lol. soo....scientists will say anything. true. but then you immediately say, why didn't they send the samples to "respected" scientists? haha.
if you would like to debate the physical evidence i'd be happy to. if you have a better theory to explain the forensic evidence then be my guest, i'd be interested to hear it.
otherwise you're just another trash talking coward with absolutely no argument beyond "it wasn't published in a respected journal."
@junior00bacon00chee The RESIDUE of thermite has even been published by officials like the US Geo Survey. Even BEFORE Harrit et al. published their findings. Frédéric Henry-Couannier independently confirmed the presence of the red-gray chips. Check out the huge amount of dust Harrit et al. had received recently. It is shown at the Toronto hearings... Best wishes!
awesome, i was not aware that they had received some recently, thanks for the tip! also, a guy named mark basile (i think he is a chemist) studied the chips a comfirmed some of the results of harrit et al. leading him to form the same basic conclusions. he is featured in the new architects and engineers for 9/11 truth movie.
@junior00bacon00chee Mark Basile is great, but he did not publish his findings (except in video testimony). I premiered the ESO raw cut in Hamburg with around 50 attendees. After watching it, not one believed that the hijackers and OBL were alone responsible for the three strange 'collapses'.
The point of these video is: AE911,Scholars ect. aren't experts, they are truthers who just so happens to have credentials. Experts use their profession to get a real job, not push 911 conspiracy theories for a fat pay check (Gage gets paid fucking well).
I'm sorry, people ignoring genuine science and spewing bile as their only point of argument belong in the creationist camp, where they can be free to live in their ignorance and being laughed at.
I came across something interesting about the building of the trade towers. Apparently, thermite (or what ever it really would be in this case) is used to weld metal.
Another interesting thing I heard. Once you use thermite, you'll always be able to find traces of it, no matter how much time goes by.
The point? Any discovery of thermite would be more likely to be there because of the building of the towers, not their destruction.
Problem I have is every time I see someone talking about this, it's mixed between one of three names, thermite, thermate, and nano-thermite. Seems like it really depends on who you talk to. So I just give up on trying to figure out which kind the truthers want to declare brought the buildings down. After all, in the end, none of them are meant to bring down a building, but that's never bothered them. Sorry for being lazy but this conversation has gone on too long.
@stbays "it's mixed between one of three names, thermite, thermate, and nano-thermite"
Thermite is a wide range of compounds. Thermate is a variation of diferumtrioxide thermite mixed with sulfur. Nano-thermite is a high-tech nano-energetics compound, a version of thermite mixed on a sub-nano scale.
All three are different and have different propeties: thermite is your average incendiary, thermate melts steel due to eutectic function, and nano-thermite is an explosive.
@stbays The leading theory is presense of nano-thermate due to scientific discovery of its residue in the post-collapse ash coupled with FEMA's analysis of high sulfidation, as well as presence of unusual residues and molten metals at the site and in the air quality assessments.
This is technically heavy, so feel free to ask for clarification. Takes a bit of knowledge on that subject.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think "nano-thermite" officially exist. Yes I'm aware that doesn't mean it couldn't have been cooked up in some secret government tech lab, but it does force me to take everything revolving around this theory with a grain of salt. That's just how I am. I can't change my personality to be more agreeable just because. Sorry.
@stbays "Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think "nano-thermite" officially exist."
It's not something an average person would know about, if that's what you mean. Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, NIST, and many other laboratories' research into it is public record, however. I would recommend papers by Tillotson, et al (from 1998 onward) for scientific merits of the mixture.
It's not secret, but it's not something you can buy anywhere.
I could also tell you about the merits of nano-machines. Sadly they aren't real, not yet any ways. At least, not officially.
I'd like to call myself a skeptic. I don't toss out anything because of it's source, but I don't accept it for the same reason. I listen and I try to learn.
As for reading any papers, it'd help if I can find a version I can load onto my Kindle. I'm going blind in my right eye.
Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble figuring this out given some time and research. That's how it was for me.
"I'm going blind in my right eye."
Sucks. But, not to worry, given a decade or two we'll all be jammed into The Matrix, where it doesn't matter. :p
If Kindle loads PDF, look up "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". It's highly technical, but it's the original paper.
I saw the single celled simple motor nano-machine, but it can't do what the dream promises, which is the ability to repair damage on a nano level. Oh for the future that is not here yet... (I'm a day dreamer, dreaming my life away).
I'll find that pdf and see if it'll convert to a text file. That way my kindle can read it. Helps me stay focused. My mind isn't what it used to be. I blame diabetes.
@stbays The important thing, we're not giving up on researching it just because it didn't turn out exactly as planned yet.
Good luck, I'm sure you'll figure it out. Frankly you're the most level-headed and intelligent person I've talked to for the last few months in this place.
Oh, also, if it's not in progressive stage, I'd recommend looking up what "ASD" is, somewhere in the region of early Soviet Union. For what a "conspiracy nut"'s advice is worth, anyway.
@SexyMelon (Oh and, I'm sure Monsanto's lobbying efforts into subsidizing cornstarch industries has nothing to do with the endemic of diabetes and the larger host of nutritional problems in US and the world at large, but that's another subject altogether.)
@stbays "I just hope nano-machines can cure things like diabetes, cancer, and aids."
I'm sure there are easier ways to do this. Namely, good diet and condoms, in that order. Unfortunately due to the way our society is built no one is interested in either of them, so...
In your case... Well, there might be something out there already, just outside of the public's eye. If not, well, I assure you, life sucks anyway.
I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on the following video. Seems like it has a lot of information in it I haven't heard any where else.
@stbays An overly complicated and increasingly unlikely purely hypothetical explanation to a counter-intuitive event with no proof to go with it, much like the rest of the official conspiracy theory. Sounds terrible to me. The honest thing to be not to concoct such theories, and just to say passport "somehow" got there.
@stbays Oh and, to be fair, I can't comment on the passports and such due to lack of evidence, similarly to Pentagon.
However I do know the person who oversaw their findings - because, you know, first thing you do at a site like WTC collapse is look for hijacker's papers - was Bernard Kerik, NYPD, currently in jail on, I think, four dozen accounts of corruptions and conspiracy, who was also one of six or so people who told us there were "no explosives" on day one, so that's interesting.
I always try to find new theories, cause in a good investigation, the first theories are not always the right ones.
Plus I have always believed that the events of that day were far more complex then what it seems, thus while I don't believe it was an inside job, I have supported the call for further investigations just so everything can be understood.
@stbays "I always try to find new theories, cause in a good investigation, the first theories are not always the right ones."
That's pretty much what a skeptic would do. ;)
I would personally suggest sticking with evidence rather than theories, however.
Oh and, with the "investigations" we got, it's an honest thing to do regardless of what you believe. Unfortunately, honesty, skepticism, and resistance to brain-washing have never been humanity's strongest so point, so most people don't.
I always try to see both sides of the debate. However there is one thing I've been missing. It's the theory behind why the government would want to do this. I've heard "to go to war with Iraq", but all the press conferences I'd heard about that just kept talking about the WMDs (no surprise they never found any of course).
So I'm left wondering on that. Any good crime should have a motive.
Yeah, I kind of felt part of that original comment could've come across as rude and it wasn't my intention. So to avoid that, I just deleted it and rewrote a comment I felt reflected what I meant.
@stbays "It's the theory behind why the government would want to do this."
That's easy. Replace the "government" - who's "government" anyway? - with corrupt people with their own economical and political interests, and you'll arrive at the answer in minutes.
Oh yeah, 9/11 was technically a pre-text to Afghan invasion and numerous internal legislations, Iraq (and soon Iran) just rode the well-established terrorist scare.
"Some times my fingers work faster then my brain."
I just had to go through that other video and hit the "not spam" button for your comments. Not sure why some people think marking comments as spam is a great way to win a debate.
I can't deny, individuals can be dangerous and greedy. I guess my problem is when I try finding the theories on motive, it's always mixed in with theories of "FEMA death camps" and other things so far out there, it's hard to swallow.
I've seen it happen before, people will just hit the spam button instead of trying to respond. And it's not limited to one side of the debate or the other. Both sides do it. I just do my best to counter their actions.
My time spent working retail has shown me the best and worst of people. Well almost all. I'm sure a few avoid the harsh lights.
@stbays "I guess my problem is when I try finding the theories on motive, it's always mixed in with theories of "FEMA death camps" and other things so far out there, it's hard to swallow."
Oh it will be. It's a "conspiracy theory", remember? Who's going to cover that in a serious manner? You'd be crazy to do that on your news-show, that's for sure. Doesn't help that a lot of honest people are genuinely crazy either.
Honestly I would suggest Zeitgeist as introduction material.
...It's just another Internet documentary, it's not always right, but it's the best introduction you'll get on the subject, going from personal experience. It lays things out quite clearly...
/watch?v=j312HjsxQZE
...And, unlike most documentaries these days, with TONS of back-up information. The companion guide is like 200 pages, that's transcript and direct sources.
Seeing as you're one of the more reasonable people I've met on the net lately, I will ask you if I have any questions, though I'll probably send it as a PM instead of a comment on this video. I'm sure much more of these back and forths and KJC24 might just block us both.
As long as it doesn't involve Alex Jones, I'm probably willing to give it a shot. However I won't watch that one guy cause I really have caught him in the act of spreading misinformation and as of yet, I haven't seen him apologize for it.
@stbays "As long as it doesn't involve Alex Jones, I'm probably willing to give it a shot."
