This video is nothing but attempt to dismiss scientific findings through dishonest slander, personal attacks, and baseless claims. No one supporting actual scientific proceedings will take it at face value, this is just not a valid way to contest scientific publications.
I do not support censorship in any form. But this is outright lies and slander, and an insult to scientific methodology.
@djtripnosys Yes, I call peer-reviewed scientific studies published in scientific journals in accordance with scientific methodology by established scientists "scientific".
If you think otherwise, I'd strongly suggest checking if you might be a hypocrite.
Double so if you're going to cite studies such as NIST reports or adhoc engineering reports as "scientific". Not that I'm implying you'd do that, just that it's common.
@SexyMelon "peer-reviewed scientific studies published in scientific journals in accordance with scientific methodology by established scientists " you might actually check your info before you spread it. This is 100% untrue. None of these papers underwent proper peer review. Not one. But hey, I could be totally wrong, so you cite JUST ONE paper on this subject that has undergone peer review.....g'head...
@djtripnosys Did you know you can't just make things up?
The paper was published in a scientific journal that employs anonymous peer review, it was held back for review, edited, re-submitted, approved by the editor and finally published. Since then, one of the reviewers resigned from anonymity and confirmed that he was on a peer-review board (and, indeed, praised the paper quite highly).
What proof do you have otherwise? Are you just making things up? Did you look it up at all?
@SexyMelon First, YOU are the one making an assertion, YOU need to prove your case. It is not upon me to prove a negative, and your very actions not only show your ignorance of scientific methodology, but actually prove my only point: You have no idea what you are talking about. There is NO SUCH THING as "anonymous peer review", peer review must be public, OPEN TO SCRUTINY, to qualify. I can't cite the thousands of universities that DIDN'T review this, but you CAN cite JUST one...can't you?
@djtripnosys And, again, I have no idea, and you clearly don't either...
"There is NO SUCH THING as "anonymous peer review"
Peer review is almost always anonymous, and has been for at least a hundred years now. It's not a law, but it's the most common approach for scientific publications.
I'll join you in the idea that it shouldn't be, but that's just not how things are.
And oh, "universities" don't review anything, scientists - "peers" - do. At least as far as I know.
@djtripnosys I trust there is no need for insults, we just misunderstood each other.
So, again, everything I said was in relation to the paper called "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" by Niels Harrit, et al (that is the subject of this video).
It was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and its contents are in accordance with scientific methodology, so it's a scientific paper. If you want to prove otherwise, be my guest.
@SexyMelon Go to rationalwikki, search "journal for 9/11 Sudies", READ, follow sources, READ, google "peer review", READ...A LOT, stop defending stupid "theories" before you spend the 5 minutes needed to use google to check it out first.
@djtripnosys Oh, the irony of replying to a comment pointing out that the video is nothing but a collection of insults used to dismiss evidence with a comment filled with insults...
Yeah, yeah, "kooky conspiracy theorists". That's all the argument ultimately comes down to, name-calling. Never actual evidence or scientific facts. Quite tiresome, really, so excuse me if I don't bother either...
true. Also it's funny that it's the fact that it's called a "theory" because there's already an available and widely supported "official story" of each case where conspiracy theories are present. The official story is never fully tackled first....just poked at and picked at.
For anyone interested, the nonsense above concerned the proposition concerned Jones igniting his sample in air as opposed to vacuum or inert gas.
For factual references please see paper by Tillotson, et al. of 1999 referenced in the original study, the original developers of nano-thermite, from whom the methodology was copied from (and compared to) verbatim.
"We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al., so we could compare with their results for known nanothermite."
"The formation of these iron-rich spheres shows the thermite reaction because:
1. elemental iron is produced, and
2. very high temperatures were reached, beyond that which can be reached by burning hydrocarbons, to produce molten iron and iron oxide -- as shown by the formation of spheres."
Which should be more or less intuitive (melting iron requires high temperatures, of course).
Viewers should note the video above is dishonest in comitting Guilt by Association, but also outright lying by omission about Betham Publishing.
The nonsense paper discussed here was submitted to Open Information Science Journal of Betham Publishing by Davis, who had also previously submitted another such bogus paper to another Betham journal, and had it rejected by peer review. Neither of the above are Open Chemistry Journal where nano-thermite paper was published.
For further reference, the "debunker" rumour-mill argument about not igniting thermite in vacuum is best addressed to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories development under Tillotson et al, the original developers of nano-thermite - the methodology and data of which Harrit's paper is largely based on - who have never conducted vacuum-chamber tests either, due to aforementioned irrelevancy of the method.
Addendum: Google tells me Jones himself had already responded to this "oxygen" bullshit personally, actually, validating the aforementioned.
"We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al., so we could compare with their results for known nanothermite -- see Fig. 29 in our paper."
@ThePeage I stopped watching that after he claimed they where independent scientists published in a peer-review journal. Aside from that, you cannot avoid the fact no physical evidence was found to support that bullshit.
If you didn't watch it all, you are not in a position to make the statement about "no physical evidence being found". In any case, would that be the NIST "we didn't find any evidence of... " as in "we didn't look for any evidence of...."? If someone went to all the trouble of concealing the use of NT, what do you think the "physical evidence" would look like to a clean-up worker?
Incidentally, you should know that even if it were true that the Harrit paper was not peer-reviewed, it is irrelevant now it is published - it's "out there". Peer review doesn't begin and end with pre-publication review. Good papers get into poor journals and bad ones get into good journals sometimes. It's the science in the paper that matters.
dprjones should be ashamed of himself for criticising scientists for not claiming to know what they do not know.
It is a good idea to play "spot the logical fallacy" in dprjones' video. I'll start you off with: Jones is a Mormon THEREFORE the nanothermite paper is wrong.
Ken Miller's a practising Catholic (virgin birth, wine LITERALLY into the blood of a dead Jew etc) Does that make Ken Miller a crap biologist? Think about it.
Btw, are you suggesting every paper Benthams ever published is poor, or just one whose findings you find unpalatable?
@ThePeage "Jones is a Mormon THEREFORE the nanothermite paper is wrong." No, Jones fabricated evidence to fit his hypothesis, like his evidence that Jesus was in America. So you just made your own logically fallacy.
"even if it were true that the Harrit paper was not peer-reviewed, it is irrelevant now it is published" It is completely relevant, if it is not peer-reviewed that means that the paper in its entirety cannot be trusted. Saying that peer-review is irrelevant is absurd.
What nonsense! The paper is published and available for everyone to review. If the paper did not go through the proper procedures for the journal, the editor should/would have printed a retraction before, or instead of, resigning (for "political" reasons?). If the authors fabricated their evidence then they need to be discredited big time, but I assume you have evidence of this serious accusation?
@ThePeage "What nonsense! The paper is published and available for everyone to review" I agree, your comment is nonsense. Peer-review means that it is reviewed by experts on the subject matter, not laymen that have no clue about anything the paper is talking about. Until the paper is published in an actual peer-review journal the paper should be ignored. So why didn't they publish it in an actual peer-review journal? Why did they have to sneak it into the vanity journal that published it?
Once a paper is published, every "expert on the subject matter" can read it, and respond, if they want to. The paper was received by the journal on 12th August 2008 and accepted (following revision after peer-review) on Feb 13 2009. If the authors "sneaked it in", the journal certainly had it a long time! Strangely enough, in the 18 months it has been published, no-one has challenged it. If it is poor science and so easy to refute, why do you think no-one has done so?
@desager1 ThePeage is correct, the paper was peer-reviewed (and corrected based on the review) prior to publication, as well as still open to peer-review.
Betham Open is an "actual peer-reviewed journal". In fact Betham publications is a large provider of academic publishing.
Any slander directed at the publishers or authors is nothing but a personal attack, and is a logical fallacy. You have to address the evidence, not the people.
@SexyMelon "ThePeage is correct, the paper was peer-reviewed" No, it wasn't, not sure why truthers keep repeating that hoping people would think that it is true.
"You have to address the evidence, not the people." One sample the paper claims was recieved on 2/2008, but it was used in a talk in 2007. They used a DSC to determine its autoignition temp in a column of air, which is stupid if you are trying to determine if it is thermite. The graph of energy density varies widely, so it is all shit.
@SexyMelon "Nonsense. Air or no air, the products and ignition of thermitic reaction are the same." Your comment is nonsense, since thermite is self oxidizing, it would ignite without air, which the did not do, quite odd since that would of confirmed their hypothesis.
"Also total nonsense; for reasons you didn't bother to explain, I don't have to refute it." I see you have not even seen the paper you are trying to defend. Sample #1 ~1.6kJ/g, #2 ~2.4kJ/g #3 ~ 7kJ/g #4 ~5.9kJ/g <- big problem
@desager1 "since thermite is self oxidizing, it would ignite without air"
Many things can ignite without air, doesn't make them thermite. What is needed is thermitic residue, which is elemental iron spheres and aluminum oxide vapour.
What follows is an auto-igniting, low-temperature, quick, thermite-like compound leaving thermitic residue. QED.
"I see you have not even seen the paper you are trying to defend."
I've read it. Your "big problem" makes no sense whatsoever.
@SexyMelon "Many things can ignite without air, doesn't make them thermite. What is needed is thermitic residue, which is elemental iron spheres and aluminum oxide vapour." And yet, they did not recover any Aluminum oxide in their experiments, quite odd also.
