report.
3 QUESTIONS for you
1. Where are the engine hole at the pentagon?
2. How can you explain, physically, 3 skyscrapers failing in global symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical plane hits?
3. Can you explain FL175 and FL11 airspeeds listed by the NTSB?
bizzsnatch 2 years ago
I read it last April when it first came out moron.
Refute these critiques:
Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum.
Alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C.
ctcole77 2 years ago
"b. Be able to understand physics behind a global collapse."
Well bizzsnatch, do you think I have the ability to understand physics with a degree in civil engineering and over 12 years experience?
BSCE 1998 OSU
And yes, I have taken a chemistry course or two.
What education do you have to examine 911 without a moronic conspiracy bias?
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 2 years ago
Ok bizzsnatch, I'll just reduce my nanothermite questions to one:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION
NO 911 TWOOFER QUESTION DODGING ALLOWED!
ctcole77 2 years ago
I'll ask the question again, because I know how much 911 twoofers like NOT answering questions that refute their magic theories:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
ctcole77 2 years ago
1. Because the court decision was based on NIST and 9/11 Commission findings....which are garbage. We spent more investigating Clinton and Lewinski.
2. Right before you see molten lava from one corner of the south tower. The stricture buckles at the point demolition charges are started at the core column. This is what you see, the weakened part giving way first due to controlled demo.
3. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from 9/11 WTD Catastrophe...you wouldn't read it though.
bizzsnatch 2 years ago
Refute these critiques:
Photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings.
DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer.
And why was the paper printed without the chief editor's review or approval?
ctcole77 2 years ago
Probably because she didn't want to get killed.
Hey I gave up on you. If you believe that those planes caused a catastrophic global failure in those buildings and caused them both to fall in their footprints???
They painted the shit on....real easy to see this...and btw you never did explain the PHYSICS behind your little plane caused the towers to collapse theory.
Just remember those that have the power and money will use all their power and money to keep that power and money.
bizzsnatch 2 years ago
alternative findings??? Ok hot shot, what the hell is your problem. You're smart enuf to pull these critiques off some website because there is no way you would ask this type of question and believe the towers were brought down by the planes. If you had enuf smarts to ask this question yourself, you would have enough basic understanding to:
a. not just fire responses from whatever website you read
b. Be able to understand physics behind a global collapse.
uggh. I'm done with you seriously.
bizzsnatch 2 years ago
WOW bizzsnatch!
Great job at NOT addressing the nanothermite (paint chips) crituques.
A 911 twoofer dosen't answer a question? That never happens.
I thought you had all this "chemistry and physics" knowledge.
911 twoofer tactic # 1 = ask questions but refue to answer questions
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 2 years ago
listen if you have a degree, you should understand. buildings don't collapse like that unless you make them. however improbable the conspiracy may seem think about it. please. that's all i ask.
it's impossible....
bizzsnatch 2 years ago
'buildings don't collapse like that unless you make them........it's impossible.... "
Well bizzsnatch apparently it is possible.
Leading structural engineering professors Dr. Zdenek P. Bazant and Dr. Yong Zhou have proved it with SCIENCE.
And all 911 twoofer scence has Richard Gage - a guy who's biggest accomplishment is building a gym.
ctcole77 2 years ago
@ctcole77 What have they proved with science?
Funkadelic2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The university is aware that Dr. Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of WTC buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
Woodruff Miller, Dept Chair, BYU Engineering
ctcole77 1 year ago
You need to read a little more there were several opportunities
voodoojedizin 2 years ago
we are not refusing because we are afraid or blind you nutballs!! we are refusing because all you have come forward with is conjecture and supposition. you claim that ther is eveidence everywhere but also claim it all was hidden away by the same forces who engineers what would have to be the most complicated conspiracy known to man and would require at the very least 1000 americans to be trusted with the biggest secret ever created. americans cant keep secrets. especially billion dollar ones...
randypagan 2 years ago
proof that he is incorrect comes from the 99.99% of scientists,metallyrgists and engineers actually qualified to write actual peer reviewed papers on this subject. if we allow every crackpot that gets shot down and laughed at by the scientific community in 10 seconds to act like they are being suppressed the inmates will end up running the asylum.
this is the same crap creationists are pulling. spout bullshit and then when EVERYONE says you are completely incorrect, say there is a conspiracy.
randypagan 2 years ago
Ole Steven Jones is becoming a household name...he seems to be very genuine and his research is clearly...how can i put this....research... and that's what I like about him.
ikedirty318 2 years ago 3
If you're watching this video for the "unexploded thermite and molten steel found in WTC dust" story, skip ahead to parts 5 and 6.
unimoggie 3 years ago
Steven jones ' 'scientific' paper before this was called "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America". In it he points to circles in what seems to be the palms of south American deities suggesting they are the hands of the crucified Jesus.. As with the WTC paper, he ignores evidence like the other circles all over the artwork to make his case.