I don't really know this guy, but he does sound like an asshole, or just another FOX reject. I don't think he's in the film. At least he's in no authority to give any information.
He's, well, some might say a "leader" for the truth movement, though that's like saying Bush was the leader of the Free world.
His Y2K broadcast was where I spotted his misinformation. It was filled with so much bad reporting and what I suspect was purposefully misleading information, I wouldn't doubt he was trying to start riots.
@stbays "He's, well, some might say a "leader" for the truth movement, though that's like saying Bush was the leader of the Free world."
That's exactly right. If we're talking about "leaders", I'd go more with Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, John Cole... Actually a dozen other people... You know, actual researchers.
I know Alex Jones as the face of all things "conspiracy", but, well, I don't watch anything from him. At least not until he gives out sources.
I'm so glad you didn't list Simon Shack, Mr "Nose in Nose out". That guy and Alex shouldn't be allowed to speak for anyone.
And you hit the nail on the head. I haven't ever heard AJ cite his sources. Even when he tries, often times, he doesn't do anything to verify the sources he does have, so he'll declare some overly protected train yard a "fema death camp".
Steven Jones, he wasn't the cardboard box guy was he?
@stbays "I'm so glad you didn't list Simon Shack, Mr "Nose in Nose out"."
Oh fuck that guy so much.
I often hear suspicions within the movement that all these "missile pod" and "no plane" "theories" are actually deliberate disinfo or cointel campaigns against the movement, seeing how pervasive they are, yet how very few people actually seem to believe them. I don't exclude the possibility myself, but then again, I don't underestimate human stupidity either.
@stbays It's called "logic", isn't it? Just follow the trail of evidence and in the end, whichever one has to change their beliefs, we'll both arrive at the same point.
Oh and, pardon me for ignoring the request, I'm actually rather anti-social. Nothing personal, you're a nice guy. :p
@stbays ...You'll find most repitable "truther" sites often aggressively debunking that kind of nonsense, by the way. 911research also has a rather delightful constructive critique of Loose Change also if you're interested, at least as far as I remember.
I really can't speak about Alex Jones, I just know nothing about the guy. I didn't ever hear him cite any sources though, yeah. I usually follow a trail of evidence rather than popular media, it's that much more rewarding.
Dylan "I wanna be a movie director" Avery? I hope if there ever is a witch hunt to root out the obvious misinformation dealers, he is right next to Alex Jones. It would be interesting to see how the real truthers view that "documentary" called Loose Change (I sure hope my distaste for that film is showing through).
@stbays "Dylan "I wanna be a movie director" Avery?"
Yeah. I gather Loose Change is actually rather respectable work for a couple of college students, but still very rubbish overall, especially in the "no planes" department. I haven't watched it, don't think it has anything I don't know anyway. I don't know how other "truthers" treat the film, but I do know most treat "no planes" as utter nonsense.
At least he did a lot of good by interviewing Barry Jennings: /watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI
Actually Loose Change doesn't push the No Planes theory. However the fun fact about it is, it started out as a pure work of fiction. It was later when Dylan "realized" his vision contained more truth then he thought, so instead of starting from scratch, he just turned it from fiction to documentary. There in lies the problem. His "truth" is mixed in with his "fiction" and sorting the two out is a challenge.
@stbays "Actually Loose Change doesn't push the No Planes theory."
I guess I REALLY didn't watch it then.
"It was later when Dylan "realized" his vision contained more truth then he thought, so instead of starting from scratch, he just turned it from fiction to documentary."
Seriously? Wow.
Actually that's kind of reminiscent. I never thought there was a seed of truth to 9/11 "conspiracies" before I bothered to, you know, check to make sure.
Oh yeah, I also suspected from day one that the buildings were blown up - and if you read through day-one interviews, that's pretty much what everyone thought - and honestly waited for Bush to announce terrorists snuck explosives into the building (turns out they did once before, too).
I think only a few months later I forgot all about that and laughed at "conspiracy theorists" just like everybody else.
For some odd reason, when I first saw it happening, my first thought was "Are they going to collapse?". I really didn't think they'd stand, but I am an odd person. It could just be the writer in me who sees the worst case before the average person.
If you ask me, Dylan would've been ok if he'd just started over with his film, instead of pushing forward.
There's a clip going around Youtube where Dylan and the other creators admit the film "draws conclusions not supported by the facts" and a few other lines which translate to "We mixed the truth with lies for entertainment".
It really hurt their credibility even after they went and made new versions, cutting some things and adding others.
@stbays I really shouldn't comment on Loose Change, I know very little about it. It was never on my "to-trust" list anyway.
"For some odd reason, when I first saw it happening, my first thought was "Are they going to collapse?"
Wait, you mean, a rhetorical question?..
Personally I though nothing would happen, seeing how the buildings are essentially just lead bricks. I remember some fire-fighters at the scene though part above the impact would fall off. Most didn't suspect anything at all.
For some odd reason, when I saw the explosion, the scaring on the building, and the large amounts of smoke, my mind immediately wrote a scenario where the buildings would collapse. Granted, just because my mind shows me something, doesn't mean it'll happen. I've imagined my dog breaking through the windows and mauling the mailman. Never seems to actually happen.
I think the over all effect of being in the Jobcorps had me thinking negative thoughts that day.
@stbays Well, it's just intuition. I meant to bring up the example of how many people thought it would never collapse as an example of how suggestive we are in spite of our own judgment. I know I certainly went though it.
Oh yeah, also, one of these aforementioned...
"Early on, looking at the buildings, my personal immediate belief was
that the top of the building was going to slide off of the south tower because damage that
That was definitely in my mind. The top portion sliding off and doing all sorts of damage. Frankly just about anything that could or even couldn't have happened went through my mind that day.
@stbays Portions of it sliding off seems like a possibility to me still, but not much earlier. I don't think I could ever imagine the physics of what happened according to OCT, seeing that it contradicts pretty much everything I know about momentum.
At the very least I know potential energy is, as function of gravity, cannot be infinitely multiplied to allow any object to both fall at near free-fall and crush thousands of tons of steel at the same time, without any change in acceleration.
To be honest, I've never accepted the "free fall" theory. One reason was the debris cloud was falling faster then the collapse, which to me, seems to indicate there was resistance. Maybe there should've/could've been more resistance, but the debris is what I'd consider a free fall speed.
Then it always seems like when I see someone doing a timer, it stops before the building is completely collapsed, or in the case of WTC7, doesn't start with the collapse of the penthouse.
@stbays "To be honest, I've never accepted the "free fall" theory."
A what now?
"One reason was the debris cloud was falling faster then the collapse"
Heh. Not quite: watch?v=eXSHm3CdHf4
"Free-fall" itself is actually a red herring: not only is it impossible in presence of, you know, air, but no explosive demolitions occur at free-fall either.
Well, except WTC7, I'd speculate due to demolition of reinforced CIA headquarters: /watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
@stbays "doesn't start with the collapse of the penthouse"
Velocity and acceleration aren't measured with a timer. Also, starting the clock with things like that make about as much sense as throwing the green light the moment you ignite a racecar: during any explosive demolitions, charges and/or deconstruction takes place long before the final blast.
I think it's explained in one of the videos I just linked, too.
I'll check them out, but if they're long, I'll probably just download them for later viewing. My eyes and head are killing me atm. Seems to happen when I reach a fatigued stated, though why, I don't know.
@stbays "My eyes and head are killing me atm. Seems to happen when I reach a fatigued stated, though why, I don't know."
Yeah, that's how being tired feels. :p
Do check out Chandler's videos: he's just a highschool teacher, but he has enough expertise to show up a multi-million federal investigation (also in the links, I think), and you can't really argue with physics.
@theBartone9119 Not even close, not in a single report. Did you actually bother to check? Did you actually bother to check out Chandler's reports and articles? Are you ok yourself?
I should also mention I heard about it before I saw it.
I was in the RA's office when I heard about it and at the time, we were telling bad jokes, so we almost didn't believe it was real.
Later when I was in the security class (teaching us how to be security officers), we spent the day watching the live reports and taking notes. Well I took notes. No one else did.
I might add this, I have often suspected the government let it happen. I've seen a lot of evidence to support this point of view, especially how several people knew it would happen before it happened. I know that same logic can be applied to the more traditional "made it happen" theory as well.
My diabetes is genetic, as my father and his father had it. Just found that out last year though. I'm in very good condition consider how out of control my blood sugar is.
@stbays "I might add this, I have often suspected the government let it happen"
Well, the corporate lobbyists have always naturally rallied to subsidize their cheap mass-produced goods, it's kind of obvious at this point. But I'm sure someone will call it a "conspiracy theory" anyway.
"My diabetes is genetic, as my father and his father had it"
Sucks. Still, a little exercise and good diet will still leave you in better health than most "healthy" people, if you're interested.
@stbays "none of them are meant to bring down a building"
They're not, but they can, which is why Komatsu have patented and employed thermite cutter charges since '98. Nano-thermite, however, isn't suitable... It's *ideal*. It's an explosive and an incendiary engineered to cut through steel like butter. If you have access to this kind of technology and you want to do this sort of project, it's the best.
Oh, and it's relatively silent and has little shock-wave, useful for covert demolitions.
Every video I've seen, either trying to prove or disprove this point, has ended in failure, so if you've got any videos I may have missed, I'd happily review it.
@stbays "Every video I've seen, either trying to prove or disprove this point, has ended in failure, so if you've got any videos I may have missed, I'd happily review it."