"I've read it. Your "big problem" makes no sense whatsoever." Then I conclude you have not read it, or you do not understand what energy density is, unless you are fine with 0 precision in your truther science
@desager1 "And yet, they did not recover any Aluminum oxide in their experiments"
Huh? The samples were littered with aluminum oxide. "Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size... Contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen... Etc."
"hen I conclude you have not read it, or you do not understand what energy density is, etc."
Insult is not a form of argument.
You can't insult the evidence until it goes away, sorry. Your objection remains nonsensical.
@SexyMelon "Huh? The samples were littered with aluminum oxide." Incase you are unaware, Aluminum Oxide is a form of rust, so it is to be expected when you have aluminum. What is unique to thermite is "aluminum oxide vapour" which they did not find, care to try again? And I can still conclude that you did not read the paper you are trying to defend, or you just do not understand science at all. Unless you think that zero precision is a good thing. So continue with your nonsensical responses.
@desager1 "And I can still conclude that you did not read the paper you are trying to defend"
Insult is still not a form of argument, sorry.
Since you're unable to elaborate on your nonsense about energy content, I'm going to guess you copied it off some "debunker" website without bothering to research what it means, and I still see no reason to address it.
@desager1 Oh and, yeah, things unique to - aluminum/diferumtrioxide - thermite reaction are aluminum oxide vapor/dust and formation of elemental iron spheres both in conjunction with release of energy.
In case you actually give a damn about this "science" thingy.
@SexyMelon Still you avoided the fact that they did not collect any Aluminum oxide vapor from their "thermite" reaction.
"Since you're unable to elaborate on your nonsense about energy content" Do I need to paint a portrait for you? Example; TNT has an energy density of 4.7kJ/g, if I had 4 samples of it tested they would all be 4.7kJ/g. having a range of 1.6 to 7. That type of range means their test is flawed and needs to be repeated, which they did not. Guess that is nonsensical also
@desager1 "Example; TNT has an energy density of 4.7kJ/g, if I had 4 samples of it tested they would all be 4.7kJ/g"
I see. Thanks for explaining finally instead of throwing insults.
No one's testing samples of explosives here, but looking for explosive residue. Explode your TNT, mix it with concrete, slap on some dust and furniture, and you're just not going to get the same readings...
...Likewise, the analyzed samples are recovered from *dust* of a collapsed building, in addition to that, being composed of two layers: red active thermite, and grey whatever.
The common-sense test is that all of the samples would be completely different things if you could judge them by energy density - you cannot - which they evidently aren't.
Here the energy content varies from samples to sample due to concentration of active thermite, some samples having none at all of it.
@SexyMelon "Explode your TNT, mix it with concrete, slap on some dust and furniture, and you're just not going to get the same readings..." You see, they claimed to have isolated the chips from the rest of the dust, and claimed it was unreacted, which makes your statement void.
So you have no actual arguments to defend that crap paper do you, so where do you get all your information from? Since you did not understand what energy density that leads me to conclude you have no understanding of it
I have already addressed this, this has nothing to do with even detecting WHETHER it is thermite. Why are you repeating already rebuked claims?
"which makes your statement void"
No part of your criticism makes any sense, again. The energy content is measured for each individual sample, and each individual chip has different red thermitic material content.
@SexyMelon "I have already addressed this, this has nothing to do with even detecting WHETHER it is thermite. Why are you repeating already rebuked claims?" Again you are wrong, since thermite is the only material with that chemical makeup that will ignite without oxygen, but there are many materials that will ignite with oxygen with those chemicals, you need to ignite it in a column of some noble gas, such as argon. If this is still "nonsense" then you are truly ignorant.
@desager1 "thermite is the only material with that chemical makeup that will ignite without oxygen"
I'm sorry, this completely disqualifies you from commenting on the matter any further. This is akin to saying "T-Rex is the only known dinosaur".
In fact there are thousands of known such mixtures and systems - called "self-oxidizing" - and they are the basis of most or all kinds of explosives, incendiaries, and pyrotechnics.
@SexyMelon "In fact there are thousands of known such mixtures and systems - called "self-oxidizing" - " Name another with that chemical makeup shown in your shit paper, c;mon.
"Starting with the simple fact that thermite is not a compound." did I say it was, do I need to keep everything dumbed down for you to understand? Okay then, Energy density shown in that crap was kJ/g (kilojoules per gram) Look, gram, that's weight dipshit. Are you that stupid regarding science?
@SexyMelon "/facepalm" I expected that response from you since you do not seem to be able to comprehend this stuff at all. Stop trying to pretend that you understand this stuff with your cleaver responses.
"Name another with that chemical makeup" name another with that chemical makeup that ignites without air, is it really that difficult to understand, look at what was just before that and you would understand that, are you really that fucking dumb. No, its not childish, just stating facts.
@desager1 "Stop trying to pretend that you understand this stuff with your cleaver responses."
"cleaver responses"
I'm sorry, this is getting ridiculous. You've contributed nothing but repeating the long-debunked rumour-mill nonsense here and completely ignoring any refutations to it.
There's nothing to discuss. Everything you said was already refuted.
@SexyMelon ""In fact there are thousands of known such mixtures and systems - called "self-oxidizing" - " Name another with that chemical makeup shown in your shit paper, c;mon." Lets see here, 1st part you claim 1,000's of self oxidizing systems, then I asked for you to name another one with the chemical makeup in that paper, it's not difficult to understand
"Everything you said was already refuted." maybe in the truther world where bullshit and non-answers is accepted.
@desager1 "Name another with that chemical makeup"
Just as soon as you explain what the above sentence is supposed to even mean.
Or, alternatively, stop discussing matter you know nothing about with that bratty insulting name-calling approach "debunkers" seem to share all as one.
@SexyMelon "Just as soon as you explain what the above sentence is supposed to even mean." Name another (beside thermite, which you claim it is) material with the chemical makeup shown in that paper which is self-oxidizing. I don't know if that can be dumbed down any more for you.
Either way I am done dealing with you, you are either A) Dishonest B) Ignorant of the subject C) just getting your responses from truther sites D) All of the above, I suspect the answer is D, now go away dipshit.
@SexyMelon "Oh, you ask me to name a self-oxidising system? Okay.
TNT, RDX, PETN, HMX, HMTD, PCT, TATP, DIPAM, EDNA..." With the same chemical makeup, fuck you are dumb, now just go away you dishonest ignorant little fuck.
@desager1 I would also suggest scaling back on the whole "immature brat" behavior you have there, doesn't give your argument a whole lot of credibility. You know, etiquette?..
If not though, then not, I appreciate the fact that "truther's" only opposition to presented scientific evidence is represented across the board only in plain ignorance and name-calling.
@SexyMelon "The energy content is measured for each individual sample, and each individual chip has different red thermitic material content." That statement proves that you do not know anything about the subject, since energy density is determined buy the weight of the material, or "content" rather, so your rebuttal is also void.
@desager1 "Since you did not understand what energy density that leads me to conclude you have no understanding of it"
I have already addressed this nonsense.
"So you have no actual arguments to defend that crap paper do you"
No, I've already addressed all the weak criticism you've bothered to blindly copy/paste from your favorite "debunking" website, and they don't have a leg to stand on.
As such you stand in willful ignorance and thus deliberate deceit towards physical evidence.
@desager1 Ironically this "debunking" stuff ultimately comes down to childish insults and questioning someone's intellect, for as soon as any meaningful rebuttal "debunkers" is rebuked in turn, you choose to continue defending the now indefensible position rather than admitting being wrong.
"Ironically", of course, because this is an amalgam of all attitudes you may accuse "conspiracy theorists" of having.
Sorry, we have the evidence, we win. No insult will make it go away. You need evidence.
@SexyMelon "you choose to continue defending the now indefensible position rather than admitting being wrong." I agree, you do have a rather indefensible position, when shown to be wrong you will not admit it you simply continue with what you said previously. When someone calls you out for not knowing the subject matter at all you say that is just "childish" insults. Sorry, the 100's of actual peer-review papers says you are wrong, we have the evidence, we win.
@desager1 "Sorry, the 100's of actual peer-review papers says you are wrong"
There are no peer-review papers addressing this issue by Harrit's. There are no peer-reviewed papers supporting the official story that are not pure speculation (see: "proposed hypothesis").
Oh and, there are not "hundreds". There are 42 total.
"we have the evidence, we win."
And not one of them documents any kind of evidence to support the official story.
Yes. There is not one shred of evidence to support it.
@SexyMelon "The energy content is measured for each individual sample, and each individual chip has different red thermitic material content." That statement proves that you do not know anything about the subject, since energy density is determined buy the weight of the material, or "content" rather, so your rebuttal is also void. When the test for energy density is done you only want the material being tested, if that is not possible you want the same ratio of materials, they didn't do that.
@desager1 "since energy density is determined buy the weight of the material"
This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard since your quip about thermite being the only material able to ignite without air. No, this never done, and you won't find a single instance of it being done. Starting with the simple fact that thermite is not a compound.
@SexyMelon "I already quoted part of the paper where it expressly states they did. See below." You quoted the part where the found it on the iron spheres, and since you are still not aware aluminum will oxidize when there is air.
"composed of two layers: red active thermite, and grey whatever." Despite that it was not thermite, but he could of easily done a test to confirm that, have it ignite with no oxygen present, but they did, or they did and nothing happened...