Hes a nutball morman that believes christ existed and most of his life and walked around amerca.
randypagan 2 years ago
Your statement is bullshit ... a total distortion of the truth ..... a lie in fact ...... which makes you a filthy dishonest hate-monger. Let me guess ..... a Bush fan as well?
sixmagpies 2 years ago 2
was his paper called something else? i dispise bush and i fully believe that he conspired along with 5 or 6 people to hijack the emotion from a catastophe to further his own intrests and to pass the patriot act which was written 12 year+ earlier. But something like that doesnt leave massive amounts of evidence behind when executed. it doesnt leave a 1000 people who are corrupt themselves,and trust them to keep a secret that would net them 100X the cash they originally made to expose it.
randypagan 2 years ago
This naive comment suggests they sat around a table to put this one together. They didn't need to. And who's going to talk? Who doesn't mind if he, or a member of his extended family, dies painfully? You have NO idea how deeply cynical and vicious these bastards are.
sixmagpies 2 years ago
none of them wish to spent their lives in prison. why hatch a plot that leaves behind a thousand material witness as corrupt an money hungry as themselves who would kill without compunction and sell their soles for money. how does any bosy trust anybody with a secret worth billions?
and why hatch a plot that leaves behind thousands of detonators wires timers recievers bomb casings and thermite residue to encase it all in?
randypagan 2 years ago
What thousands of witnesses? I believe the entire thing was done with about fifty peoples knowledge ..... at most.
sixmagpies 2 years ago
fifty? ok .
how many:
security guards were paid off?
maintenance workers?
commuters outside the pentagon to say it was a plane?
firefighters in the rubble to overlook bomb casings,timers,wires and detonators while they search for their murdered brethren?
detectives and more fbi while they search for bones to help identify their murdered friends to overlook the same?
the FAA to lie about hijacked planes?
the demo crew that helped plan?
the families that said they recieved cell phone calls?
randypagan 2 years ago
These comments are so naive as to require no retort.
sixmagpies 2 years ago 2
yeah but people who are criminal enough to kill 1000s of americans would be aware that the government would have to kill them .Even fbi and nsa would know that because they would have killed others for less.
Anyone who knowingly did this would have to suspect that they would be killed.because even if the government did pay them, the gov couldnt be sure they wouldnt rat anyway to someone the gov didnt pay off and wants to make money off the biggest secret on the planet.
naive? u r naive.
randypagan 2 years ago
fifty? to wire enough explosives to take down 2 110 story buildings and a 52 story? it would take them 2 years
And if one bomb in that 2 years was found, its all over. so, everyone would have to be bought off. or be killed off. cant fire em, thell go straight to the press "bombs in wtc!!" headlines shut down 9/11 plans pretty quick.
Any one thats approached is a liability.they must be crooked enough to kill innocents for money but noble enough to keep the secret that could net them 10x more..
randypagan 2 years ago
1) It wasn't a safety job. 100 or so well placed charges would have been enough. And the had months. Wiring first. Charges would have placed in the last couple of weeks.
2) see above....
3) Silly point. Anyone involved would be totally tied down .... or, along with their close family, dead.
Don't be so naive.
sixmagpies 2 years ago
reason why they immediately started taking garbage away.
thefullmonte2003 2 years ago
Divbeq0 3 years ago 2
Check out ZERO.Investigation.Into.911. It's an eye opener.
rocketman813 3 years ago 3
noah0725 said: "everyone who wants to know the truth about 9/11 watch FABLED ENEMIES on you tube and you'll see that there's more to 9/11 than you think, and our own government along with Israel helped. Google deletes this movie everytime it gets re posted. Don't be blind to the truth."
Thanks for the info. Interesting video. Please also C/O The Power of Nightmares.
knoppix505 3 years ago 2
Wow. KnowledgeIsLacking is over here too.
Trying to out-do everyone else for the most number of negative votes in the history of youtube.
TeleCumber 3 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
"JLaw, you should learn that you cannot simply believe everything you read in the newspapers or everything the government tells you."
So we should trust everything we read on the Internet, especially from CT sites such as what you posted:
"I would suggest visiting a forum such as WakeUpFromYourSlumber*com."
Lol, yeah ok!
KnowledgeIsPowr 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to see Steven Jones dance around the subject of why he hasn't submitted anything to a Tier 1 journal, watch this hilarious video:
watch?v=gRRfCAaEyLk
PoetryHound 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And you still haven't told me who "reckoned that the FBI was withholding at least 84 other surveillance tapes." Why do you keep ducking this question?
thedman113 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shill.
ghostfredrickj 3 years ago 9
If the anti-truthers goal was obfuscation, they have in that succeeded. This whole page is one big mess. Few who are disinterested will bother to wade through all the JREF lies and 911 Truth counter points. And this is where the JREF community fails. The only ones who will look at any of this will be people who have already formulated their own positions. The unbiased will likely just watch the movie and move on, making up their own minds one way or the other.
machstem 3 years ago 7
First, Thedman, I used the referenced letter you cited several weeks ago. I read the letter, then went to the MEI report. Unlike you, I understood what Dr Jones was doing. The MEI report was cited to show (OMG- ONE MORE TIME!) that thermite could be found in residue using micro probe methodology. I knopw this is all WAY over your head, Thedman. Your poor double digit IQ just can't comprehend what Dr Jones' work is about. Are your parents cousins?
machstem 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"The MEI report was cited to show (OMG- ONE MORE TIME!) that thermite could be found in residue using micro probe methodology."