This couldn't possibly be more vague.
You said you don't even know the difference between thermite compounds, so any place is a good place to start... If you have the patience, this is the most exhaustive video I remember: /watch?v=D6Xokos-7V0&
However you'd do better just reading the relevant material. Or the paper.
I'm sorry but I don't have a spare 1 1/2 hours today to watch that video. Plus I'd like one that isn't sponsored by the truth movement, no offense intended. I'm sure it'd be hard to find an unbiased source. As for the link you did provide, I'll download it and give it some time when I have time to give.
I'm mainly interested in seeing someone use thermite to destroy a steel structure. So far every video I've seen attempting this has shown failure.
As for which is used to weld, it's thermite. but like I said, the average truther seems to shuffle between the three names. I've hit a point where I almost don't even care about all this drama any more. Give me a few more months and I won't even bother watching anything new videos as they haven't brought a new "fact" forward in a long time.
@stbays "As for which is used to weld, it's thermite."
Thermite welding isn't used in construction, it's only use is to repair train-tracks and such. However we're talking decades difference between construction and destruction, there would be no residue left... But even then, that's ordinary thermite, not nano-energetic compound which is what was found.
You should really study the case properly if you're admitting you're confused. This IS kind of important.
While I can not confirm my sources (just being honest), what I've read is once thermite is used at a site, it's residue does not dissipate. My background is not in chemistry, so I won't try to pass myself off as having much more then a basic understanding of this subject.
@stbays "While I can not confirm my sources (just being honest)"
You have my respect for that.
"it's residue does not dissipate"
Yes, considering it's just iron. There is, however, you know, dust and wind.
More importantly, any residue - if even thermite was used for some reason - remaining from construction would be minute, whereas Fe/Al accounted for a good 5% of those huge dust-clouds you've probably seen from 9/11. That's not even "residue", really.
The compounds found were dust particles of aluminium right? I can't recall the other parts they found, but I do remember thinking how much of it was materials used to make office furiture, dry wall, and plenty of other common items one would find in a building like the WTC. Can it be determined that none of the cloud came from those sources? Or rather how much of the cloud could not be attributed to those common items?
@stbays "Can it be determined that none of the cloud came from those sources?"
Most of the dust was dry-wall and concrete, I believe. It's easy enough to distinguish these contaminants in a dedicated study like what Jones or... I forget, whoever was tasked with environmental study... This isn't really an issue.
"I'm sorry but I don't have a spare 1 1/2 hours today to watch that video."
Fair enough. Then read the paper itself or its overreview.
@zenoist2 Get an education you idiot. WTC 7 Took almost 13 seconds to COMPLETELY collapse. Twoofers cut out the part in the video where the east pent house falls (The begining of the collapse)
Here's the full video, which twoofers are too scared to show, because it automatically kills there whole "Free-Fall Speed" Bull Shit.
@911TruthersAreLiars NIST admit to 2,5 seconds of free-fall and 6 seconds of total collapse sequence in their NCSTAR report. Do a little research beyond shitty YouTube videos like this.
@stoobradley Debunking the debunkers is always just a joke, it just helps truthers feel better about being debunked, it doesn't actually mean anything lol
@theBartone9119 "It doesn't matter that "debunkings" are actually bullshit, I'm not even going to bother to check why they're wrong. Prejudice is all I need."
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
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?
Why won’t Dr. Steven Jones release the “rigorous non-critical” peer review comments offered by David L. Griscom regarding his nanothermite paper?
Why won't Dr. Steven Jones let independent scientists test his dust samples?
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
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?
Why won’t Dr. Steven Jones release the “rigorous non-critical” peer review comments offered by David L. Griscom regarding his nanothermite paper?
Why won't Dr. Steven Jones let independent scientists test his dust samples?
Dr. Niels Harrit (in an interview you cn Google): "Yes. A copy (of the Bentham nanothermite study) has actually been sent to FBI. I am not in a position to give a full account of the response, but as I recall, it was surprisingly receptive." (FBI does not comment on ongoing investigations.)
I love how when you guys mention Jesse the Wrestler, instead of saying the wrestler, you go back 40 yrs to when he was a Navy Seal. While still admirable, what he did was carry out hydrographic surveys in South Vietnams coastal waters and did not qualify for the Combat Action Ribbon because he was NEVER in combat. Again, it's not to put Jesse down, but you guys seem to think he knows some deep inside information because he was a Navy Seal and act like he was a War Hero. Thats not the case at all
The Combat Action Ribbon is for those who were under enemy fire. Jesse volunteered and was assigned to dangerous areas and situations where he could have been fired upon. The Viet Cong were probably too afraid to fire on him.
"Being published in a vanity journal with no peer review just doesn't cut it..."
The Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal. So the relevant paper was peer-reviewed. The "vanity" remark seems nothing more than a baseless ad hominem attack on the evidence at hand.
correct, it was peer reviewed that they never got a match--page 25 admits--to nanothermite.
So even if the criticisms of the paper are false. Even if the criticisms of the Journal is false, the paper ITSELF does not support the thermite claim.
There has not been a lick of proof that this paper was peer-reviewed by anyone. Even the editor in chief knew nothing about it. Considering that part of the journal was hardly bustling with activity, isn't it extremely suspicious that someone with that authority in the journal was not made aware of this paper and it's frankly bizzarre claims?
So Jones nor Harrit still haven't offered up their "nanothermite" to ACTUAL EXPERTS?
Shooting themselves in the foot with this silence...
It is only her claim that she, the "editor in chief knew nothing about it." Since when are claims taken as fact at JREF? Or is it only when they suit your needs, eh NISTER? All that smack talking on JREF, LOL! Neither you nor your heroes at JREF have anything to show for your faith in the official story. Why not submit your paper at Bentham? I hear it's really easy, LOL! All you have is retards like Edge parroting themselves. Show me global collapse theory peer reviewed please or STFU!
Then if it's legitimately peer-reviewed, what are they afraid of? Why won't they try for other more well known and respected journals? Why won't they show their samples to respected institutions and experts? Why are they content with being published in one obscure pay-to-play journal?
Most of all, why are the experts not talking about it or even aware of it?
You keep saying" pay to play" like it helps your argument. For your information, almost half of "respected journals" offer this service. Either the reader or the publisher pay. Why doesn't NIST compare their dust samples, as Jones has requested through email? Since when does awareness of a scientific paper (or theory for that matter) have anything to do with the scientific content and its validity? How does this negate the science? More hand waving from you, Mr. Fudd. Surprise, surprise.
Well I'm not saying ALL open source pay-to-play journals are bogus... but I'm saying if there is any type of journal Jones and his band of 9/11 whackjobs could get published in, it would be that.
The problem is, nobody finds it convincing. The media, chemists and EVEN skeptics don't know about it. If it had any scientific credibility it would not be gathering dust and I would have expected to see evidence of Jones putting it out there for REAL experts.
Did you ask for the Global collapse theory peer reviewed?
It has been peer reviewed by NIST, MIT and the ASCE's 125,000 structural engineers. Look it up!
In case you are bad at math, 125,000 is more than 9. And for the record, the 9 authors are not all engineers or scientists. They all also just happen to be truthers that believe most aspects of the conspiracy and had their conclusions drawn before they ever started a single test.
As for Bentham, yes the editor in chief resigned over this issue, not to mention that the leading author's (Harrit) co-worker Nils O. Andersen just happened to be on the editorial advisory board when the paper was published. He has since resigned as well
Neither the editor nor Anderson objected to the science of the paper. Editor Marie-Paule Pileni resigned saying she was not asked (but it is her job as Editor to know what is going on right?) to get a job with a conservative university doing military sponsored research in nanotechnology. Anderson stated his resignation was not related to the article and has no objection to its methodology.
From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingrediants of thermite." It also explodes. So what is it? exploding nano sized thermic paint?
If your pizza contains aluminum and iron oxide which performes an exothermic reaction then I would call it a thermitic pizza. Seriously your analogy is stupid.
Again, paint chips. Tell me about these exploding paint chips.
Hello Mr. Fudd I was wondering when you were going to speak up, How's getting water for JREFies working out for you? Have you got anything new to parrot from your hero Mackey or just the same lame argument(better than edge)?
"a highly energetic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."
Again Mr. fudd your cartoon speculations don't stand up to peer-reviewed now do they. Where is the zinc/magnesium, name an exploding paint, LOL!!
Why don't you submit for peer-review you coward? Prove your half-baked debunking by submitting it to Bentham. What are you "pussies" waiting for? How long has this paper been out for? And the best you have is it doesn't look like nano-thermite and fart jokes. How fuckin' scientific, LOL! Now go get Mackey some water, you lemming.
As I said in the video. Being published means nothing in a pay to play journal... especially when the article has sparked ZERO debate in the actual science it claims to be part of... which is why I see no evidence of peer-review.
It would be an insult to consider the twoofers who wrote the paper to be considered peers of those in that scientific area... but even if they are, what is Jones and Harrit doing about being ignored?
6."From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingrediants of thermite."
7."As measuured usind a DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation of a known super thermite sample."
Now it is your turn, you say it's paint, prove it.
Just b/c the paper in question doesn't attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite found in the dust it somehow refutes the whole paper? Even though many important if not definitive charcteristics have been shown to match nano-thermite.
That is like discovering a new bird species and saying they're not birds b/c you can't match them to a species already know.