@SexyMelon "One sample the paper claims was recieved on 2/2008, but it was used in a talk in 2007." Source." Dr. Steven Jones - Boston 911 Conference - Full Presentation - 12/15/07.mov About 30 min in, the sample from 1 Hudson, also on the next sample it is odd that the guy speaking contradicts what Jones had in his slide, quite odd. So you can see jones just pulls things out of his ass when it suits him.
"the glaring detail is that it was even *corrected* after review." Source?
Ooh, so this is where AXe Anal Syst is, you had an argument with my brother and you lost on moral ground i believe, Captain D reported ME with two of his clips, All Captain D had to do is mail me and tell me to remove the clips or he will report me, no, that didnt happen, Cap'n D just shopped me and sent this muppet after me to try and justify being an ass, epic fail , now i see your in the company of intellects and your getting hammered, poetic justice? :)
Since an official re-investigation is unlikely. I'm glad this is being looked into. It's taking a long time to sift through the lies and BS from this matter, from both sides, officials and conspiracy theorists. Thermite might have not been part of the big plan, but this still doesn't change the facts from what we do know. Which still points to a false-flag attack. Thanks for the sharing video q
All I said is Bentham Science are a muslim funded fraud, so it is likely the same space cadets flagged the vid, considering it was debunking that very pile of shit org.
@BrickUnit Who's to say they were just Muslims in a cave? They did have some type of training and were funded by a man from a rich family. Truthers probably had more faith in America than most people and felt butt hurt to see that America can be harmed, we aren't invincible, that maybe explains the truthers.
you are an inspiration lol or at least a role model of how to handle shocking accusations with cool collected research, i hope i am able to be so diligent in any circumstances were i must mimic this kind of research.
Figuring out exactly how 9/11 was done is the work of crime investigators or conspiracy hobbyists who will endlessly go on discussing and debating every minuscule and intricate detail of the event to no avail. This is why it is of my opinion that more emphasis should be placed on the "who" instead of the "how". Discovering 'who did 9/11' is infinitely more important than discovering how they did it.
Want to know who did it and why? Search on Google: "All the proof in the world".
Wow, just... I mean. Heat rises. Sometime, stick your head over an open grill or and camp fire from a few feet away. Then imagine molten steel with your head just above it. Grill may be 3-400 degrees F, molten steel is twice that just to get a dim red glow.
@IdleGod I am betting it was when he was showing the thermite being ignited. For some reason when i was watching that...i was thinking.."I bet this is from a 9/11 truther/moron video about how dangerous thermite is." Dprjones probably used it against them and they flagged him.
@TheScienceFoundation -Not really. He showing these quacks inconsistencies with their research and most likely are hopeful that 911 was an inside job or it would make them look stupid.
The real question to be asked here is the validity of the claim that nano thermite was found at the site. The paper does look really suspect, but what I want to know is if the nano thermite was found. If it is credibly determined that it existed there, that does open some questions. Of course, I don't buy any of their claims until I see proof, and I've never seen proof yet.
I worked with demolitions in the military. I hate it when people bring up this "thermite was found at the wreckage site!" argument. No kidding? Thermite is rust and aluminum.
The same as with chemtrailers and creationists, muslims, growing earthers, nibirooters and pan-spermians
All dedicated to Babel, disinformation, and social damage. And personal promotion.
A. Lobacewski had it right: "It is this feature, this hystericization of society, that enables pathological plotters, snake charmers, and other primitive deviants to act as essential factors in the processes of the origination of evil on a macro-social scale.
Folks need to face it...religion brought those buildings down. Granted the burning jet fuel was a big part of it, but it wouldn't have been in the building if it weren't for Islam in particular.
I would have found it far more suspicious if they hadn't found rust and aluminium dust in a pulverized building, since I'm sure both would have been present in fairly large quantities.
Oh please not that silly chestnut. It is the nano size of the rust and aluminium particles and the fact that they are intimately mixed in a formulated compound that makes it NT. Please don't post such simplistic ill informed opinions
The 9/11 conspiracy is nothing but a turd dressed up with a bun, ketchup, mustard, and relish. It looks like a tasty morsel of truth at first glance but only a fool swallows without chewing. Great job at debunking by DPR on this vid.
Smells like a bunch off the same old bullshit to me. Crazy people can always find "something" to support their crazy half assed claim. Some crazy religious nutjobs rans planes into buildings. Why isn't that ehough? Oh yeah, because Bush and all the corporations being all corporationey did it. I mean HOLY SHIT THEY FOUND POWDERED ALUMINIUM AND IRON OXIDE IN A BURNT BROKE DOWN BUILDING, HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!11111oneoneone
Ah yes run your own "professional high grade scientific journal" styled the way in "Run your own quality brand for professionals group" [in what a hamster could join a brand group of qualified woodworkers"
what a bunch of whack jobs these conspricists are. Why was this video flagged on dpr's channel, but of course that's a rhetorical question, same as religious nutjobs, they play the censorship game.
Planes by themselves could not have taken down the towers, as that would have left the middle subborts
It was not a "controlled demolition" either
it WAS terrorists, the thermite was used to erode the middle supports whist planes laden with explosives hit the sides. it wasn't jus "steal some planes!" as they would not have been able to take out even the sides by themselves
Can u show me ANY CRITIQUE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN OTHER SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS OF BENTHAM OPEN JOURNAL BEFORE THE LATTER PUBLISHED ABT NANO THERMITE AND BEFORE 9112001? Only then would you have a point. besides theres so many other pts which make it ridiculous to beleive in the caveman conspiracy YES ur side is a co nspiracy too by definition. e.g. no parts of a plane supposed to survive is coaimed, even the black boxes BUT A PASSPORT OF A TERRORIST DID? How ridiculous is tht?
U dont seem 2 get it ok heres some more pts to consider. WHY wld a Christian denomination/certain Christians be in support of 911 being inspired by the US gov instead of happily pting out how vile "islam" is like most of them do e.g. Alex Jones and many others? So theyr going out of their way n despite the only RELIGIOUS grp tht attacks the basics of their religion n still denfend them whilst blaming their own gov. tht alone shld say something. THEN theres Jesse Ventura...
"WHY wld a Christian denomination/certain Christians be in support of 911 being inspired by the US gov instead of happily pting out how vile "islam" is like most of them do" I find that ironic most truthers are Christian that defend Islam, guess starting some movement generates more money.
Most truthers are Christian? this is the first time i hear tht. the republican party is supposed to be the demoninat religious fanatic Christian party n almost NONE of them supports 911 truth whilst liberal n secular prominent Jesse Ventura does. Infact i always hear fox having mockedc 91truth n we all know if fox mocks somehting too much probably the mocked stuff is true. why r u siding with fox n the repubs on this one? i just dont get it?
@jonnykzj Who said all Christians are fanatics, republicans, and/or conservative? Most truthers are Christian, you can look at the supporters and comments on YouTube. Jesse is one of the few secularist that do support the truth movement. Most secularist side with the official story because it helps with the movement against religious dominance (i.e. Islamic terrorism).
Im all for ppl against fanatics and infact the whole concept of particularly sunni/shia Islam as ive been threatened within my own family. I hate the Taliban and their likes for their treatment of women in particular and i want them to be punished serverely for these crimes. hence i fully support Tfoot n his initiated Draw Muhammad Day BUT inspite of this I CANNOT BLAME THEM for something theyve most probably not done. Osama Bin laden has ALSO NEVER been indicted for 911.
@jonnykzj I know Osama has yet to be indicted, that's something the 9/11 truthers do not talk about a lot. They constantly hold their other hypothesis, which have been shown as false.
Do you mean to say theyr just holding on to thermite? That is by far not the only thing for we cant ignore the way WTC 7 fell n the fact tht no building ever fell, let alone entirely, from fires and all the "coincidences" tht day like all of the parts of the plane vanishing but a passport of a terroist magically surviving. also the black boxes of all planes, which r built to withstand anything known, all "coincidentally" disappeared. Also dont forget the war games be4 the event.
@jonnykzj The thermite in the Towers, hijackers are still alive, and nine second claims are the ones I'm talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying there weren't any planes involved?
Ofcourse there were planes but no plane hit WTC 7. As for one or more of the CLAIMED hijackers being alive, cld be, but tht is not one of the important factors for me.
@jonnykzj Fox mock it because GW Bush was President and the Republicans had the power at the time it happend, nice spin though almost FOX worthy!
For the same reason it's mostly the lefts crazy people that are truthers because they want it to be the republicans shitstorm and that G.W Bush did it, the far right love Bush so they don't want it to be his fault/doing.
That said a lot of CRAZY right wingers are truthers as well. The all share something though, retardation...
So this means "Jesse Ventura" and "George Carlin" were retarded too? Dont u see how ridiculous this is? AND ALSO as ive said a VERY SIMPLE fact can change my mind nontheless. Make an appx scaled miniature wtc 7 with all similar material and same pressure btw the floors. let it burn at even 10% more temp wthan the original with random fires n then see if it collpases in a similar manner as did wtc 7 OR EVEN CLOSE.
@jonnykzj YES it does mean that, look at Jesse Ventura ffs, has nothing to do with my last message though. Also I'm not saying that the government wasn't involved just that it's highly unlikely and a lot of things truthers claim have been proven false. Be careful with those drugs you got.
It's HIGHLY likely that the US gov AT THE VERY LEAST ALLOWED it to happen. This much most experts on the subject even here in Germany agree with. Ofcourse it's harder for US experts, whor funded by taxes via it's very gov, to speak up. NOW ofcourse somethings truthers claim maybe false BUT fact is no building ever fell in it's entirety from mere fires and many of those were weaker in structure than wtc 7. Then black boyes disappered BUT A PASSPORT OF A HIJACKER SPSEDLY SURVIVED??!