But that's not at all what it shows! If you were actually able to comprehend the quote, you would see it says that the EDS ALONG WITH VISUAL EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE was used to prove the existence of thermate. So again (OMG! - AGAIN!) you are stuck with telling me how the heck visual evidence from the 1996 arson realtes to 9/11!!
thedman113 3 years ago
For those who might be interested, MEI conducted what may be the first use of E-Probe analysis of possible thermite residue in a forensic investigation. To cooberate their data from E-Probe, they would need supporting evidence from an on site investigation. Once established by this report, E-Probe analysis can now be used independently for such work. Dr Jones correctly sited this paper to re-establish this basis, in case NIST, etal, had any heart burn with his methodology.
machstem 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nice attempt to spin it away. Nowhere in Jones' paper does he say, "Here's a forensic analysis from a different investigation that used the same methods I did", or anything of the sort. He simply throws it in, knowing full well that stupid twoofers are going to take it and run with it, like this guy:
tinyurl*com/3fxq9r
and countless others here on Youtube.
thedman113 3 years ago
You anti truth pukes are amazing. If you carefully read his letter, he clearly cites the MEI paper as a basis for using E-Probe analysis to reveal thermite. This is inductive reasoning. It's beyond your limited abilities.
Femaguard 3 years ago 6
How can I explain this to you? You've revealed that you have no clue about the scientific process. I understand that this is over your head, Thedman. Too bad, but this is how it is done in the scientific community.
machstem 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Does the scientific process include not looking for other sources of your findings? Maybe you can show me in Jones' paper where he rules out drywall or diesel fuel as possible sources of the sulfur he found.
thedman113 3 years ago
Oh Thedman, you are still trying to use that worn out ruse. I told you to read Dr Jones work and to attempt to understand why the 'dry wall' and 'diesel fuel' gimics are false. You just don't understand the physics, do you.
Femaguard 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I told you to read Dr Jones work and to attempt to understand why the 'dry wall' and 'diesel fuel' gimics are false."
Have we ever spoken? How could you have told me anything when you just joined Youtube on Friday?
Anyhow, I've read Jones' report and the word "drywall" doesn't even appear in it. Why not? How am I supposed to learn why drywall can't be a source of sulfur if he doesn't even mention it?
thedman113 3 years ago
Well, yes we have spoken. On this very topic about two months ago. Femaguard is an alter ego I created a couple of days ago when I encountered problems with my youtube account (said "too many posts.") I would have thought from the contest you would have figured that, but no matter. Femaguard=machstem.
Your failure to understand the basic chemistry and physics involved place this topic beyond the scope of the instruction you require.
machstem 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Your failure to understand the basic chemistry and physics involved place this topic beyond the scope of the instruction you require."
So in other words, I've called your bluff on the sulfur issue, and you're too afraid to admit that Jones doesn't even try to account for other, more logical sources of his findings at all. This is your way of trying to weasel out of that. Didn't work, but nice attempt.
thedman113 3 years ago
I can lead you to knowledge but I can't make you think. Thedman, you just don't understand what you need to in order to comprehend why Dr Jones didn't cater to your simple minded view of the world. If you refuse to even acknowledge your considerable short comings in this regard, you are beyond all hope. All you show by your persistence in this matter is your stupidity.
machstem 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Again a nice attempt at weaseling out of it. Repetitive, but nice.
thedman113 3 years ago
I suggest a remedial course fo study for you. Obtain some texts in general physics and chemistry, to start. Work up through statistical mechanics, quantum physics, solid state physics, etc into the graduate level. Then you can begin study of X-Ray Spectorscopy. Perhaps after extensive study in these areas, you will (maybe) begin to have a clue.
Don't continue to ask stupid questions like that. You show your total lack of understanding.
machstem 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here's more fun Steven Jones stupidity. Regarding the molten metal observed falling from Tower 2 before it collapsed, Jones says:
"I assert that this glowing liquid metal is
consistent with flowing liquid iron from a nearby thermite reaction zone"
Then says
"The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 C"
then admits later that the melting point of steel is 1510 C! He contradicts himself! LOL! Stupid.
thedman113 3 years ago
You've been hanging out with the JREF bunch again, haven't you. It's obvious you are incapable of original thought. Problem is, when you lift the work of others, you often fail to see their fallibilities. If you look through this document (journalof911studies * com slh volume slh 200704 slh JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC * pdf) you will find a valid explanation of why the yellow colored liquid Dr Jones describes is molten at 1000 C.
machstem 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Took you hours to Google up a response, eh? Dude tells me "It's obvious you are incapable of original thought", then links me to someone else's paper. Gotta love the irony.