Most importantly the paper has been "peer-reviewed" which makes it empirical proof, including its conclusion.
Nope, the better analogy is if your neighbor is murdered and the cops find finger prints all over the house
Keeping in mind that (because people dont wear gloves at home, loads of fingerprints will be there naturally.
Now the cops say "we never actually tried to match the prints to PRIM. But hey! its fingerprints. Prim has fingers, Why would we need to match it? it has to be him!
Just b/c you think the red/grey chips (which have been proven to be a form of nano-thermite through a peer-reviewed process) are paint does't make it so my slow little "debunker". Your analogy is completely flawed due to the fact that nano-thermite is a sophisticated (US) military explosive, not paint on your walls in your home. It isn't found in any buildings, like fingerprints would be in someone's house, LOL! Try again Edge, your post are lame.
spinning so hard in a circle he has screwed himself into the ceiling. LOLOL.
The anaology is 100% correct, since military grade nanothermite ::giggle:: would have specific chemical signatures--ie FINGERPRINTS--that would separate it from paint chips.
They admit it. They never matched the prints.
Ooops.
So, any luck finding the page where they state as FACT they matched it exactly to nanotherite?
Keeps repeating yourself, your sad. You and your debunking has failed. You don't know how science is done, I can't help you with that. You know nothing when it comes to thermite cause if you did you would now lIke Harrit et. al. that when you find Aluminum and iron oxide and it performs an ex thermic reaction it is thermite. When aluminum and iron oxide are intimately mixed imbeded in an organinc matrix and explodes when ignited, it's nano-thermite. You are just not smart enough to know.
Do you know that NIST heated the paint to 800 C and it didn't ignite or explode. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. 2005. p434.
Since the chips ignite at 430 C they are definitely not the primer paint that NIST says was on the beams. Please provide one citation, just one that it's paint.
Desperation is starting to set in, eh debunker? LOL! Do you know that real scientists have looked over the paper and none have said that b/c they don't directly match the red/grey chips to known nano-thermite refutes the paper. Just b/c you watched star wars doesn't make you a scientist. Try again, first read the paper, start with the title, LOL! So, did you know that NIST tested WTC paint? Or are you going to pretend that they didn't. Run debunker, run, LOL!
Yes military grade thermite(nano-thermite) have specific chemical signature that is how they came to their conclusion that it's nano thermite, are you retarded or are you just pretending, LOL! Please just one citation which shows it's paint come on debunker, debunk. So far you're not doing very well.
How many times can you repeat your flawed argument? A lot I'm sure. You have to prove that it's paint, I'm not going to take your word for it, LOL! Just b/c they don't match it doesn't stop it from exploding, LOL! You have yet to prove that it's not nano-thermite. GO.
It is the way you are iterpreting the paper that is flawed, but you know this. Btw I'm still waiting for that source that says active thermitic material(which explodes) is just paint and is a result of a building collapse. Exploding paint, LOL! you're a Mark Roberts tool.
Yeah I'm sure you read the Bible literally as well.
So, do you think that if you submit for peer-review all you have to do is show them the statement "We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present" and this would refute the paper in question? Do you think you would pass? Keep in mind that their paper has passed with that statement included. So exploding paint, LOL!
Is this the best you have "cherry picking" Do you realize that you make debunkers look bad. If you were to post this crap on a JREF site they would tell you to leave b/c your poor understanding of science and how science works or even how expirements are reproduced is very obvious.
Please tell me about the exploding paint theory again, talk about fairy tales.
You say you don't cherry pick. Since you have read the entire document what due you get out of their conclusion:
"we conclude that the red layer of the red/grey chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material." Their final conclusion mean to you. Will you answer the question or will you run away as usual.
Come on girl, you're letting team debunker down. What do you say about their final conclusion, how do you or any other debunker get paint chips I'll never know. The red/grey chips explode at the same temp. as nano-themite and you think it's paint why?
The first time I heard of the 9/11 nano thermite report, I tried to get a
copy directly from the "S&J Scientific" Laboratory mentioned on the report.
Turns out the LAB DOESN'T EXIST, lol. The report was basically cobbled
together by Steven Jones and a BYU semi-retired chem professor.
WTC, ADDRESS AND PHONE OF S&J SCIENTIFIC
S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA; Tel: 801-735-5885
The phone number is answered by a voicemail message for Steven Jones.
Ask him "What happened to S&J Scientific?"
Merlin5by5 3 weeks ago
Wtf
zakquack 3 months ago
If you want to see a sensible video on this topic including numerous unbiased expert testimony watch:
watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ&feature=channel_video_title
Zooney1 3 months ago
@Zooney1
AE911Truthers are definitely NOT unbiased and I have doubts about their expertise based on what I've seen from them.
NWOisBS 2 months ago
lol. soo....scientists will say anything. true. but then you immediately say, why didn't they send the samples to "respected" scientists? haha.
if you would like to debate the physical evidence i'd be happy to. if you have a better theory to explain the forensic evidence then be my guest, i'd be interested to hear it.
otherwise you're just another trash talking coward with absolutely no argument beyond "it wasn't published in a respected journal."
junior00bacon00chee 6 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee The RESIDUE of thermite has even been published by officials like the US Geo Survey. Even BEFORE Harrit et al. published their findings. Frédéric Henry-Couannier independently confirmed the presence of the red-gray chips. Check out the huge amount of dust Harrit et al. had received recently. It is shown at the Toronto hearings... Best wishes!
RummelsdorfLabs 4 months ago
@RummelsdorfLabs
awesome, i was not aware that they had received some recently, thanks for the tip! also, a guy named mark basile (i think he is a chemist) studied the chips a comfirmed some of the results of harrit et al. leading him to form the same basic conclusions. he is featured in the new architects and engineers for 9/11 truth movie.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Mark Basile is great, but he did not publish his findings (except in video testimony). I premiered the ESO raw cut in Hamburg with around 50 attendees. After watching it, not one believed that the hijackers and OBL were alone responsible for the three strange 'collapses'.
Cheers
RummelsdorfLabs 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The point of these video is: AE911,Scholars ect. aren't experts, they are truthers who just so happens to have credentials. Experts use their profession to get a real job, not push 911 conspiracy theories for a fat pay check (Gage gets paid fucking well).
theBartone9119 7 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 7 months ago
Pathetic.
I'm sorry, people ignoring genuine science and spewing bile as their only point of argument belong in the creationist camp, where they can be free to live in their ignorance and being laughed at.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
I came across something interesting about the building of the trade towers. Apparently, thermite (or what ever it really would be in this case) is used to weld metal.
Another interesting thing I heard. Once you use thermite, you'll always be able to find traces of it, no matter how much time goes by.
The point? Any discovery of thermite would be more likely to be there because of the building of the towers, not their destruction.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "Apparently, thermite (or what ever it really would be in this case) is used to weld metal."
You don't know what was discovered but you know whatever it is you don't know is used to weld metal.
Magnificent. It's like rationalizations for the lazy man.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Problem I have is every time I see someone talking about this, it's mixed between one of three names, thermite, thermate, and nano-thermite. Seems like it really depends on who you talk to. So I just give up on trying to figure out which kind the truthers want to declare brought the buildings down. After all, in the end, none of them are meant to bring down a building, but that's never bothered them. Sorry for being lazy but this conversation has gone on too long.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "it's mixed between one of three names, thermite, thermate, and nano-thermite"
Thermite is a wide range of compounds. Thermate is a variation of diferumtrioxide thermite mixed with sulfur. Nano-thermite is a high-tech nano-energetics compound, a version of thermite mixed on a sub-nano scale.
All three are different and have different propeties: thermite is your average incendiary, thermate melts steel due to eutectic function, and nano-thermite is an explosive.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@stbays The leading theory is presense of nano-thermate due to scientific discovery of its residue in the post-collapse ash coupled with FEMA's analysis of high sulfidation, as well as presence of unusual residues and molten metals at the site and in the air quality assessments.
This is technically heavy, so feel free to ask for clarification. Takes a bit of knowledge on that subject.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think "nano-thermite" officially exist. Yes I'm aware that doesn't mean it couldn't have been cooked up in some secret government tech lab, but it does force me to take everything revolving around this theory with a grain of salt. That's just how I am. I can't change my personality to be more agreeable just because. Sorry.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think "nano-thermite" officially exist."
It's not something an average person would know about, if that's what you mean. Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, NIST, and many other laboratories' research into it is public record, however. I would recommend papers by Tillotson, et al (from 1998 onward) for scientific merits of the mixture.
It's not secret, but it's not something you can buy anywhere.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I could also tell you about the merits of nano-machines. Sadly they aren't real, not yet any ways. At least, not officially.
I'd like to call myself a skeptic. I don't toss out anything because of it's source, but I don't accept it for the same reason. I listen and I try to learn.
As for reading any papers, it'd help if I can find a version I can load onto my Kindle. I'm going blind in my right eye.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "I listen and I try to learn."
Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble figuring this out given some time and research. That's how it was for me.
"I'm going blind in my right eye."
Sucks. But, not to worry, given a decade or two we'll all be jammed into The Matrix, where it doesn't matter. :p
If Kindle loads PDF, look up "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". It's highly technical, but it's the original paper.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon On that note, Journal of 9/11 Studies also has quite a lot of similar scientific material on the subject... Obviously enough.
"I could also tell you about the merits of nano-machines. Sadly they aren't real, not yet any ways."
Nano-machines are already in prototyping phases, actually.