...black boyes=black boxes. Also JV was both in the SEALS and ALSO GOVERNOR so hed probably know more abt internal gov tricks more than any of us do. Last but not least there is NO EVIDENCE linking these attacks to Muslim extremists AND I DESPISE them and the Taliban for their treatment of women and the rest of their oppressive shariah elements they wanna implement upon everyone. YET i cannot fight them coz of false pretenses for which this war is currently going on.
...whos been ON THE INSIDE as governor. Sure he wld know wht hes talking abt more than we do. Then remember George's CArlin's statement when asked on a reinvestigation on 911 answering "THERE WILL NEVER BE A TRUE INVESTIGATION...THE POWER DOES WHAT IT WANTS". Even in his standups many a times he warned tht the GOV DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT ABT U n u still wanna trust them isntead of busting open the gates n shouting LET US IN U SCUM WE THE PPL HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE ALL GOV DEPARTMENTS N PAPERS...
...n ensure tht they r working for u NOT THE OTHER WAY ARND. Theres also atheists on utube who defended 911truth like user "proudfootz" for example. This is a very serious issue. U need to get the gov baxck in ur hands 4 now it's being controlled by PRIVATE OFFSHORE BANKERS.
What reactionary govts did after 9/11, is not the reason 9/11 occurred. I assume you think hurricane katrina was instigated by the builders federation?
Well what a lousy deunking video. You divert attention to the means of the message delivery - The Bentham Open journal rather than the message itself and it's implications. You pour scorn on the authors calling them truthers when Jones and Haritt are highly regarded Professors in their respective fields with a wealth of peer reviewed publications to their names. You focus on Harrit expressing doubt as to the precise way the NT was used when this is just scientific honesty.
DPR was specifically asked about this "peer reviewed and published" paper. He illustrated, as well as the editor of the actual journal, that the paper was probably politically motivated vanity publishing, as it had little to do with the journal in which it was published. So it's already got two strikes against it as evidence.
What is the "message itself?"
They found rust and aluminium on epoxy chips. In a building made of steel and aluminium this isn't a surprise.
You state: "They found rust and aluminium on epoxy chips. In a building made of steel and aluminium this isn't a surprise."
Clearly you are no Chemist!
They actually found a high tech material comprising of nanoparticulate iron oxide intimately mixed with particulate aluminium which posessed exothermic properties and when combusted gave rise to the tell-tale irom microsphere residues of thermite.
[iron oxide intimately mixed with particulate aluminium]
According to the paper itself it was not an intimate mixing, but a layer of red matter (rust) on one side of a polymer chip, and a layer of grey matter (Al) on the other.
[ posessed exothermic properties]
Of course it did, it's bloody oxidizing aluminium! It's an expected innate chemical property.
[the tell-tale irom microsphere residues of thermite]
The residue of thermite Is aluminium oxide and iron. surface tension is responsible for the shape of the iron. The particulates would form this shape even if no aluminium was used in the reation.
Nanoparticles are naturally occuring, naturally reacting agents. If they weren't, you'd be sufficating right now.
Though i may not have a chemistry degree, I do have sufficient applied science education to understand the paper.
Look I'm through with your silly comments as you clearly have a very limited understanding of the paper. The red material is the nanothermitic material comprosing an intimate mixture of the particulate aluminium and nano iron oxide. Unsubstantiated by whom? By NIST? Please just stick to your own area of expertise whatever that might be and don't make misleading/false comments on this forum.
What are the Academic Credentials of @dprjones ?
VyckRo 3 weeks ago
BAWWWWW! Da twoofers are mad at the truth. Irony is wonderful sometimes.
TheCaptainLulz 9 months ago
Comment removed
HeyRuka 9 months ago
Comment removed
HeyRuka 9 months ago
This video is nothing but attempt to dismiss scientific findings through dishonest slander, personal attacks, and baseless claims. No one supporting actual scientific proceedings will take it at face value, this is just not a valid way to contest scientific publications.
I do not support censorship in any form. But this is outright lies and slander, and an insult to scientific methodology.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon If this is what you call "scientific findings", I won't waste my time with your definition of lies and slander.
And look behind you, the Illumiati is watching, or maybe they'll just use your RFID chip....
djtripnosys 4 months ago
@djtripnosys Yes, I call peer-reviewed scientific studies published in scientific journals in accordance with scientific methodology by established scientists "scientific".
If you think otherwise, I'd strongly suggest checking if you might be a hypocrite.
Double so if you're going to cite studies such as NIST reports or adhoc engineering reports as "scientific". Not that I'm implying you'd do that, just that it's common.
SexyMelon 4 months ago
@SexyMelon "peer-reviewed scientific studies published in scientific journals in accordance with scientific methodology by established scientists " you might actually check your info before you spread it. This is 100% untrue. None of these papers underwent proper peer review. Not one. But hey, I could be totally wrong, so you cite JUST ONE paper on this subject that has undergone peer review.....g'head...
djtripnosys 4 months ago
@djtripnosys Did you know you can't just make things up?
The paper was published in a scientific journal that employs anonymous peer review, it was held back for review, edited, re-submitted, approved by the editor and finally published. Since then, one of the reviewers resigned from anonymity and confirmed that he was on a peer-review board (and, indeed, praised the paper quite highly).
What proof do you have otherwise? Are you just making things up? Did you look it up at all?
SexyMelon 4 months ago
@SexyMelon First, YOU are the one making an assertion, YOU need to prove your case. It is not upon me to prove a negative, and your very actions not only show your ignorance of scientific methodology, but actually prove my only point: You have no idea what you are talking about. There is NO SUCH THING as "anonymous peer review", peer review must be public, OPEN TO SCRUTINY, to qualify. I can't cite the thousands of universities that DIDN'T review this, but you CAN cite JUST one...can't you?
djtripnosys 4 months ago
@djtripnosys And, again, I have no idea, and you clearly don't either...
"There is NO SUCH THING as "anonymous peer review"
Peer review is almost always anonymous, and has been for at least a hundred years now. It's not a law, but it's the most common approach for scientific publications.
I'll join you in the idea that it shouldn't be, but that's just not how things are.
And oh, "universities" don't review anything, scientists - "peers" - do. At least as far as I know.
SexyMelon 4 months ago
@djtripnosys I trust there is no need for insults, we just misunderstood each other.
So, again, everything I said was in relation to the paper called "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" by Niels Harrit, et al (that is the subject of this video).
It was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and its contents are in accordance with scientific methodology, so it's a scientific paper. If you want to prove otherwise, be my guest.
SexyMelon 4 months ago
@SexyMelon Go to rationalwikki, search "journal for 9/11 Sudies", READ, follow sources, READ, google "peer review", READ...A LOT, stop defending stupid "theories" before you spend the 5 minutes needed to use google to check it out first.
djtripnosys 4 months ago
@djtripnosys I don't know what you're talking about, and it looks like neither do you...
Everything I said was in relation to the Niels Harrit paper that is the subject - or should be but isn't, but I digress - of this video.
SexyMelon 4 months ago
@djtripnosys Oh, the irony of replying to a comment pointing out that the video is nothing but a collection of insults used to dismiss evidence with a comment filled with insults...
Yeah, yeah, "kooky conspiracy theorists". That's all the argument ultimately comes down to, name-calling. Never actual evidence or scientific facts. Quite tiresome, really, so excuse me if I don't bother either...
SexyMelon 4 months ago
@TheCouncilOfMajic12
true. Also it's funny that it's the fact that it's called a "theory" because there's already an available and widely supported "official story" of each case where conspiracy theories are present. The official story is never fully tackled first....just poked at and picked at.
=)
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
@TheCouncilOfMajic12
and the valid conclusion is??
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
you people are soo funny...lost in ur distorted view of the world...much like creationists.
What motive would the US possibly have for this tragedy?
What facts lead to what conclusion and have been seriously peer reviewed??
You guys are making a conclusion of a large conspiracy and pulling and picking facts from the bullshit you read.
No no no, that's not science....make conclusions FROM facts and present THAT to the world, idiots. Loose change bitches won't do anything..
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
For anyone interested, the nonsense above concerned the proposition concerned Jones igniting his sample in air as opposed to vacuum or inert gas.
For factual references please see paper by Tillotson, et al. of 1999 referenced in the original study, the original developers of nano-thermite, from whom the methodology was copied from (and compared to) verbatim.
"We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al., so we could compare with their results for known nanothermite."
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Furthermote,
"The formation of these iron-rich spheres shows the thermite reaction because:
1. elemental iron is produced, and
2. very high temperatures were reached, beyond that which can be reached by burning hydrocarbons, to produce molten iron and iron oxide -- as shown by the formation of spheres."
Which should be more or less intuitive (melting iron requires high temperatures, of course).
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Viewers should note the video above is dishonest in comitting Guilt by Association, but also outright lying by omission about Betham Publishing.
The nonsense paper discussed here was submitted to Open Information Science Journal of Betham Publishing by Davis, who had also previously submitted another such bogus paper to another Betham journal, and had it rejected by peer review. Neither of the above are Open Chemistry Journal where nano-thermite paper was published.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
For further reference, the "debunker" rumour-mill argument about not igniting thermite in vacuum is best addressed to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories development under Tillotson et al, the original developers of nano-thermite - the methodology and data of which Harrit's paper is largely based on - who have never conducted vacuum-chamber tests either, due to aforementioned irrelevancy of the method.