Anyhow, that document gave me a valid explanation as to why it could NOT have been thermate - it says the mere 2% sulfur content of thermate could not have possibly resulted in the mixture he dreams up! LOL! You're really helping your cause here.
thedman113 3 years ago
At least I comprehended what I read, unlike the fool Thedman who rattles off pure anti-truth crap without even questioning its validity.
Your incredible lack of understanding of chemistry and physics continues to amaze: the reaction zone would for a eutectic mixture with behaviors not unlike an azeotrope. One would reasonably expect to see end members and a full range of mixtures in between.
Again, you are just too simplistic to hold an intelligent discussion with.
machstem 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sure, and you can get all that from a video of the stuff pouring form the side.
You're right; I'm way too simplistic to be discussing this. Lobdill and Jones should publish their papers in Tier 1, peer-reviewed journals so they can be discussed among the global scientific community.
What? They haven't done that? Why haven't they? Certainly if they did, the behavior of the eutectic mixture in the reaction zone would be confirmed! What are they waiting for?
LOL! Just stupid.
thedman113 3 years ago
BTW, Thedman, most material I post here is my own. As for taking up time, it seems you disappeared for a month after our last engagement and you never did understand what I asked you to read, obvious by your continued stupid remarks.
To explain these things to you would take excessive space when a reference would do, and it's clear you don't like too many big words, so I selected one with pictures.
machstem 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"BTW, Thedman, most material I post here is my own"
Except for all the links?
"you never did understand what I asked you to read, obvious by your continued stupid remarks."
I like to read papers published in Tier 1, peer-reviewed journals.
"To explain these things to you would take excessive space"
Aah, more of the same ducking technique from yesterday.
thedman113 3 years ago
Well, Thedman, talking with you is like talking to my dog. She understands her name but little else. You attempt to hide your stupidity by obfuscating and pretending the response didn't asnswer the question. The answers were spot on. It's just you who don't understand. No one is ducking the truth but you.
machstem 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Typing that was way easier for you than typing what Tier 1, peer-reviewed journals Lobdill and Jones have appeared in.
thedman113 3 years ago
cont'd: Since there are a 'lot of words', this may leave you clueless, but there are nice graphs (pictures you can color) but before you get your crayons, consider what those graphs point out: 31.4% sulfur/Fe will produce the molten mixture Dr Jones describes; at or below 1000 C.
Now, is it Dr Jones who is stupid, or is it Thedman? Thedman, you have only to open your mouth to show your incompetence.
machstem 3 years ago 7
There's so many shill's in these threads, like 'thedman113' and 'leftysergeant'. Just ignore them, people. You're wasting your time entering into dialogues with them. You may or may not know that the US government and the Pentagon actualy employ people to write blogs and things on the likes of YouTube to support whatever bullshit they want supporting; or to contradict anything that threatens their objectives. If anything, it serves only to confirm the legitimacy of Jones work.
ghostfredrickj 3 years ago 9
You're right. Playing with them just encourages them. Still, it's fun to watch them run like a puppy with its tail between its legs when it gets nipped by one of the big dogs. Looks like Dedman113 and Leftyprivate got more than their back sides nipped.
SnarfLlama 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL! You wish. I've destroyed Jones so much that he's too scared to come here and play with me, he already knows I'd blow his whole scam out of the water. If you think he's right and I'm wrong, then by all means, give me the reason why he quotes a 1996 arson investigation from the MEi website!
thedman113 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, don't look at the man behind the curtain! Don't question why Steven Jones tries to pass off a 1996 arson investigation quote as being from 9/11! Just follow him blindly and don't ask questions!
And you guys call yourselves the "truth" movement... who's the one asking questions here but not getting answers? Your only response to my legit questions is to childishly bury them under thumbs down, so that no one will see them and question Jones for themselves. Pathetic.
thedman113 3 years ago
Thedman, if you had done your homework instead of spouting rhetoric, you would have realized that Dr Jones used the 1996 arson investigation as a reference to show the validity of using microprobe analysis in search of thermite. Please don't continue to show your stupidity. It's just too painful to watch.
machstem 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"you would have realized that Dr Jones used the 1996 arson investigation as a reference"
Oh he did, eh? Wrong. Let's look at the quote again:
"MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes."
thedman113 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So tell me, how does conducting EDS on residue from a 1996 arson prove anything about the WTC towers? What does "visual evidence at the scene" of a 1996 arson have to do with 9/11? Why doesn't Jones specify that these results from MEi are NOT from any WTC investigation? He's not trying to mislead people, is he?