But, anyway, look up the sources I mentioned. Nano-thermite has been studied for at least a decade now. It's real enough.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I saw the single celled simple motor nano-machine, but it can't do what the dream promises, which is the ability to repair damage on a nano level. Oh for the future that is not here yet... (I'm a day dreamer, dreaming my life away).
I'll find that pdf and see if it'll convert to a text file. That way my kindle can read it. Helps me stay focused. My mind isn't what it used to be. I blame diabetes.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays The important thing, we're not giving up on researching it just because it didn't turn out exactly as planned yet.
Good luck, I'm sure you'll figure it out. Frankly you're the most level-headed and intelligent person I've talked to for the last few months in this place.
Oh, also, if it's not in progressive stage, I'd recommend looking up what "ASD" is, somewhere in the region of early Soviet Union. For what a "conspiracy nut"'s advice is worth, anyway.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon (Oh and, I'm sure Monsanto's lobbying efforts into subsidizing cornstarch industries has nothing to do with the endemic of diabetes and the larger host of nutritional problems in US and the world at large, but that's another subject altogether.)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I just hope nano-machines can cure things like diabetes, cancer, and aids. So tired of poking my finger and getting shots.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "I just hope nano-machines can cure things like diabetes, cancer, and aids."
I'm sure there are easier ways to do this. Namely, good diet and condoms, in that order. Unfortunately due to the way our society is built no one is interested in either of them, so...
In your case... Well, there might be something out there already, just outside of the public's eye. If not, well, I assure you, life sucks anyway.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on the following video. Seems like it has a lot of information in it I haven't heard any where else.
watch?v=Gg_QcBiGi-k&feature=recentf
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays An overly complicated and increasingly unlikely purely hypothetical explanation to a counter-intuitive event with no proof to go with it, much like the rest of the official conspiracy theory. Sounds terrible to me. The honest thing to be not to concoct such theories, and just to say passport "somehow" got there.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Comment removed
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays Oh and, to be fair, I can't comment on the passports and such due to lack of evidence, similarly to Pentagon.
However I do know the person who oversaw their findings - because, you know, first thing you do at a site like WTC collapse is look for hijacker's papers - was Bernard Kerik, NYPD, currently in jail on, I think, four dozen accounts of corruptions and conspiracy, who was also one of six or so people who told us there were "no explosives" on day one, so that's interesting.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I always try to find new theories, cause in a good investigation, the first theories are not always the right ones.
Plus I have always believed that the events of that day were far more complex then what it seems, thus while I don't believe it was an inside job, I have supported the call for further investigations just so everything can be understood.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "I always try to find new theories, cause in a good investigation, the first theories are not always the right ones."
That's pretty much what a skeptic would do. ;)
I would personally suggest sticking with evidence rather than theories, however.
Oh and, with the "investigations" we got, it's an honest thing to do regardless of what you believe. Unfortunately, honesty, skepticism, and resistance to brain-washing have never been humanity's strongest so point, so most people don't.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I always try to see both sides of the debate. However there is one thing I've been missing. It's the theory behind why the government would want to do this. I've heard "to go to war with Iraq", but all the press conferences I'd heard about that just kept talking about the WMDs (no surprise they never found any of course).
So I'm left wondering on that. Any good crime should have a motive.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays Also I think you left another comment but now it disappeared. Ignore if you deleted it yourself.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Yeah, I kind of felt part of that original comment could've come across as rude and it wasn't my intention. So to avoid that, I just deleted it and rewrote a comment I felt reflected what I meant.
Some times my fingers work faster then my brain.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "It's the theory behind why the government would want to do this."
That's easy. Replace the "government" - who's "government" anyway? - with corrupt people with their own economical and political interests, and you'll arrive at the answer in minutes.
Oh yeah, 9/11 was technically a pre-text to Afghan invasion and numerous internal legislations, Iraq (and soon Iran) just rode the well-established terrorist scare.
"Some times my fingers work faster then my brain."
Bow chicka wow wow.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I just had to go through that other video and hit the "not spam" button for your comments. Not sure why some people think marking comments as spam is a great way to win a debate.
I can't deny, individuals can be dangerous and greedy. I guess my problem is when I try finding the theories on motive, it's always mixed in with theories of "FEMA death camps" and other things so far out there, it's hard to swallow.
So much misinformation on both sides it seems.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "I just had to go through that other video and hit the "not spam" button for your comments."
Thanks a bunch. The heck?..
"I can't deny, individuals can be dangerous and greedy."
Also 1 in 25 of them are psychopaths. Something to consider.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I've seen it happen before, people will just hit the spam button instead of trying to respond. And it's not limited to one side of the debate or the other. Both sides do it. I just do my best to counter their actions.
My time spent working retail has shown me the best and worst of people. Well almost all. I'm sure a few avoid the harsh lights.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "I've seen it happen before, people will just hit the spam button instead of trying to respond. "
Doesn't help that YouTube's anti-spam algorithms are haywire also.
"My time spent working retail has shown me the best and worst of people."
Oh god. I'd probably kill myself if i had to work in retail.
"No harm no foul."
Bow chicka wow wow!
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@stbays "I guess my problem is when I try finding the theories on motive, it's always mixed in with theories of "FEMA death camps" and other things so far out there, it's hard to swallow."
Oh it will be. It's a "conspiracy theory", remember? Who's going to cover that in a serious manner? You'd be crazy to do that on your news-show, that's for sure. Doesn't help that a lot of honest people are genuinely crazy either.
Honestly I would suggest Zeitgeist as introduction material.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
...It's just another Internet documentary, it's not always right, but it's the best introduction you'll get on the subject, going from personal experience. It lays things out quite clearly...
/watch?v=j312HjsxQZE
...And, unlike most documentaries these days, with TONS of back-up information. The companion guide is like 200 pages, that's transcript and direct sources.
Highly recommended. Or, you can also ask me.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Seeing as you're one of the more reasonable people I've met on the net lately, I will ask you if I have any questions, though I'll probably send it as a PM instead of a comment on this video. I'm sure much more of these back and forths and KJC24 might just block us both.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays You're very welcome, and to you likewise. ;)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
As long as it doesn't involve Alex Jones, I'm probably willing to give it a shot. However I won't watch that one guy cause I really have caught him in the act of spreading misinformation and as of yet, I haven't seen him apologize for it.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "As long as it doesn't involve Alex Jones, I'm probably willing to give it a shot."
I don't really know this guy, but he does sound like an asshole, or just another FOX reject. I don't think he's in the film. At least he's in no authority to give any information.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
He's, well, some might say a "leader" for the truth movement, though that's like saying Bush was the leader of the Free world.
His Y2K broadcast was where I spotted his misinformation. It was filled with so much bad reporting and what I suspect was purposefully misleading information, I wouldn't doubt he was trying to start riots.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "He's, well, some might say a "leader" for the truth movement, though that's like saying Bush was the leader of the Free world."
That's exactly right. If we're talking about "leaders", I'd go more with Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, John Cole... Actually a dozen other people... You know, actual researchers.
I know Alex Jones as the face of all things "conspiracy", but, well, I don't watch anything from him. At least not until he gives out sources.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I'm so glad you didn't list Simon Shack, Mr "Nose in Nose out". That guy and Alex shouldn't be allowed to speak for anyone.
And you hit the nail on the head. I haven't ever heard AJ cite his sources. Even when he tries, often times, he doesn't do anything to verify the sources he does have, so he'll declare some overly protected train yard a "fema death camp".
Steven Jones, he wasn't the cardboard box guy was he?
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "I'm so glad you didn't list Simon Shack, Mr "Nose in Nose out"."
Oh fuck that guy so much.
I often hear suspicions within the movement that all these "missile pod" and "no plane" "theories" are actually deliberate disinfo or cointel campaigns against the movement, seeing how pervasive they are, yet how very few people actually seem to believe them. I don't exclude the possibility myself, but then again, I don't underestimate human stupidity either.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
It's nice to see no matter our beliefs, there's always something we can say we both agree on.
Clearly I can no more rule out explosives then I can say there were explosives, but I can definitely say I saw planes on the live broadcasts.
Well except the pentagon, since no one was watching it that day.
BTW, I sent a friend request. I noticed we're both gamers.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays It's called "logic", isn't it? Just follow the trail of evidence and in the end, whichever one has to change their beliefs, we'll both arrive at the same point.
Oh and, pardon me for ignoring the request, I'm actually rather anti-social. Nothing personal, you're a nice guy. :p
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@stbays ...You'll find most repitable "truther" sites often aggressively debunking that kind of nonsense, by the way. 911research also has a rather delightful constructive critique of Loose Change also if you're interested, at least as far as I remember.
I really can't speak about Alex Jones, I just know nothing about the guy. I didn't ever hear him cite any sources though, yeah. I usually follow a trail of evidence rather than popular media, it's that much more rewarding.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Dylan "I wanna be a movie director" Avery? I hope if there ever is a witch hunt to root out the obvious misinformation dealers, he is right next to Alex Jones. It would be interesting to see how the real truthers view that "documentary" called Loose Change (I sure hope my distaste for that film is showing through).
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "Dylan "I wanna be a movie director" Avery?"
Yeah. I gather Loose Change is actually rather respectable work for a couple of college students, but still very rubbish overall, especially in the "no planes" department. I haven't watched it, don't think it has anything I don't know anyway. I don't know how other "truthers" treat the film, but I do know most treat "no planes" as utter nonsense.