Don't parrot "debunker" websites. They're credible sources.
SexyMelon 1 year ago 2
@SexyMelon Ach. *NOT credible sources, of course. No personal attack-based blogs can possibly be.
Do your own research.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Addendum: Google tells me Jones himself had already responded to this "oxygen" bullshit personally, actually, validating the aforementioned.
"We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al., so we could compare with their results for known nanothermite -- see Fig. 29 in our paper."
SexyMelon 1 year ago
/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Enjoy.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage I stopped watching that after he claimed they where independent scientists published in a peer-review journal. Aside from that, you cannot avoid the fact no physical evidence was found to support that bullshit.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1
If you didn't watch it all, you are not in a position to make the statement about "no physical evidence being found". In any case, would that be the NIST "we didn't find any evidence of... " as in "we didn't look for any evidence of...."? If someone went to all the trouble of concealing the use of NT, what do you think the "physical evidence" would look like to a clean-up worker?
ThePeage 1 year ago
@desager1
Incidentally, you should know that even if it were true that the Harrit paper was not peer-reviewed, it is irrelevant now it is published - it's "out there". Peer review doesn't begin and end with pre-publication review. Good papers get into poor journals and bad ones get into good journals sometimes. It's the science in the paper that matters.
dprjones should be ashamed of himself for criticising scientists for not claiming to know what they do not know.
ThePeage 1 year ago 2
@desager1
It is a good idea to play "spot the logical fallacy" in dprjones' video. I'll start you off with: Jones is a Mormon THEREFORE the nanothermite paper is wrong.
Ken Miller's a practising Catholic (virgin birth, wine LITERALLY into the blood of a dead Jew etc) Does that make Ken Miller a crap biologist? Think about it.
Btw, are you suggesting every paper Benthams ever published is poor, or just one whose findings you find unpalatable?
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "Jones is a Mormon THEREFORE the nanothermite paper is wrong." No, Jones fabricated evidence to fit his hypothesis, like his evidence that Jesus was in America. So you just made your own logically fallacy.
"even if it were true that the Harrit paper was not peer-reviewed, it is irrelevant now it is published" It is completely relevant, if it is not peer-reviewed that means that the paper in its entirety cannot be trusted. Saying that peer-review is irrelevant is absurd.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1
What nonsense! The paper is published and available for everyone to review. If the paper did not go through the proper procedures for the journal, the editor should/would have printed a retraction before, or instead of, resigning (for "political" reasons?). If the authors fabricated their evidence then they need to be discredited big time, but I assume you have evidence of this serious accusation?
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "What nonsense! The paper is published and available for everyone to review" I agree, your comment is nonsense. Peer-review means that it is reviewed by experts on the subject matter, not laymen that have no clue about anything the paper is talking about. Until the paper is published in an actual peer-review journal the paper should be ignored. So why didn't they publish it in an actual peer-review journal? Why did they have to sneak it into the vanity journal that published it?
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1
Once a paper is published, every "expert on the subject matter" can read it, and respond, if they want to. The paper was received by the journal on 12th August 2008 and accepted (following revision after peer-review) on Feb 13 2009. If the authors "sneaked it in", the journal certainly had it a long time! Strangely enough, in the 18 months it has been published, no-one has challenged it. If it is poor science and so easy to refute, why do you think no-one has done so?
ThePeage 1 year ago 2
@desager1
"Peer-review means that it is reviewed by experts on the subject matter, not laymen that have no clue about anything the paper is talking about. "
Speak for yourself!!!!
ThePeage 1 year ago
@desager1 ThePeage is correct, the paper was peer-reviewed (and corrected based on the review) prior to publication, as well as still open to peer-review.
Betham Open is an "actual peer-reviewed journal". In fact Betham publications is a large provider of academic publishing.
Any slander directed at the publishers or authors is nothing but a personal attack, and is a logical fallacy. You have to address the evidence, not the people.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "ThePeage is correct, the paper was peer-reviewed" No, it wasn't, not sure why truthers keep repeating that hoping people would think that it is true.
"You have to address the evidence, not the people." One sample the paper claims was recieved on 2/2008, but it was used in a talk in 2007. They used a DSC to determine its autoignition temp in a column of air, which is stupid if you are trying to determine if it is thermite. The graph of energy density varies widely, so it is all shit.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "No, it wasn't"
Yes it was... Like Peage already said, the glaring detail is that it was even *corrected* after review.
I understand misinformation the likes of above video is easy to cling to, but it just doesn't pass the fact-checking stage.
"One sample the paper claims was recieved on 2/2008, but it was used in a talk in 2007."
Source.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@desager1 "They used a DSC to determine its autoignition temp in a column of air, which is stupid if you are trying to determine if it is thermite."
Nonsense. Air or no air, the products and ignition of thermitic reaction are the same.
"The graph of energy density varies widely, so it is all shit."
Also total nonsense; for reasons you didn't bother to explain, I don't have to refute it.
But good job actually discussing the evidence. Ad hominem is such an unthankful tactic.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "Nonsense. Air or no air, the products and ignition of thermitic reaction are the same." Your comment is nonsense, since thermite is self oxidizing, it would ignite without air, which the did not do, quite odd since that would of confirmed their hypothesis.
"Also total nonsense; for reasons you didn't bother to explain, I don't have to refute it." I see you have not even seen the paper you are trying to defend. Sample #1 ~1.6kJ/g, #2 ~2.4kJ/g #3 ~ 7kJ/g #4 ~5.9kJ/g <- big problem
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "since thermite is self oxidizing, it would ignite without air"
Many things can ignite without air, doesn't make them thermite. What is needed is thermitic residue, which is elemental iron spheres and aluminum oxide vapour.
What follows is an auto-igniting, low-temperature, quick, thermite-like compound leaving thermitic residue. QED.
"I see you have not even seen the paper you are trying to defend."
I've read it. Your "big problem" makes no sense whatsoever.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "Many things can ignite without air, doesn't make them thermite. What is needed is thermitic residue, which is elemental iron spheres and aluminum oxide vapour." And yet, they did not recover any Aluminum oxide in their experiments, quite odd also.
"I've read it. Your "big problem" makes no sense whatsoever." Then I conclude you have not read it, or you do not understand what energy density is, unless you are fine with 0 precision in your truther science
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "And yet, they did not recover any Aluminum oxide in their experiments"
Huh? The samples were littered with aluminum oxide. "Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size... Contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen... Etc."
"hen I conclude you have not read it, or you do not understand what energy density is, etc."
Insult is not a form of argument.
You can't insult the evidence until it goes away, sorry. Your objection remains nonsensical.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "Huh? The samples were littered with aluminum oxide." Incase you are unaware, Aluminum Oxide is a form of rust, so it is to be expected when you have aluminum. What is unique to thermite is "aluminum oxide vapour" which they did not find, care to try again? And I can still conclude that you did not read the paper you are trying to defend, or you just do not understand science at all. Unless you think that zero precision is a good thing. So continue with your nonsensical responses.
desager1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@desager1 "Incase you are unaware, Aluminum Oxide is a form of rust, so it is to be expected when you have aluminum."
What is not expected is to have elemental aluminum spheres beings completely covered in it, and its surroundings. Rust isn't air freshener.
"What is unique to thermite is "aluminum oxide vapour" which they did not find"
You just said it was "expected" and suddenly they "didn't find" it? At least don't be a hypocrite.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@desager1 "And I can still conclude that you did not read the paper you are trying to defend"
Insult is still not a form of argument, sorry.
Since you're unable to elaborate on your nonsense about energy content, I'm going to guess you copied it off some "debunker" website without bothering to research what it means, and I still see no reason to address it.
Very common, that.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@desager1 Oh and, yeah, things unique to - aluminum/diferumtrioxide - thermite reaction are aluminum oxide vapor/dust and formation of elemental iron spheres both in conjunction with release of energy.
In case you actually give a damn about this "science" thingy.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Still you avoided the fact that they did not collect any Aluminum oxide vapor from their "thermite" reaction.
"Since you're unable to elaborate on your nonsense about energy content" Do I need to paint a portrait for you? Example; TNT has an energy density of 4.7kJ/g, if I had 4 samples of it tested they would all be 4.7kJ/g. having a range of 1.6 to 7. That type of range means their test is flawed and needs to be repeated, which they did not. Guess that is nonsensical also
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "Still you avoided the fact that they did not collect any Aluminum oxide vapor"
I already quoted part of the paper where it expressly states they did. See below.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@desager1 "Example; TNT has an energy density of 4.7kJ/g, if I had 4 samples of it tested they would all be 4.7kJ/g"
I see. Thanks for explaining finally instead of throwing insults.
No one's testing samples of explosives here, but looking for explosive residue. Explode your TNT, mix it with concrete, slap on some dust and furniture, and you're just not going to get the same readings...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
...Likewise, the analyzed samples are recovered from *dust* of a collapsed building, in addition to that, being composed of two layers: red active thermite, and grey whatever.
The common-sense test is that all of the samples would be completely different things if you could judge them by energy density - you cannot - which they evidently aren't.
Here the energy content varies from samples to sample due to concentration of active thermite, some samples having none at all of it.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "Explode your TNT, mix it with concrete, slap on some dust and furniture, and you're just not going to get the same readings..." You see, they claimed to have isolated the chips from the rest of the dust, and claimed it was unreacted, which makes your statement void.