thedman113 3 years ago
You are really that stupid? Did the person who read that report to you use too many big words? Or is it that you just try to twist the truth to fit your limited view? Dr Jones refered to the 1996 report in his letter to under line his point that E-Probe analysis could be used successfully to find thermite in a forensic investigation.
machstem 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Tell me what part of the MEi quote I gave you pertained to 9/11.
thedman113 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The fact remains that Jones found nothing that could not have other expalnations, and he shows no other evidence that thermite was used. None. Not one fire fighter, cop, engineer, or iron worker noticed anytrhing about the steel they removed to suggest thermite.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
"Other explanations"??? Pools of molten steel / iron that flowed for weeks, molten molybdenum, molten silicates, partly evaporated steel members from a building that collapsed yet was not even hit by a plane that just might have knocked off _some_ of its gypsum-based Monokote fireproofing, heavily sulfidated steel that resembled Swiss cheese, a Fe-S-Al-O spherule including sulfur without calcium, molten iron that poured from WTC2, etc. Why not go for _the_ explanation: thermate demolition?
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
First off, there were no molten steel pools. Molten silicates mean nothing. If you think they do, please show me where i can find further information. The sulphidated steel from WTC 7 is acid etched and you are an idiot if you do not understand how that would happen in the presence of lead-acid batteries. That there is no calcium eliminates a wide range of thermite formulae, including damned near every one of the that would be useful in building demolitions.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
Countless reports include "massive amounts of molten steel", "rivers of molten steel", "molten steel running [...] like [...] a foundry", and "steel [that] flowed in molten streams". Expert witnesses stated that the molten metal was steel; this was later confirmed by spectroscopic analysis. This molten metal was running for weeks. Hence, the amounts involved were not tiny. Building fires cannot melt steel, period. The new consortium took over the lease a mere 6 weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Expert witnesses stated that the molten metal was steel; this was later confirmed by spectroscopic analysis."
LOLOL!!! Who?? Show us! Nobody in the whole twoof movement has ever been able to produce that proof for 7 years, and now you're saying you have it? Can't wait to see it!
thedman113 3 years ago
Alison Geyh, Ph.D., and the Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah both mentioned "molten steel". Dr Jonathan Barnett said that steel members in the WTC7 debris pile had been "partly evaporated".
The CD deniers used to claim that Dr Jones would never get 9/11 papers accepted through the peer review process, and that no structural engineers challenged the government account of "hydrocarbon fires caused collapses". The CD deniers are the new Flat Earthers!
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't care who mentioned it, I want to know who confirmed it with spectroscopic analysis. Show us that analysis!
"The CD deniers used to claim that Dr Jones would never get 9/11 papers accepted through the peer review process"
He hasn't!
"the government account of "hydrocarbon fires caused collapses"."
That's not the government account. Like every single twoofer out there, you don't even know what the official story is.
thedman113 3 years ago
Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Dr. Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Dr. Crockett Grabbe found an "abundance of tiny solidified droplets roughly spherical in shape (spherules) in the WTC dust samples". Many of these spherules were found to be iron-rich, indicating that iron had melted.
Jones et al have had "Fourteen Points of Agreement..." published in the Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Many of these spherules were found to be iron-rich, indicating that iron had melted."
Wrong. Iron-rich microspheres are found in normal building fires of this nature, which is why the EPA reported that they would be present in the dust after 9/11. Jones stupidly compares the percentage of microspheres in WTC dust to the percentage found in ordinary building dust WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN ON FIRE. Stupid science. And that's just one of the MANY errors with his report.
thedman113 3 years ago
"Iron-rich microspheres are found in normal building fires of this nature,..."
What evidence do you have that a normal building fire can produce iron-rich microspheres? Such a fire does not melt steel.
"...which is why the EPA reported that they would be present in the dust after 9/11."
What is the quote from EPA where they say that?
Dr Jones cited MEi's statement re the potential certainty of tests for thermite compounds, to demonstrate that NIST should have tested for thermite.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Such a fire does not melt steel."
What evidence do you have that steel needs to melt to produce such spheres? From nyenvirolaw*org:
"Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents"
thedman113 3 years ago
Your source, the RJ Lee Dust Signature report for 130 Liberty St property, continues:
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel)."
So, iron melted ... in an alleged 'normal building fire'! Very interesting.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Jones et al have had "Fourteen Points of Agreement..." published in the Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal."
Is Kevin Ryan a Fire Scientist of some kind? And what is the "Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal"? You pay them money, and they'll publish your 'peer reviewed' article. LOL! Next thing you're going to tell me Jones was in the Who's Who of American College Students!
Let me know when he gets published (or heck, even SUBMITS an article) to a real peer-reviewed journal.
thedman113 3 years ago
The people who told us that it was necessary to invade Iraq because of its 'WMDs', or Afghanistan in order to capture 'bin Laden', just pay their minions and maybe even tell them they'll get a knighthood, and they'll publish a dodgy dossier based on 'intelligence' that is 'extensive, detailed and authoritative'. LOL!