At least he did a lot of good by interviewing Barry Jennings: /watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Whoops, wrong link: /watch?v=_DuSeuxjiJQ
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Actually Loose Change doesn't push the No Planes theory. However the fun fact about it is, it started out as a pure work of fiction. It was later when Dylan "realized" his vision contained more truth then he thought, so instead of starting from scratch, he just turned it from fiction to documentary. There in lies the problem. His "truth" is mixed in with his "fiction" and sorting the two out is a challenge.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "Actually Loose Change doesn't push the No Planes theory."
I guess I REALLY didn't watch it then.
"It was later when Dylan "realized" his vision contained more truth then he thought, so instead of starting from scratch, he just turned it from fiction to documentary."
Seriously? Wow.
Actually that's kind of reminiscent. I never thought there was a seed of truth to 9/11 "conspiracies" before I bothered to, you know, check to make sure.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Oh yeah, I also suspected from day one that the buildings were blown up - and if you read through day-one interviews, that's pretty much what everyone thought - and honestly waited for Bush to announce terrorists snuck explosives into the building (turns out they did once before, too).
I think only a few months later I forgot all about that and laughed at "conspiracy theorists" just like everybody else.
Clearly the system works.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
For some odd reason, when I first saw it happening, my first thought was "Are they going to collapse?". I really didn't think they'd stand, but I am an odd person. It could just be the writer in me who sees the worst case before the average person.
stbays 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
If you ask me, Dylan would've been ok if he'd just started over with his film, instead of pushing forward.
There's a clip going around Youtube where Dylan and the other creators admit the film "draws conclusions not supported by the facts" and a few other lines which translate to "We mixed the truth with lies for entertainment".
It really hurt their credibility even after they went and made new versions, cutting some things and adding others.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays I really shouldn't comment on Loose Change, I know very little about it. It was never on my "to-trust" list anyway.
"For some odd reason, when I first saw it happening, my first thought was "Are they going to collapse?"
Wait, you mean, a rhetorical question?..
Personally I though nothing would happen, seeing how the buildings are essentially just lead bricks. I remember some fire-fighters at the scene though part above the impact would fall off. Most didn't suspect anything at all.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
For some odd reason, when I saw the explosion, the scaring on the building, and the large amounts of smoke, my mind immediately wrote a scenario where the buildings would collapse. Granted, just because my mind shows me something, doesn't mean it'll happen. I've imagined my dog breaking through the windows and mauling the mailman. Never seems to actually happen.
I think the over all effect of being in the Jobcorps had me thinking negative thoughts that day.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays Well, it's just intuition. I meant to bring up the example of how many people thought it would never collapse as an example of how suggestive we are in spite of our own judgment. I know I certainly went though it.
Oh yeah, also, one of these aforementioned...
"Early on, looking at the buildings, my personal immediate belief was
that the top of the building was going to slide off of the south tower because damage that
the plane did." - Patrick Murray, NYFD
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
That was definitely in my mind. The top portion sliding off and doing all sorts of damage. Frankly just about anything that could or even couldn't have happened went through my mind that day.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays Portions of it sliding off seems like a possibility to me still, but not much earlier. I don't think I could ever imagine the physics of what happened according to OCT, seeing that it contradicts pretty much everything I know about momentum.
At the very least I know potential energy is, as function of gravity, cannot be infinitely multiplied to allow any object to both fall at near free-fall and crush thousands of tons of steel at the same time, without any change in acceleration.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
To be honest, I've never accepted the "free fall" theory. One reason was the debris cloud was falling faster then the collapse, which to me, seems to indicate there was resistance. Maybe there should've/could've been more resistance, but the debris is what I'd consider a free fall speed.
Then it always seems like when I see someone doing a timer, it stops before the building is completely collapsed, or in the case of WTC7, doesn't start with the collapse of the penthouse.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "To be honest, I've never accepted the "free fall" theory."
A what now?
"One reason was the debris cloud was falling faster then the collapse"
Heh. Not quite: watch?v=eXSHm3CdHf4
"Free-fall" itself is actually a red herring: not only is it impossible in presence of, you know, air, but no explosive demolitions occur at free-fall either.
Well, except WTC7, I'd speculate due to demolition of reinforced CIA headquarters: /watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@stbays "doesn't start with the collapse of the penthouse"
Velocity and acceleration aren't measured with a timer. Also, starting the clock with things like that make about as much sense as throwing the green light the moment you ignite a racecar: during any explosive demolitions, charges and/or deconstruction takes place long before the final blast.
I think it's explained in one of the videos I just linked, too.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@stbays ...Actually that was kind of garbled, sorry. Maybe this will explain the physics a bit better: /watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk ; /watch?v=AJf7pWVyvIw
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I'll check them out, but if they're long, I'll probably just download them for later viewing. My eyes and head are killing me atm. Seems to happen when I reach a fatigued stated, though why, I don't know.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "My eyes and head are killing me atm. Seems to happen when I reach a fatigued stated, though why, I don't know."
Yeah, that's how being tired feels. :p
Do check out Chandler's videos: he's just a highschool teacher, but he has enough expertise to show up a multi-million federal investigation (also in the links, I think), and you can't really argue with physics.
Seeya.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Physics support the official story, are you ok in the head?
theBartone9119 7 months ago
@theBartone9119 Not even close, not in a single report. Did you actually bother to check? Did you actually bother to check out Chandler's reports and articles? Are you ok yourself?
SexyMelon 7 months ago
@SexyMelon
I marked the longer of the two to watch later and I'm gonna take a nap and hope that clears my head up a bit. ttyl.
stbays 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I should also mention I heard about it before I saw it.
I was in the RA's office when I heard about it and at the time, we were telling bad jokes, so we almost didn't believe it was real.
Later when I was in the security class (teaching us how to be security officers), we spent the day watching the live reports and taking notes. Well I took notes. No one else did.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "I should also mention I heard about it before I saw it."
Wait... You knew the buildings collapsed and yet were wondering if they would?..
"Well I took notes. No one else did."
That's the nerd equivalent of kick-ass, good job. :p
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@stbays My favorite excerpt from Zeitgeist, by the way, may clear something up a bit too: /watch?v=KMbN5P-90AE
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
"Bow chicka wow wow"
Says the person with the name "SexyMelons" :P No harm no foul.
stbays 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I might add this, I have often suspected the government let it happen. I've seen a lot of evidence to support this point of view, especially how several people knew it would happen before it happened. I know that same logic can be applied to the more traditional "made it happen" theory as well.
My diabetes is genetic, as my father and his father had it. Just found that out last year though. I'm in very good condition consider how out of control my blood sugar is.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "I might add this, I have often suspected the government let it happen"
Well, the corporate lobbyists have always naturally rallied to subsidize their cheap mass-produced goods, it's kind of obvious at this point. But I'm sure someone will call it a "conspiracy theory" anyway.
"My diabetes is genetic, as my father and his father had it"
Sucks. Still, a little exercise and good diet will still leave you in better health than most "healthy" people, if you're interested.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@stbays "I can't change my personality to be more agreeable just because."
Positively nothing wrong with that. If you haven't figured it out yet, "conspiracy theorists" is this century's newspeak for "skeptics". ;)
Feel free to ask for sources, just make yourself clear. I'm not expert on anything, but I can cite a thing or two...
"The compounds found were dust particles of aluminium right?"
Not at all. They were nano-thermite layered chips, a mixture.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@stbays "none of them are meant to bring down a building"
They're not, but they can, which is why Komatsu have patented and employed thermite cutter charges since '98. Nano-thermite, however, isn't suitable... It's *ideal*. It's an explosive and an incendiary engineered to cut through steel like butter. If you have access to this kind of technology and you want to do this sort of project, it's the best.
Oh, and it's relatively silent and has little shock-wave, useful for covert demolitions.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Every video I've seen, either trying to prove or disprove this point, has ended in failure, so if you've got any videos I may have missed, I'd happily review it.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "Every video I've seen, either trying to prove or disprove this point, has ended in failure, so if you've got any videos I may have missed, I'd happily review it."
This couldn't possibly be more vague.
You said you don't even know the difference between thermite compounds, so any place is a good place to start... If you have the patience, this is the most exhaustive video I remember: /watch?v=D6Xokos-7V0&
However you'd do better just reading the relevant material. Or the paper.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
I'm sorry but I don't have a spare 1 1/2 hours today to watch that video. Plus I'd like one that isn't sponsored by the truth movement, no offense intended. I'm sure it'd be hard to find an unbiased source. As for the link you did provide, I'll download it and give it some time when I have time to give.
I'm mainly interested in seeing someone use thermite to destroy a steel structure. So far every video I've seen attempting this has shown failure.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "Plus I'd like one that isn't sponsored by the truth movement, no offense intended."
How do you expect to examine arguments from one side of the debate without examining arguments from that side of the debate?
There's no independent study of dust residue that I recall. Certainly none of the thermite chips.
"I'm mainly interested in seeing someone use thermite to destroy a steel structure."
Then you're in luck: /watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
As for which is used to weld, it's thermite. but like I said, the average truther seems to shuffle between the three names. I've hit a point where I almost don't even care about all this drama any more. Give me a few more months and I won't even bother watching anything new videos as they haven't brought a new "fact" forward in a long time.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "As for which is used to weld, it's thermite."
Thermite welding isn't used in construction, it's only use is to repair train-tracks and such. However we're talking decades difference between construction and destruction, there would be no residue left... But even then, that's ordinary thermite, not nano-energetic compound which is what was found.