So you have no actual arguments to defend that crap paper do you, so where do you get all your information from? Since you did not understand what energy density that leads me to conclude you have no understanding of it
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "have it ignite with no oxygen present"
I have already addressed this, this has nothing to do with even detecting WHETHER it is thermite. Why are you repeating already rebuked claims?
"which makes your statement void"
No part of your criticism makes any sense, again. The energy content is measured for each individual sample, and each individual chip has different red thermitic material content.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "I have already addressed this, this has nothing to do with even detecting WHETHER it is thermite. Why are you repeating already rebuked claims?" Again you are wrong, since thermite is the only material with that chemical makeup that will ignite without oxygen, but there are many materials that will ignite with oxygen with those chemicals, you need to ignite it in a column of some noble gas, such as argon. If this is still "nonsense" then you are truly ignorant.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "thermite is the only material with that chemical makeup that will ignite without oxygen"
I'm sorry, this completely disqualifies you from commenting on the matter any further. This is akin to saying "T-Rex is the only known dinosaur".
In fact there are thousands of known such mixtures and systems - called "self-oxidizing" - and they are the basis of most or all kinds of explosives, incendiaries, and pyrotechnics.
I fail to see the need to address this further.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "In fact there are thousands of known such mixtures and systems - called "self-oxidizing" - " Name another with that chemical makeup shown in your shit paper, c;mon.
"Starting with the simple fact that thermite is not a compound." did I say it was, do I need to keep everything dumbed down for you to understand? Okay then, Energy density shown in that crap was kJ/g (kilojoules per gram) Look, gram, that's weight dipshit. Are you that stupid regarding science?
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "Name another with that chemical makeup"
What's that even supposed to mean?
"did I say it was"
You said it could be tested "by weight", implying that its homogeneous. It's not.
"do I need to keep everything dumbed down for you to understand"
You need to stop talking about things you know nothing about, then you won't need to "dumb down".
"Energy density shown in that crap was kJ/g (kilojoules per gram)"
/facepalm
Go away.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "/facepalm" I expected that response from you since you do not seem to be able to comprehend this stuff at all. Stop trying to pretend that you understand this stuff with your cleaver responses.
"Name another with that chemical makeup" name another with that chemical makeup that ignites without air, is it really that difficult to understand, look at what was just before that and you would understand that, are you really that fucking dumb. No, its not childish, just stating facts.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "Stop trying to pretend that you understand this stuff with your cleaver responses."
"cleaver responses"
I'm sorry, this is getting ridiculous. You've contributed nothing but repeating the long-debunked rumour-mill nonsense here and completely ignoring any refutations to it.
There's nothing to discuss. Everything you said was already refuted.
"name another with that chemical makeup"
This still fails to make any grammatical sense.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon ""In fact there are thousands of known such mixtures and systems - called "self-oxidizing" - " Name another with that chemical makeup shown in your shit paper, c;mon." Lets see here, 1st part you claim 1,000's of self oxidizing systems, then I asked for you to name another one with the chemical makeup in that paper, it's not difficult to understand
"Everything you said was already refuted." maybe in the truther world where bullshit and non-answers is accepted.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "Name another with that chemical makeup"
Just as soon as you explain what the above sentence is supposed to even mean.
Or, alternatively, stop discussing matter you know nothing about with that bratty insulting name-calling approach "debunkers" seem to share all as one.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "Just as soon as you explain what the above sentence is supposed to even mean." Name another (beside thermite, which you claim it is) material with the chemical makeup shown in that paper which is self-oxidizing. I don't know if that can be dumbed down any more for you.
Either way I am done dealing with you, you are either A) Dishonest B) Ignorant of the subject C) just getting your responses from truther sites D) All of the above, I suspect the answer is D, now go away dipshit.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "material with the chemical makeup"
Oh for fuck's sake.
What other material can there be with a different chemical composition other than the very material that it IS? What do you even MEAN?
"shown in that paper which is self-oxidizing"
And how the fuck is it even relevant to anything anyway.
Do you even know what you're talking about anymore?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@desager1 "I don't know if that can be dumbed down any more for you."
You shouldn't "dumb down", you should understand what you're trying to talk about to begin with. You're talking nonsense.
"Either way I am done dealing with you"
I was done dealing with you about ten posts ago, and since you still have nothing to contribute, that's quite mutual.
"Now go away dipshit" to you too, sir.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@desager1 "Lets see here, 1st part you claim 1,000's of self oxidizing systems, then I asked for you to name another one"
Oh, you ask me to name a self-oxidising system? Okay.
TNT, RDX, PETN, HMX, HMTD, PCT, TATP, DIPAM, EDNA...
Is that what you mean?
"maybe in the truther world where bullshit and non-answers is accepted."
Would you look at that, another response containing only insult and no argumentation whatsoever.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "Oh, you ask me to name a self-oxidising system? Okay.
TNT, RDX, PETN, HMX, HMTD, PCT, TATP, DIPAM, EDNA..." With the same chemical makeup, fuck you are dumb, now just go away you dishonest ignorant little fuck.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "now just go away you dishonest ignorant little fuck"
lol.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@desager1 "are you really that fucking dumb ... No, its not childish, just stating facts"
No comment.
Go away.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@desager1 I would also suggest scaling back on the whole "immature brat" behavior you have there, doesn't give your argument a whole lot of credibility. You know, etiquette?..
If not though, then not, I appreciate the fact that "truther's" only opposition to presented scientific evidence is represented across the board only in plain ignorance and name-calling.
Makes the research a tad bit easier.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon "The energy content is measured for each individual sample, and each individual chip has different red thermitic material content." That statement proves that you do not know anything about the subject, since energy density is determined buy the weight of the material, or "content" rather, so your rebuttal is also void.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "Since you did not understand what energy density that leads me to conclude you have no understanding of it"
I have already addressed this nonsense.
"So you have no actual arguments to defend that crap paper do you"
No, I've already addressed all the weak criticism you've bothered to blindly copy/paste from your favorite "debunking" website, and they don't have a leg to stand on.
As such you stand in willful ignorance and thus deliberate deceit towards physical evidence.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@desager1 Ironically this "debunking" stuff ultimately comes down to childish insults and questioning someone's intellect, for as soon as any meaningful rebuttal "debunkers" is rebuked in turn, you choose to continue defending the now indefensible position rather than admitting being wrong.
"Ironically", of course, because this is an amalgam of all attitudes you may accuse "conspiracy theorists" of having.
Sorry, we have the evidence, we win. No insult will make it go away. You need evidence.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "you choose to continue defending the now indefensible position rather than admitting being wrong." I agree, you do have a rather indefensible position, when shown to be wrong you will not admit it you simply continue with what you said previously. When someone calls you out for not knowing the subject matter at all you say that is just "childish" insults. Sorry, the 100's of actual peer-review papers says you are wrong, we have the evidence, we win.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "Sorry, the 100's of actual peer-review papers says you are wrong"
There are no peer-review papers addressing this issue by Harrit's. There are no peer-reviewed papers supporting the official story that are not pure speculation (see: "proposed hypothesis").
Oh and, there are not "hundreds". There are 42 total.
"we have the evidence, we win."
And not one of them documents any kind of evidence to support the official story.
Yes. There is not one shred of evidence to support it.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "The energy content is measured for each individual sample, and each individual chip has different red thermitic material content." That statement proves that you do not know anything about the subject, since energy density is determined buy the weight of the material, or "content" rather, so your rebuttal is also void. When the test for energy density is done you only want the material being tested, if that is not possible you want the same ratio of materials, they didn't do that.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 "since energy density is determined buy the weight of the material"
This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard since your quip about thermite being the only material able to ignite without air. No, this never done, and you won't find a single instance of it being done. Starting with the simple fact that thermite is not a compound.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "I already quoted part of the paper where it expressly states they did. See below." You quoted the part where the found it on the iron spheres, and since you are still not aware aluminum will oxidize when there is air.
"composed of two layers: red active thermite, and grey whatever." Despite that it was not thermite, but he could of easily done a test to confirm that, have it ignite with no oxygen present, but they did, or they did and nothing happened...
desager1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@desager1 "You quoted the part where the found it on the iron spheres"
On iron and aluminum spheres, as well as in residue. Pay attention.
"aluminum will oxidize when there is air"
The fuck? Do you even know what you're talking about? That's not how rust works.
"Despite that it was not thermite"
Begging the question. Definition of close-mindedness and dishonesty.
"but he could of easily done a test to confirm that"
The paper WAS a test to confirm that. See above.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "One sample the paper claims was recieved on 2/2008, but it was used in a talk in 2007." Source." Dr. Steven Jones - Boston 911 Conference - Full Presentation - 12/15/07.mov About 30 min in, the sample from 1 Hudson, also on the next sample it is odd that the guy speaking contradicts what Jones had in his slide, quite odd. So you can see jones just pulls things out of his ass when it suits him.
"the glaring detail is that it was even *corrected* after review." Source?
desager1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@desager1 "About 30 min in, the sample from 1 Hudson"
And what gives you the idea it is the same sample?
"So you can see jones just pulls things out of his ass when it suits him."
Ad hominem and slander. The weakest argument you can possibly raise here.
"Source?"
Last page of the paper...
"Received: 2008 | Revised: 2009 | Accepted: 2009"
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@desager1 "if it is not peer-reviewed that means that the paper in its entirety cannot be trusted"
Cool. Let's throw out FBI, CIA, NIST and MIT investigations out of the window then.