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
NIST can't even concoct an 'explanation' for the Building 7 collapse that the shills can believe in. In all three collapses, although the official account may claim "structural damage" as having played a part, their version must hold that regular hydrocarbon-based office compartment fires - in oxygen-depleted conditions - were the straw that broke the camel's back and effected three global collapses.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"NIST can't even concoct an 'explanation' for the Building 7 collapse that the shills can believe in."
Their final report on 7 isn't out yet, but we all certainly agree on the general mechanism.
"in oxygen-depleted conditions "
Since when is open air an 'oxygen depleted condition'?
"were the straw that broke the camel's back "
One of the many factors, yes. Can you name the third?
thedman113 3 years ago
"Their final report on 7 isn't out yet, but we all certainly agree on the general mechanism."
Yes, a thermate-based demolition.
Compartment fires are not open-air fires. The stoichiometry becomes increasingly fuel-rich for areas further from the vents. That lowers the adiabatic flame temperatures and reduces the energy released per unit mass of fuel.
"Can you name the third?"
Muslim 'suicide hijackers' / 'kamikaze pilots', half of whom were later found alive.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Yes, a thermate-based demolition."
No. Thermate has never been used to demolish a building.
"Muslim 'suicide hijackers' / 'kamikaze pilots', half of whom were later found alive."
No, none were later found alive. If they were, Alex Jones would've had them on his show. Also, we've already said structural damage, I asked you to name the third. Certainly you know what you're arguing against, don't you?
thedman113 3 years ago
"Thermate has never been used to demolish a building."
The evidence here shows otherwise.
See guardian*150m*com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive*htm re the 'hijackers'.
Sagging floors pulling perimeter columns inwards is really structural damage, or structural plus fire. Total collapse of 5 floors, or 4 if the core columns were very hot, could effect global instability by raising the core columns' slenderness ratio. But the aircraft impact damage would not have been sufficient.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"The evidence here shows otherwise."
Dude tells me I'm wrong about thermate never demolishing a building, then proves it by giving me a link to a story about the hijackers. You can't even follow your own train of thought.
Anyhow, about that article, apparently you missed the retraction from the BBC where they stated the people they found weren't the hijackers, just guys with the same names. Imagine, there's 2 Abdul Aziz's in the world! Too much for twoofers to comprehend.
thedman113 3 years ago
You asserted thermate had never been used for building demolitions (with no evidence), then went on to discuss the 'hijackers'. The evidence for thermate demolitions is provided in speeches by Jones et al and in comments here.
One Abdul Aziz Al-Omari had the same name and birth date as one of the FBI's 'terrorists', yet could not fly. Then there was Abdul Rahman Al-Omari, slightly different name and a different birth date, but the FBI used his picture. They'd cobbled the two together. LOL!
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"You asserted thermate had never been used for building demolitions (with no evidence), then went on to discuss the 'hijackers'."
I was responding to different parts of your post, which apparently was too tough for you to follow. Anyhow, thermate hasn't ever been used in building demolition, it's an uncontrolled reaction. It can't make horizontal cuts through beams. If you think it has, the burden of proof is on you to come up with an example.
thedman113 3 years ago
"I was responding to different parts of your post"
As was I!
Thermite cutting is shown on YouTube. In any case, for hollow columns, you don't need to make cuts. Pump thermate through the access holes and it can easily raise the column temperatures to simulate "fire-induced collapse". The hollow cross-section is about ten times the steel cross-section. It only requires a thermate cross-section roughly equal to that of the steel in order to weaken it sufficiently. A little more can melt it.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Thermite cutting is shown on YouTube."
Great, then you'll have no trouble giving me the link where it makes cuts across building-sized steel beams. Then you'll have no trouble showing me that it has been used to demolish buildings.
"Pump thermate through the access holes and it can easily raise the column temperatures to simulate "fire-induced collapse""
I thought they made diagonal cuts on beams? that's the standard twoofer mantra.
thedman113 3 years ago
The hollow column approach would have worked well for the perimeter columns. Tenants had to vacate their offices for the fireproofing upgrades. Each upgraded floor had some 56 tons of fireproofing. With the average upgrade amounting to a doubling of thickness, 28 tons of FRC had to be delivered per floor.
Security: "That's the 2nd load of FRC today. You people are sure busy! Okay, take it up."
The "diagonal cuts" theory originated with Eric Hufschmid, Rupert Murdoch's nephew-in-law.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"The "diagonal cuts" theory originated with Eric Hufschmid, Rupert Murdoch's nephew-in-law."
No, the diagonal cuts theory originated with twoofers like Alex Jones, who found the photo of the firemen standing near some diagonal cuts during the cleanup and thought they had something. Now please quit ducking the issue and give me an example of a building that was demolished using thermate.
thedman113 3 years ago
Painful Deceptions, Fig. 3-5.
Unless you wanted to cover up the fact that the building was being demolished and make it appear like a "fire-induced collapse", it wouldn't make sense to use thermate.