You should really study the case properly if you're admitting you're confused. This IS kind of important.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
While I can not confirm my sources (just being honest), what I've read is once thermite is used at a site, it's residue does not dissipate. My background is not in chemistry, so I won't try to pass myself off as having much more then a basic understanding of this subject.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "While I can not confirm my sources (just being honest)"
You have my respect for that.
"it's residue does not dissipate"
Yes, considering it's just iron. There is, however, you know, dust and wind.
More importantly, any residue - if even thermite was used for some reason - remaining from construction would be minute, whereas Fe/Al accounted for a good 5% of those huge dust-clouds you've probably seen from 9/11. That's not even "residue", really.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
The compounds found were dust particles of aluminium right? I can't recall the other parts they found, but I do remember thinking how much of it was materials used to make office furiture, dry wall, and plenty of other common items one would find in a building like the WTC. Can it be determined that none of the cloud came from those sources? Or rather how much of the cloud could not be attributed to those common items?
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays "Can it be determined that none of the cloud came from those sources?"
Most of the dust was dry-wall and concrete, I believe. It's easy enough to distinguish these contaminants in a dedicated study like what Jones or... I forget, whoever was tasked with environmental study... This isn't really an issue.
"I'm sorry but I don't have a spare 1 1/2 hours today to watch that video."
Fair enough. Then read the paper itself or its overreview.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
So why did wtc 7 fall at free fall then?
It was admitted in the ALMIGHTY NIST official explanation.
Oh, all that damage from the non existent plane hitting it right?
All that damage to the south ,west, east and north explains it perfectly right?
You official story beleiver nutcases are a total joke.
zenoist2 1 year ago
@zenoist2 Get an education you idiot. WTC 7 Took almost 13 seconds to COMPLETELY collapse. Twoofers cut out the part in the video where the east pent house falls (The begining of the collapse)
Here's the full video, which twoofers are too scared to show, because it automatically kills there whole "Free-Fall Speed" Bull Shit.
watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ&feature=related
There ya go idiot!
911TruthersAreLiars 1 year ago
@911TruthersAreLiars NIST admit to 2,5 seconds of free-fall and 6 seconds of total collapse sequence in their NCSTAR report. Do a little research beyond shitty YouTube videos like this.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Check out the video "Nanothermite Debunking Rebuttal -deRoy".
It addresses many of your concerns.
Best wishes.
stoobradley 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
kennykjc24 1 year ago
@stoobradley I would.. but twoofers have failed so many times. Why should I bother wasting any more time on you delusional morons?
KJC24 1 year ago
@stoobradley Debunking the debunkers is always just a joke, it just helps truthers feel better about being debunked, it doesn't actually mean anything lol
theBartone9119 7 months ago
@theBartone9119 "It doesn't matter that "debunkings" are actually bullshit, I'm not even going to bother to check why they're wrong. Prejudice is all I need."
SexyMelon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
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?
Why won’t Dr. Steven Jones release the “rigorous non-critical” peer review comments offered by David L. Griscom regarding his nanothermite paper?
Why won't Dr. Steven Jones let independent scientists test his dust samples?
ctcole77 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
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?
Why won’t Dr. Steven Jones release the “rigorous non-critical” peer review comments offered by David L. Griscom regarding his nanothermite paper?
Why won't Dr. Steven Jones let independent scientists test his dust samples?
ctcole77 6 months ago
Dr. Niels Harrit (in an interview you cn Google): "Yes. A copy (of the Bentham nanothermite study) has actually been sent to FBI. I am not in a position to give a full account of the response, but as I recall, it was surprisingly receptive." (FBI does not comment on ongoing investigations.)
rshaddock 1 year ago
Sad really to see these kids "drinking the twoofer kool aid" like this.
That sh@t will rot your brain and have you babbling twoofs, looks like it's too late for this poor kid.
NWOisBS 2 years ago
I'm just kidding.
Loose Change is a fairy tale
911missinglinks proves it really was a mid east job
euro944t 2 years ago
WTC beams are held in Mossad Hanger.
Navy Seal Jesse Ventura Show exposed the building on TruTv
Is JFK's brain in there too ?
Those Iraqi WMD's could be there ?
euro944t 2 years ago
Jesse didn't "expose" it, it was never a secret
jeffmay1 2 years ago
I love how when you guys mention Jesse the Wrestler, instead of saying the wrestler, you go back 40 yrs to when he was a Navy Seal. While still admirable, what he did was carry out hydrographic surveys in South Vietnams coastal waters and did not qualify for the Combat Action Ribbon because he was NEVER in combat. Again, it's not to put Jesse down, but you guys seem to think he knows some deep inside information because he was a Navy Seal and act like he was a War Hero. Thats not the case at all
jeffmay1 2 years ago
@jeffmay1
Songbird McCain is your people's GOP war hero.
euro944t 2 years ago
The Combat Action Ribbon is for those who were under enemy fire. Jesse volunteered and was assigned to dangerous areas and situations where he could have been fired upon. The Viet Cong were probably too afraid to fire on him.
rshaddock 2 years ago
JREF "duhbunkers" are to be laughed at.
OperationMockingbird 2 years ago 2
Why don't you go take them on then?
You'd get your simple minded delusional ass owned within 2 posts.
Go back to the grassy knoll were you belong you delusional fucktard.
KJC24 2 years ago
"Being published in a vanity journal with no peer review just doesn't cut it..."
The Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal. So the relevant paper was peer-reviewed. The "vanity" remark seems nothing more than a baseless ad hominem attack on the evidence at hand.
chowmein911 2 years ago
correct, it was peer reviewed that they never got a match--page 25 admits--to nanothermite.
So even if the criticisms of the paper are false. Even if the criticisms of the Journal is false, the paper ITSELF does not support the thermite claim.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
There has not been a lick of proof that this paper was peer-reviewed by anyone. Even the editor in chief knew nothing about it. Considering that part of the journal was hardly bustling with activity, isn't it extremely suspicious that someone with that authority in the journal was not made aware of this paper and it's frankly bizzarre claims?
So Jones nor Harrit still haven't offered up their "nanothermite" to ACTUAL EXPERTS?
Shooting themselves in the foot with this silence...
KJC24 2 years ago
It is only her claim that she, the "editor in chief knew nothing about it." Since when are claims taken as fact at JREF? Or is it only when they suit your needs, eh NISTER? All that smack talking on JREF, LOL! Neither you nor your heroes at JREF have anything to show for your faith in the official story. Why not submit your paper at Bentham? I hear it's really easy, LOL! All you have is retards like Edge parroting themselves. Show me global collapse theory peer reviewed please or STFU!
primrod 2 years ago
Then if it's legitimately peer-reviewed, what are they afraid of? Why won't they try for other more well known and respected journals? Why won't they show their samples to respected institutions and experts? Why are they content with being published in one obscure pay-to-play journal?
Most of all, why are the experts not talking about it or even aware of it?
KJC24 2 years ago
You keep saying" pay to play" like it helps your argument. For your information, almost half of "respected journals" offer this service. Either the reader or the publisher pay. Why doesn't NIST compare their dust samples, as Jones has requested through email? Since when does awareness of a scientific paper (or theory for that matter) have anything to do with the scientific content and its validity? How does this negate the science? More hand waving from you, Mr. Fudd. Surprise, surprise.
primrod 2 years ago
Well I'm not saying ALL open source pay-to-play journals are bogus... but I'm saying if there is any type of journal Jones and his band of 9/11 whackjobs could get published in, it would be that.
The problem is, nobody finds it convincing. The media, chemists and EVEN skeptics don't know about it. If it had any scientific credibility it would not be gathering dust and I would have expected to see evidence of Jones putting it out there for REAL experts.
KJC24 2 years ago
Did you ask for the Global collapse theory peer reviewed?
It has been peer reviewed by NIST, MIT and the ASCE's 125,000 structural engineers. Look it up!
In case you are bad at math, 125,000 is more than 9. And for the record, the 9 authors are not all engineers or scientists. They all also just happen to be truthers that believe most aspects of the conspiracy and had their conclusions drawn before they ever started a single test.
jeffmay1 2 years ago
No it hasn't, in regards to your "global collapse" Their computer models are "GIGO" and have not been peer-reviewed.
Consensus is not peer-review.
primrod 2 years ago
As for Bentham, yes the editor in chief resigned over this issue, not to mention that the leading author's (Harrit) co-worker Nils O. Andersen just happened to be on the editorial advisory board when the paper was published. He has since resigned as well
jeffmay1 2 years ago
Is it because you cannot formulate a scientific rebuttal, so instead you try to discredit the publisher?
Don't worry you're not the only one. Niether did Ryan Mackey AKA pedant. Did you know that he's KJC's hero, LOL!
primrod 2 years ago
Neither the editor nor Anderson objected to the science of the paper. Editor Marie-Paule Pileni resigned saying she was not asked (but it is her job as Editor to know what is going on right?) to get a job with a conservative university doing military sponsored research in nanotechnology. Anderson stated his resignation was not related to the article and has no objection to its methodology.
rshaddock 2 years ago
Elmer, we talked about the primer paint that NIST tested, remember? It didn't go very well for you.
primrod 2 years ago
From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingrediants of thermite." It also explodes. So what is it? exploding nano sized thermic paint?
primrod 2 years ago
from the presence of a bag of flower, carton of eggs, and tomatos on my kitchen counter, I conclude those are ingreidents for pizza.