Oh and that Bazant paper too.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@desager1 "Aside from that, you cannot avoid the fact no physical evidence was found to support that bullshit."
Relevant physical evidence is also documented in the paper itself. Try reading it.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Thank you for this qdragon1337..great vid.
blueshadow1996 1 year ago
Pronunciation is important (modalities). And just because you are not aware, doesn't deny that thermate was used in 9/11 demolitions.
eldorado61guy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eldorado61guy "doesn't deny that thermate was used in 9/11 demolitions."
.
THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF PROOF.
greywolf424 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The big Oil corporations are trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating your own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
baccaratbargaineq 1 year ago
Ooh, so this is where AXe Anal Syst is, you had an argument with my brother and you lost on moral ground i believe, Captain D reported ME with two of his clips, All Captain D had to do is mail me and tell me to remove the clips or he will report me, no, that didnt happen, Cap'n D just shopped me and sent this muppet after me to try and justify being an ass, epic fail , now i see your in the company of intellects and your getting hammered, poetic justice? :)
Peace
concernedagain 1 year ago
Since an official re-investigation is unlikely. I'm glad this is being looked into. It's taking a long time to sift through the lies and BS from this matter, from both sides, officials and conspiracy theorists. Thermite might have not been part of the big plan, but this still doesn't change the facts from what we do know. Which still points to a false-flag attack. Thanks for the sharing video q
icoo44 1 year ago
Get a life.
It was obviously not what we were told happened that actually happened.
Truther is the opposite of LIAR so I guess we know where you stand.
Wake up and understand we are being lied to by the Government.
Are you so unable to use your own critical thinking.
Claymationclay 1 year ago
so explain why the WTC 7 went down? like wtf?
gunboundsuck 1 year ago
*facepalm* How can people be so stupid?
kewlkid325 1 year ago
@xNeptuneRisingx
Do I say it is all about muslims? Imbecile.
All I said is Bentham Science are a muslim funded fraud, so it is likely the same space cadets flagged the vid, considering it was debunking that very pile of shit org.
fantasy0coach 1 year ago
So basically this video backs the story of the muslims in a cave with box cutters that pulled off one of the largest terror attacks in history right?
BrickUnit 1 year ago
@BrickUnit Who's to say they were just Muslims in a cave? They did have some type of training and were funded by a man from a rich family. Truthers probably had more faith in America than most people and felt butt hurt to see that America can be harmed, we aren't invincible, that maybe explains the truthers.
HybridD91 1 year ago
perhaps plane attacker was not only one planing to attack the trade centre ,i think there was attack on trade centre many years before wasnt there !
okuma0kuma 1 year ago
Mind virus.
BirdValiant 1 year ago
Thank You Q!
Thank You T-foot
velspath 1 year ago
you are an inspiration lol or at least a role model of how to handle shocking accusations with cool collected research, i hope i am able to be so diligent in any circumstances were i must mimic this kind of research.
GGAlice1 1 year ago
Figuring out exactly how 9/11 was done is the work of crime investigators or conspiracy hobbyists who will endlessly go on discussing and debating every minuscule and intricate detail of the event to no avail. This is why it is of my opinion that more emphasis should be placed on the "who" instead of the "how". Discovering 'who did 9/11' is infinitely more important than discovering how they did it.
Want to know who did it and why? Search on Google: "All the proof in the world".
supermaucat 1 year ago
Thanks Q
SwervMontana 1 year ago
but but but JEWS
No, seriously. Anyone who believes 9/11 was an inside job is an insane motherfucker.
ShadowCrashed81 1 year ago
I tried to mirror this video. I saw => Rejected (terms of use violation)
How does one manage to mirror this without having it being rejected?
netmystique 1 year ago
Wow, just... I mean. Heat rises. Sometime, stick your head over an open grill or and camp fire from a few feet away. Then imagine molten steel with your head just above it. Grill may be 3-400 degrees F, molten steel is twice that just to get a dim red glow.
happysplodie 1 year ago
I wonder why this got flagged. It seems to be a perfectly reasonable video. I suspect its just another result of the horrible flagging system here.
IdleGod 1 year ago
@IdleGod I am betting it was when he was showing the thermite being ignited. For some reason when i was watching that...i was thinking.."I bet this is from a 9/11 truther/moron video about how dangerous thermite is." Dprjones probably used it against them and they flagged him.
MrJmm999 1 year ago
I'm not a 9/11 truther and I generally like dprjones videos but this one seems to contain a lot of ad homs and at least one argument form ignorance.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 4
@TheScienceFoundation -Not really. He showing these quacks inconsistencies with their research and most likely are hopeful that 911 was an inside job or it would make them look stupid.
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
The real question to be asked here is the validity of the claim that nano thermite was found at the site. The paper does look really suspect, but what I want to know is if the nano thermite was found. If it is credibly determined that it existed there, that does open some questions. Of course, I don't buy any of their claims until I see proof, and I've never seen proof yet.
EcrossH 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this, qdragon.
I worked with demolitions in the military. I hate it when people bring up this "thermite was found at the wreckage site!" argument. No kidding? Thermite is rust and aluminum.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
Well,well, well. I go with deicidalistic here
The same as with chemtrailers and creationists, muslims, growing earthers, nibirooters and pan-spermians
All dedicated to Babel, disinformation, and social damage. And personal promotion.
A. Lobacewski had it right: "It is this feature, this hystericization of society, that enables pathological plotters, snake charmers, and other primitive deviants to act as essential factors in the processes of the origination of evil on a macro-social scale.
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
Why was this flaged 0.o?
Mossasan 1 year ago
great video
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
Your bias! You don't want 911 to be an inside job!
GoogleVideoMan 1 year ago
Folks need to face it...religion brought those buildings down. Granted the burning jet fuel was a big part of it, but it wouldn't have been in the building if it weren't for Islam in particular.
onepoorguy 1 year ago
I would have found it far more suspicious if they hadn't found rust and aluminium dust in a pulverized building, since I'm sure both would have been present in fairly large quantities.
LordCreo 1 year ago 5
@LordCreo
Oh please not that silly chestnut. It is the nano size of the rust and aluminium particles and the fact that they are intimately mixed in a formulated compound that makes it NT. Please don't post such simplistic ill informed opinions
Zooney1 1 year ago
Thanks Qdragon for posting this DPR video. Flase flagging is for wankers.
REBMike1 1 year ago
The 9/11 conspiracy is nothing but a turd dressed up with a bun, ketchup, mustard, and relish. It looks like a tasty morsel of truth at first glance but only a fool swallows without chewing. Great job at debunking by DPR on this vid.
deicidalistic 1 year ago
Smells like a bunch off the same old bullshit to me. Crazy people can always find "something" to support their crazy half assed claim. Some crazy religious nutjobs rans planes into buildings. Why isn't that ehough? Oh yeah, because Bush and all the corporations being all corporationey did it. I mean HOLY SHIT THEY FOUND POWDERED ALUMINIUM AND IRON OXIDE IN A BURNT BROKE DOWN BUILDING, HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!11111oneoneone
Choke yourselves.
seanThree16 1 year ago
@seanThree16 No need to be so aggressive - but yeah, pretty much.
TehFryingIrishman 1 year ago
Ah yes run your own "professional high grade scientific journal" styled the way in "Run your own quality brand for professionals group" [in what a hamster could join a brand group of qualified woodworkers"
And when you are find out threaten..lovely!
masticina 1 year ago
what a bunch of whack jobs these conspricists are. Why was this video flagged on dpr's channel, but of course that's a rhetorical question, same as religious nutjobs, they play the censorship game.
01101100d 1 year ago
FFS. you are all retarded
Planes by themselves could not have taken down the towers, as that would have left the middle subborts
It was not a "controlled demolition" either
it WAS terrorists, the thermite was used to erode the middle supports whist planes laden with explosives hit the sides. it wasn't jus "steal some planes!" as they would not have been able to take out even the sides by themselves
A Conspiricy nuts are nuts
B Anti-Conspiricy nuts simplify it
BrightRaven0 1 year ago
@BrightRaven0 And the proof for this claim is... where, exactly?
Articorse 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this.
macnutz 1 year ago
Wow, so they paid the journal to publish their paper? Isn't that a bit unethical, or am I missing something here?
softy1000 1 year ago
It smacks of muslim flagging. They have the same agenda as truthers. And are serial flaggers.
fantasy0coach 1 year ago
@fantasy0coach
Whoever is doing the flagging, at this point they should know that censoring a video effectively spreads it.