Can you give me any other example of a steel-framed high-rise that collapsed in a fire (a little impact damage is acceptable)? Or better still, three that collapsed in the same day!
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So the answer is no, there has never been another building demolished using thermate. Yet on 9/11 you want me to believe there were three. genius.
Another steel-framed building to collapse from fire was the McCormick Place building in Chicago.
So after two days your "thermate based demolition" has proven to be crap, and you can't validate your claims that pools of molten steel were ever found, let alone that they were proven by experts to be steel. Just like a twoofer; all talk no facts.
thedman113 3 years ago
The McCormick Place building was on three levels - hardly a high rise. It was steel and concrete, and full of highly flammable exhibits. And back in 1967, fireproofing standards would have been comparatively lax.
In contrast, the WTC complex had undergone extensive fireproofing upgrades, it is highly unlikely that "impact damage" would have damaged sufficient fireproofing for both Towers to collapse, and there was no aircraft to "dislodge" the WTC7 Monokote MK-5 gypsum-based fireproofing.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"The McCormick Place building was on three levels - hardly a high rise."
Aah, ok, so steel framed buildings are capable of collapsing from fire, just not TALL ones. Got it. Makes perfect sense.
"In contrast, the WTC complex had undergone extensive fireproofing upgrades"
13 and 18 floors is "extensive"?
"it is highly unlikely that "impact damage" would have damaged sufficient fireproofing"
According to who? You? Pulling stuff out of your butt again, I see.
thedman113 3 years ago
Ah, so the Flat Earthers find that a 3-story steel and concrete building stuffed with highly flammable exhibits was once destroyed by fire in 1967, and they extrapolate that ten Arab hijackers can wrest control of two Boeing 767s, turn off the transponders, outwit the USAF, steer the planes into two steel-framed high-rises, and 3 such buildings will collapse at near free-fall speed with witnesses imagining they saw molten steel that wasn't really there but was detected by delusional physicists.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Ah, so the Flat Earthers find that a 3-story steel and concrete building stuffed with highly flammable exhibits was once destroyed by fire in 1967"
Wait a minute! That's not possible! Are you telling me that a steel framed building collapsed due to fire? But twoofers have told me for years that no steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire! Why are you contradicting them?
thedman113 3 years ago
They mean collapsed as in global collapse. The McCormick Place building did not totally collapse. Its roof collapsed, and the roof trusses were not insulated.
nist*gov/testimony/2002/abwtc2*html
"The WTC Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role."
From FEMA's WTC Report, Appendix A:
"...prior to September 11, 2001, no protected steel frame buildings had been known to collapse due to fire."
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 8
From A Tale of Fire & Steel
by Nick Moretti
October 1, 2005
"...the McCormick Place that burned to the ground decades ago was unprotected—an investigation revealed two violations of the building code requirements of the time: Not only was it built with inadequate protection of the structure, its combustible contents were inconsistent with the usage that was assumed in its design criteria."
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So what you're telling me is that unfireproofed steel can weaken and collapse in fire. Boy are you pissing off your twoofer friends.
thedman113 3 years ago
See:
911research*wtc7*net/wtc/analysis/compare/mccormick*html
for a comparison of WTC vs. McCormick.
The McCormick roof trusses never had fireproofing - it wasn't a case of some of it might have been "dislodged". The roof trusses spanned a greater length than the 60 feet maximum of the WTC floor trusses, and were only designed to allow for a snow load as opposed to concrete slabs and office furniture.
Designers - or users - might cut corners with a 3-story, but not a high-rise.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
The entire WTC1 fire zone had been upgraded. NIST measurements showed an average thickness of 2.5" (compared to a specified 1.5"). With a standard deviation of 0.6", it was deemed to be equivalent to 2.2" of uniform thickness. Yet the building still collapsed after 102 minutes of fire.
Decades before any fireproofing upgrades, the design team had predicted that the buildings would remain standing even if hit by a jetliner that dumped all of the jet fuel inside, igniting a horrendous fire.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"the design team had predicted that the buildings would remain standing even if hit by a jetliner that dumped all of the jet fuel inside"
Oh they did? Show me their reports on the fuel load and how much damage those fires would cause.
thedman113 3 years ago
At the time of the study into the effects of a jetliner dumping its fuel load into the building, fireproofing standards were much lower.
Thedman implies we are supposed to believe that the designers were too stupid to imagine a jetliner just might have been loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel. The concept that a plane might be loaded with kerosene is beyond the wit of the Flat Earthers, unless they happen to see a fireball. They project their own deficiencies onto the WTC design team.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"At the time of the study into the effects of a jetliner dumping its fuel load into the building"
What study? No study of the sort for the WTC was ever found. Maybe you can produce it for us.
"Thedman implies we are supposed to believe that the designers were too stupid to imagine a jetliner just might have been loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel."