But its not a pizza, is it?
Nope.
Swing and a miss! lolol
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
If your pizza contains aluminum and iron oxide which performes an exothermic reaction then I would call it a thermitic pizza. Seriously your analogy is stupid.
Again, paint chips. Tell me about these exploding paint chips.
primrod 2 years ago
"Seriously your analogy is stupid. "
translation. Cant refute it. Call it a name.
Understood.
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
It doesn't explode. It burns. Dylan Avery even showed video of these paint chips burning in his new movie and it's here on youtube.
It slowly burns away the combustable material. It certainly didn't explode.
If you think an egg shell coating of something that slowly burns is going to do anything to structural steel, then you are an idiot.
Oh, and aluminum and iron oxide is in the primer paint also. Give it up.
KJC24 2 years ago
Hello Mr. Fudd I was wondering when you were going to speak up, How's getting water for JREFies working out for you? Have you got anything new to parrot from your hero Mackey or just the same lame argument(better than edge)?
"a highly energetic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."
Again Mr. fudd your cartoon speculations don't stand up to peer-reviewed now do they. Where is the zinc/magnesium, name an exploding paint, LOL!!
primrod 2 years ago
Once again... IT DOESNT explode. This really is proof that the deluded eye does indeed deceive:
watch?v=t-pFbJzTG_E
You would have more chance farting on a steel column and knocking it over than this pathetic display of brief BURNING paint.
Still talking about "peer review" huh? Is that why nobody in that scientific field knows anything about it or is even discussing it?
As I stated in this video, Jones still hasn't given his samples to experts. The clock is ticking...
KJC24 2 years ago
Why don't you submit for peer-review you coward? Prove your half-baked debunking by submitting it to Bentham. What are you "pussies" waiting for? How long has this paper been out for? And the best you have is it doesn't look like nano-thermite and fart jokes. How fuckin' scientific, LOL! Now go get Mackey some water, you lemming.
primrod 2 years ago
No need to. Nothing TO debunk. The collapses already HAVE been peer-reviewed repeatedly and passed.
AND the bentham paper ADMITS its not really thermite.
Nothing TO debunk. D'oh! HAHAHAHAHAHA
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
As I said in the video. Being published means nothing in a pay to play journal... especially when the article has sparked ZERO debate in the actual science it claims to be part of... which is why I see no evidence of peer-review.
It would be an insult to consider the twoofers who wrote the paper to be considered peers of those in that scientific area... but even if they are, what is Jones and Harrit doing about being ignored?
Fuck all. That proves they know they are liars.
KJC24 2 years ago
Page 29
6."From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingrediants of thermite."
7."As measuured usind a DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation of a known super thermite sample."
Now it is your turn, you say it's paint, prove it.
primrod 2 years ago
Ingredients of? Meaning not thermite. just common elements to it.
Kinda like flour and tomates isnt a pizza. Just the ingredients of.
Thanks. Prim debunks himself. lolol
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Just b/c the paper in question doesn't attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite found in the dust it somehow refutes the whole paper? Even though many important if not definitive charcteristics have been shown to match nano-thermite.
That is like discovering a new bird species and saying they're not birds b/c you can't match them to a species already know.
Most importantly the paper has been "peer-reviewed" which makes it empirical proof, including its conclusion.
primrod 2 years ago
Nope, the better analogy is if your neighbor is murdered and the cops find finger prints all over the house
Keeping in mind that (because people dont wear gloves at home, loads of fingerprints will be there naturally.
Now the cops say "we never actually tried to match the prints to PRIM. But hey! its fingerprints. Prim has fingers, Why would we need to match it? it has to be him!
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Just b/c you think the red/grey chips (which have been proven to be a form of nano-thermite through a peer-reviewed process) are paint does't make it so my slow little "debunker". Your analogy is completely flawed due to the fact that nano-thermite is a sophisticated (US) military explosive, not paint on your walls in your home. It isn't found in any buildings, like fingerprints would be in someone's house, LOL! Try again Edge, your post are lame.
primrod 2 years ago
blah blah blah. just repeats himself.
spinning so hard in a circle he has screwed himself into the ceiling. LOLOL.
The anaology is 100% correct, since military grade nanothermite ::giggle:: would have specific chemical signatures--ie FINGERPRINTS--that would separate it from paint chips.
They admit it. They never matched the prints.
Ooops.
So, any luck finding the page where they state as FACT they matched it exactly to nanotherite?
No? cant find it? wow! HAHAHAHAHA
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Keeps repeating yourself, your sad. You and your debunking has failed. You don't know how science is done, I can't help you with that. You know nothing when it comes to thermite cause if you did you would now lIke Harrit et. al. that when you find Aluminum and iron oxide and it performs an ex thermic reaction it is thermite. When aluminum and iron oxide are intimately mixed imbeded in an organinc matrix and explodes when ignited, it's nano-thermite. You are just not smart enough to know.
primrod 2 years ago
"Keeps repeating yourself, your sad."
LMAO. He cant even come up with his own orignal thought anymore. he just repeats me. LOLOLOL.
EPIC PWNAGE.
So, from your NON ANSWER we can confirm NOWHERE does the paper state as a fact they chemically matched the paint chips to thermite.
go figure! Looks like Edge was right again.
($20 says he copies that line LOLOL)
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Do you know that NIST heated the paint to 800 C and it didn't ignite or explode. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. 2005. p434.
Since the chips ignite at 430 C they are definitely not the primer paint that NIST says was on the beams. Please provide one citation, just one that it's paint.
primrod 2 years ago
Was the paper lying?
Or are you?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Desperation is starting to set in, eh debunker? LOL! Do you know that real scientists have looked over the paper and none have said that b/c they don't directly match the red/grey chips to known nano-thermite refutes the paper. Just b/c you watched star wars doesn't make you a scientist. Try again, first read the paper, start with the title, LOL! So, did you know that NIST tested WTC paint? Or are you going to pretend that they didn't. Run debunker, run, LOL!
primrod 2 years ago
Yes military grade thermite(nano-thermite) have specific chemical signature that is how they came to their conclusion that it's nano thermite, are you retarded or are you just pretending, LOL! Please just one citation which shows it's paint come on debunker, debunk. So far you're not doing very well.
primrod 2 years ago
"Yes military grade thermite(nano-thermite) have specific chemical signature "
and page 25 confirms they never matched it.
Was the paper lying? Or are you?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
How many times can you repeat your flawed argument? A lot I'm sure. You have to prove that it's paint, I'm not going to take your word for it, LOL! Just b/c they don't match it doesn't stop it from exploding, LOL! You have yet to prove that it's not nano-thermite. GO.
primrod 2 years ago
"repeat your flawed argument?"
WOW, quoting the paper is a flawed argument now?
Hmmmmm.
Amazing the lies a kook will tell to avoid admiting she was wrong. lololol.
Either the paper is lying or you are. Which is it?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
It is the way you are iterpreting the paper that is flawed, but you know this. Btw I'm still waiting for that source that says active thermitic material(which explodes) is just paint and is a result of a building collapse. Exploding paint, LOL! you're a Mark Roberts tool.
primrod 2 years ago
"It is the way you are iterpreting the paper that is flawed,"
I dont interpret anything. I read exactly what it says.
It says they never matched it.
Despite it NEVER saying "we found the chemical match for military thermite" you pretend it does.
Hows that working out for ya? LOLOLOL
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Yeah I'm sure you read the Bible literally as well.
So, do you think that if you submit for peer-review all you have to do is show them the statement "We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present" and this would refute the paper in question? Do you think you would pass? Keep in mind that their paper has passed with that statement included. So exploding paint, LOL!
Please tell me more.
primrod 2 years ago
"Yeah I'm sure you read the Bible literally as well."
Diversion. Because he knows he lost.
There is nothing TO refute. It admits it didnt find thermite, and nowhere does it state as a fact "this is a match for thermite."
Still waiting for the page number and para where it says "we compared this to military nano-thermite and got an exact chemical match.
any progress on that? LOLOL
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Is this the best you have "cherry picking" Do you realize that you make debunkers look bad. If you were to post this crap on a JREF site they would tell you to leave b/c your poor understanding of science and how science works or even how expirements are reproduced is very obvious.
Please tell me about the exploding paint theory again, talk about fairy tales.
primrod 2 years ago
Its not cherry picking, its the whole document.
NOWHERE does the document say "this is a match for thermite.
Thats not cherry picking. Thats reading the entire document.
Duh!
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
You say you don't cherry pick. Since you have read the entire document what due you get out of their conclusion:
"we conclude that the red layer of the red/grey chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material." Their final conclusion mean to you. Will you answer the question or will you run away as usual.
primrod 2 years ago
blah blah blah.
thermitic material is NOT thermite.
they call it "thermitic material" because they cant call it thermite. Because it ISNT thermite.
Which word do you understand?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago
Come on girl, you're letting team debunker down. What do you say about their final conclusion, how do you or any other debunker get paint chips I'll never know. The red/grey chips explode at the same temp. as nano-themite and you think it's paint why?
primrod 2 years ago
"Come on girl,:
LOL. once again, she cant even come up with her own material.
for the 8th time, JUST SHOW ME WHERE THE PAPER SAYS "WE HAVE AN EXACT CHEMICAL MATCH FOR THERMITE"
you claim thats what they found. Where does the paper say it?
EdgemanLL2 2 years ago