BohemianBlasphemy 1 year ago
@BohemianBlasphemy
lol yes, but we know how stupid musso flaggers are. They dont think.
fantasy0coach 1 year ago
@BohemianBlasphemy
Bentham Science is a muslim funded fraud.
fantasy0coach 1 year ago
@fantasy0coach
Can u show me ANY CRITIQUE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN OTHER SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS OF BENTHAM OPEN JOURNAL BEFORE THE LATTER PUBLISHED ABT NANO THERMITE AND BEFORE 9112001? Only then would you have a point. besides theres so many other pts which make it ridiculous to beleive in the caveman conspiracy YES ur side is a co nspiracy too by definition. e.g. no parts of a plane supposed to survive is coaimed, even the black boxes BUT A PASSPORT OF A TERRORIST DID? How ridiculous is tht?
jonnykzj 1 year ago
@jonnykzj
Yeah...but...in my defense.....you are insane.
fantasy0coach 1 year ago
@fantasy0coach
U dont seem 2 get it ok heres some more pts to consider. WHY wld a Christian denomination/certain Christians be in support of 911 being inspired by the US gov instead of happily pting out how vile "islam" is like most of them do e.g. Alex Jones and many others? So theyr going out of their way n despite the only RELIGIOUS grp tht attacks the basics of their religion n still denfend them whilst blaming their own gov. tht alone shld say something. THEN theres Jesse Ventura...
jonnykzj 1 year ago
@jonnykzj
"WHY wld a Christian denomination/certain Christians be in support of 911 being inspired by the US gov instead of happily pting out how vile "islam" is like most of them do" I find that ironic most truthers are Christian that defend Islam, guess starting some movement generates more money.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91
Most truthers are Christian? this is the first time i hear tht. the republican party is supposed to be the demoninat religious fanatic Christian party n almost NONE of them supports 911 truth whilst liberal n secular prominent Jesse Ventura does. Infact i always hear fox having mockedc 91truth n we all know if fox mocks somehting too much probably the mocked stuff is true. why r u siding with fox n the repubs on this one? i just dont get it?
jonnykzj 1 year ago
@jonnykzj Who said all Christians are fanatics, republicans, and/or conservative? Most truthers are Christian, you can look at the supporters and comments on YouTube. Jesse is one of the few secularist that do support the truth movement. Most secularist side with the official story because it helps with the movement against religious dominance (i.e. Islamic terrorism).
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91
Im all for ppl against fanatics and infact the whole concept of particularly sunni/shia Islam as ive been threatened within my own family. I hate the Taliban and their likes for their treatment of women in particular and i want them to be punished serverely for these crimes. hence i fully support Tfoot n his initiated Draw Muhammad Day BUT inspite of this I CANNOT BLAME THEM for something theyve most probably not done. Osama Bin laden has ALSO NEVER been indicted for 911.
jonnykzj 1 year ago
@jonnykzj I know Osama has yet to be indicted, that's something the 9/11 truthers do not talk about a lot. They constantly hold their other hypothesis, which have been shown as false.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91
Do you mean to say theyr just holding on to thermite? That is by far not the only thing for we cant ignore the way WTC 7 fell n the fact tht no building ever fell, let alone entirely, from fires and all the "coincidences" tht day like all of the parts of the plane vanishing but a passport of a terroist magically surviving. also the black boxes of all planes, which r built to withstand anything known, all "coincidentally" disappeared. Also dont forget the war games be4 the event.
jonnykzj 1 year ago
@jonnykzj The thermite in the Towers, hijackers are still alive, and nine second claims are the ones I'm talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying there weren't any planes involved?
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91
Ofcourse there were planes but no plane hit WTC 7. As for one or more of the CLAIMED hijackers being alive, cld be, but tht is not one of the important factors for me.
jonnykzj 1 year ago
@jonnykzj Fox mock it because GW Bush was President and the Republicans had the power at the time it happend, nice spin though almost FOX worthy!
For the same reason it's mostly the lefts crazy people that are truthers because they want it to be the republicans shitstorm and that G.W Bush did it, the far right love Bush so they don't want it to be his fault/doing.
That said a lot of CRAZY right wingers are truthers as well. The all share something though, retardation...
checkcall123 1 year ago
@checkcall123
So this means "Jesse Ventura" and "George Carlin" were retarded too? Dont u see how ridiculous this is? AND ALSO as ive said a VERY SIMPLE fact can change my mind nontheless. Make an appx scaled miniature wtc 7 with all similar material and same pressure btw the floors. let it burn at even 10% more temp wthan the original with random fires n then see if it collpases in a similar manner as did wtc 7 OR EVEN CLOSE.
jonnykzj 1 year ago
@jonnykzj YES it does mean that, look at Jesse Ventura ffs, has nothing to do with my last message though. Also I'm not saying that the government wasn't involved just that it's highly unlikely and a lot of things truthers claim have been proven false. Be careful with those drugs you got.
checkcall123 1 year ago
@checkcall123
It's HIGHLY likely that the US gov AT THE VERY LEAST ALLOWED it to happen. This much most experts on the subject even here in Germany agree with. Ofcourse it's harder for US experts, whor funded by taxes via it's very gov, to speak up. NOW ofcourse somethings truthers claim maybe false BUT fact is no building ever fell in it's entirety from mere fires and many of those were weaker in structure than wtc 7. Then black boyes disappered BUT A PASSPORT OF A HIJACKER SPSEDLY SURVIVED??!
jonnykzj 1 year ago
...black boyes=black boxes. Also JV was both in the SEALS and ALSO GOVERNOR so hed probably know more abt internal gov tricks more than any of us do. Last but not least there is NO EVIDENCE linking these attacks to Muslim extremists AND I DESPISE them and the Taliban for their treatment of women and the rest of their oppressive shariah elements they wanna implement upon everyone. YET i cannot fight them coz of false pretenses for which this war is currently going on.
jonnykzj 1 year ago
...whos been ON THE INSIDE as governor. Sure he wld know wht hes talking abt more than we do. Then remember George's CArlin's statement when asked on a reinvestigation on 911 answering "THERE WILL NEVER BE A TRUE INVESTIGATION...THE POWER DOES WHAT IT WANTS". Even in his standups many a times he warned tht the GOV DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT ABT U n u still wanna trust them isntead of busting open the gates n shouting LET US IN U SCUM WE THE PPL HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE ALL GOV DEPARTMENTS N PAPERS...
jonnykzj 1 year ago
...n ensure tht they r working for u NOT THE OTHER WAY ARND. Theres also atheists on utube who defended 911truth like user "proudfootz" for example. This is a very serious issue. U need to get the gov baxck in ur hands 4 now it's being controlled by PRIVATE OFFSHORE BANKERS.
jonnykzj 1 year ago
@jonnykzj
What reactionary govts did after 9/11, is not the reason 9/11 occurred. I assume you think hurricane katrina was instigated by the builders federation?
fantasy0coach 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BohemianBlasphemy
"Whoever is doing the flagging, at this point they should know that censoring a video effectively spreads it".
Yes you'de imagine everyone would know by now, wouldn't you?
Yet, it's still going on, in earnest.
The only thing I can think is they imagine when they do it, it will for some reason work, whereas for every other case it backfires.
Or purposefully keep themselves ignorant. How I dunno.
Surprising how easy some find it to convince themselves "black is white".
martiangrundy 1 year ago
you're too cool :3
ElectroWaffles 1 year ago
Thanks Q.
TIPinkUnicorn 1 year ago
Thank you Q
dprjones 1 year ago 30
@dprjones
Well what a lousy deunking video. You divert attention to the means of the message delivery - The Bentham Open journal rather than the message itself and it's implications. You pour scorn on the authors calling them truthers when Jones and Haritt are highly regarded Professors in their respective fields with a wealth of peer reviewed publications to their names. You focus on Harrit expressing doubt as to the precise way the NT was used when this is just scientific honesty.
Zooney1 1 year ago
@Zooney1
DPR was specifically asked about this "peer reviewed and published" paper. He illustrated, as well as the editor of the actual journal, that the paper was probably politically motivated vanity publishing, as it had little to do with the journal in which it was published. So it's already got two strikes against it as evidence.
What is the "message itself?"
They found rust and aluminium on epoxy chips. In a building made of steel and aluminium this isn't a surprise.
AxisAnalysis 1 year ago
@AxisAnalysis
You state: "They found rust and aluminium on epoxy chips. In a building made of steel and aluminium this isn't a surprise."
Clearly you are no Chemist!
They actually found a high tech material comprising of nanoparticulate iron oxide intimately mixed with particulate aluminium which posessed exothermic properties and when combusted gave rise to the tell-tale irom microsphere residues of thermite.
Your degree of total ignorance is astonishing.
Zooney1 1 year ago
@Zooney1
[They actually found a high tech material]
That's their unsubstantiated claim, yes.
[iron oxide intimately mixed with particulate aluminium]
According to the paper itself it was not an intimate mixing, but a layer of red matter (rust) on one side of a polymer chip, and a layer of grey matter (Al) on the other.
[ posessed exothermic properties]
Of course it did, it's bloody oxidizing aluminium! It's an expected innate chemical property.
AxisAnalysis 1 year ago
[the tell-tale irom microsphere residues of thermite]
The residue of thermite Is aluminium oxide and iron. surface tension is responsible for the shape of the iron. The particulates would form this shape even if no aluminium was used in the reation.
Nanoparticles are naturally occuring, naturally reacting agents. If they weren't, you'd be sufficating right now.
Though i may not have a chemistry degree, I do have sufficient applied science education to understand the paper.
AxisAnalysis 1 year ago
You did not supply any new information, you just parroted out the talking points of the paper, of which anybody is already aware.
Can you support your position with information and science not found in this paper?
AxisAnalysis 1 year ago
@AxisAnalysis
Look I'm through with your silly comments as you clearly have a very limited understanding of the paper. The red material is the nanothermitic material comprosing an intimate mixture of the particulate aluminium and nano iron oxide. Unsubstantiated by whom? By NIST? Please just stick to your own area of expertise whatever that might be and don't make misleading/false comments on this forum.
Zooney1 1 year ago
@Zooney1 "Unsubstantiated by whom? "
.
NOT ONE INDEPENDENT ACCREDITED LABORATORY ON THE PLANET SUPPORTS THIS PIECE OF SHIT PAPER.
greywolf424 1 year ago