You seem too stupid to realize that when the towers were built, "jetliners" were smaller than 767s.
thedman113 3 years ago
You seem too stupid to be capable of comparing the actual impact velocities and fuel loads of the 767s that hit the Towers with the specifications of the aircraft that the designers had allowed for.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"with the specifications of the aircraft that the designers had allowed for."
You seem incapable of realizing that this part of your sentence was negated by what I had just posted.
thedman113 3 years ago
To sum it up, Dr Jones gives more credence to the empirical evidence in the NIST report as opposed to their computer predictions, he uses a quote from a 1996 newsletter to demonstrate that NIST should have tested for thermite as such tests can be very conclusive, and for this you accuse him of being a "proven liar". You are then found to have used a quote about iron-rich spherical combustion products whilst omitting a statement about "melted iron" on the very next page of your source.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"he uses a quote from a 1996 newsletter to demonstrate that NIST should have tested for thermite"
How does the quote indicate that NIST should have tested for thermate? One was an arson and the other was a plane hitting a building.
"as such tests can be very conclusive"
From quote: "coupled with visual evidence at the scene".
"and for this you accuse him of being a "proven liar"."
Yup.
thedman113 3 years ago
"One was an arson and the other was a plane hitting a building."
Wrong. Both involved destroying property for gain by purposely setting off thermite reactions. One just involved a house, the other included the immediate killing of nearly 3,000 people and a cover-up involving aircraft and patsies serving to manufacture a "new Pearl Harbor" event as the casus belli for invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to a massive insurance fraud.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"whilst omitting a statement about "melted iron" on the very next page of your source."
Youtube won't allow me to copy entire papers into a post. But the paper said nothing about pools of molten steel.
thedman113 3 years ago
It mentioned "melted iron", a forensic signature of thermite reactions, but impossible for a hydrocarbon compartment fire. Flame temperatures in hydrocarbon combustion are lower than temperatures attained in thermite reactions, because of all the nitrogen in the mix that also requires heating in the absence of oxygen enhancement, and due to the higher specific heats of the products H2O and CO2 compared to iron. The thermate in the hollow columns efficiently transferred energy to the steel.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"It mentioned "melted iron", a forensic signature of thermite reactions, but impossible for a hydrocarbon compartment fire"
Because melted iron can't happen any other way than with thermite.
It isn't hard to see the irony here: I have one twoofer arguing with me that the stuff pouring out of tower 2 was molten iron that was at normal fire temps, while another guy on the same video is arguing that molten iron cannot occur at normal fire temps. You guys can't get your story straight.
thedman113 3 years ago
Since iron doesn't melt in normal building fires, an accelerant is the logical suspect here.
The thermate yields a molten iron plus sulfur mix which cools, the iron crystallizes thereby increasing the sulfur proportion in the remaining molten mix, which gives up its latent heat of fusion at ~ 1000 C when reaching the eutectic point. This temperature, the solidus, separates the melt plus crystal phase from the all crystal phase. See
csmres*jmu*edu/geollab/Fichter/IgnRx/BinryEu*html
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nothing needed to "melt",steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C)
Also do you know of any Physical evidence that was found that supports your claims? you know like the MILES of detonation cord needed to blow 3 wtc buildings? No one seeing anyone plant the TONS of demolitions needed to blow these buildings? it would take months to wire. Plz.
JLaw012 3 years ago
In future you should read a little more to identify the topic of discussion. The principal issue here is not the fact that three buildings collapsed, which has been the subject of hot debate for years, but the fact that iron-rich spherules, molybdenum spherules, molten steel, partly evaporated steel members, heavily sulfidated steel, steel with a "Swiss cheese" appearance, etc, was found.
"Fireproofing upgrades" and "measuring and documenting" was carried out in the years prior to 9/11.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"but the fact that iron-rich spherules,"
Which were expected to occur
"molten steel"
was never found
""Fireproofing upgrades" was carried out in the years prior to 9/11."
Not in the area of WTC2 that collapsed, thus making it moot.
thedman113 3 years ago
The authors of the RJ Lee report only 'expected' iron-rich spherules after the fact. Spherules that, they admitted, showed that iron melted. Iron should not melt in a normal building fire. So much for the "WTC fires were normal building fires" thesis.
""molten steel""
"was never found"
PhD scientists, structural engineers, firemen, etc, would disagree with you. Their reports are corroborated by molten iron filmed pouring from WTC2, partly evaporated steel members, iron-rich spheres, etc.
exposedeceivers 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"PhD scientists, structural engineers, firemen, etc, would disagree with you."
then they would be wrong.
"Their reports are corroborated by molten iron filmed pouring from WTC2"
The fact that you call this molten iron with no proof completely invalidates you, and is the reason why you twoofers have never and will never be published in a Tier 1, peer-reviewed journal - you have no concept of what "proof" is.
thedman113 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No one know what was burning from WTC2 unless they tested it, it could be aluminum or another metal. Besides that molten metal does not equal demolitions anyways so what is your point?
JLaw012 3 years ago