[Closed]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

[Galileo]

There weren't any explosives. The audio recordings is irrefutable proof of that.

Can you present any explosive that can do that silently? Include real experiments that have been done.

The explosives were found. There are many tapes were explosions can be heard.

[beachnut]

I do not know what a "troll" is. It does not appear in my dictionary, except as to describe it as something like a gremlin or other fantasy creature.

Whatever it is, I am not. I am a truth-seeker and defender of human liberty!
You are not a troll; you are a dirt dumb statement-posting troll who can’t figure out 911. So relax, you are wrong again, you are not a truth seeker you are dumb statement 911Truth regurgitating troll, posting lies, hearsay, and fantasy based on lies hearsay, and delusions. A recursive bs poster of junk science and stupid ideas from 911Truth pile of delusions. Not a simple troll, a complex delusion posting troll, unique and not in the dictionary yet.

You do not defend human liberty you apologize poorly for terrorists.

What explosive did blow the columns 500 feet?
Gravity, but for your delusions it has to be super thermite that is silent and despite being painted all around the steel column. Your silent exploding super-thermite propelled the steel 500 feet by your delusional basting super thermite with directional control.

Reality and the truth you are not seeking; gravity collapse did all the debris ejections. Sad you can't grasp reality and understand physics and you prefer to spew lies from 911 truth. As you try to act like the anti-Galileo you drag the name through the refuse of 911Truth junk science, lies, hearsay, and paranoid delusions. Good job denigrating Galileo with your delusional failed ideas on 911.
The super thermite is not thermite but elements found from WTC debris and packaged in paper to match the delusions of Jones; The chief terrorist failed apologist.

[leftysergeant]

Looks like the Twin Towers, doesn't it?

No.

[Sparky]

I am a truth-seeker and defender of human liberty!

Go defend it in another thread. You're derailing this one.

[leftysergeant]

The explosives were found. There are many tapes were explosions can be heard.

I have not seen any video with explosions that was not obviously doctored in.

Care to show us a report of the explosives that were found? Seven years of sorting through this balderdash now, and I have not seen any.

[alienentity]

In other words, Jones ALWAYS seems to find thermate/thermite, no matter what is actually presented.
Got sulphur? It's thermate. No sulphur? Thermite.
And so on. Since the composition of thermite is so nebulous, you don't even need much aluminum if at all.

All you really need to go this route is some iron oxide mixed with pretty much whatever you like, and Jones will call it 'thermite'.

It's a bit of a chemical shell game at this point.

[bill smith]

It is rust most likely in the form of Hematite, see postings on this page and all my others. For rust to occur you need oxygen and water. These samples will have been kept in bags away from water hence why the rust hasn't completely vanished.

Opaque homogenous material! WTF! Opaque! Is he saying the "gray layer" is see through? Honestly these people have absolutely no clue, the last thing you can describe that material as is bloody opaque!

He doesn't even comment on the cracks and their morphology in the "gray layer", clearly indicating a brittle material. oh /facepalm, it's too much stupid to comprehend.



:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
Opaque doesn't mean see-through. It means light can pass through it. That mght not be visible to the naked eye but could be picked up by instruments

[lapman]

The explosives were found.
100% false.

There are many tapes were explosions can be heard.

The one video that actually has an explosion on it was sometime after the collapse and is unsourced. One that claims that there are explosions turns out to be bodies slamming into the roof or ground. Of course there is the "bomb in the building" video that has nothing to do with the WTC, yet twoofers still use it.

[GregoryUrich]

The explosives were found. There are many tapes were explosions can be heard.


Links please.

[ozeco41]

What explosive did blow the columns 500 feet?

No explosive can blow steel columns 500 feet from the positions those columns originally occupied.

It would need rocket motors.

The only explosives with potential to throw things those distances would be a low explosive such as ANFO. And it would need some constraining and focussing structure which simply was not there.

Even so - for those who try to claim that the global collapse needed explosives to cut floors or columns - cutting explosives are HIGH explosives not LOW explosive "lifters" so the throw would have to be separately set up and distinct from the cutting explosives.

So let us get some engineering reality into the discussion.

Next question please.

[alienentity]

I do not know what a "troll" is. It does not appear in my dictionary, except as to describe it as something like a gremlin or other fantasy creature.

Whatever it is, I am not. I am a truth-seeker and defender of human liberty!

Is this the same person who posted 'The only people who think the WTC fell down from fire are already archie debunkers and defenders of mass murder who hate our freedoms. They have a vested interest in claiming fire took down the WTC and covering up mass murder by the US government.'

A defender of human liberty doesn't demonize all those who hold a different opinion as people who 'hate our freedoms'.

There's no excuse for what you wrote yesterday. You have disgraced yourself and should apologize for it.

[leftysergeant]

Opaque doesn't mean see-through. It means light can pass through it. That mght not be visible to the naked eye but could be picked up by instruments

Opaque means light is blocked. Transparent means light passes through without serious distortion or coloor changes. TRANSLUCENT means that only limited light is allowed to pass through.

[Galileo]

You are not a troll; you are a dirt dumb statement-posting troll who can’t figure out 911. So relax, you are wrong again, you are not a truth seeker you are dumb statement 911Truth regurgitating troll, posting lies, hearsay, and fantasy based on lies hearsay, and delusions. A recursive bs poster of junk science and stupid ideas from 911Truth pile of delusions. Not a simple troll, a complex delusion posting troll, unique and not in the dictionary yet.

You do not defend human liberty you apologize poorly for terrorists.


Gravity, but for your delusions it has to be super thermite that is silent and despite being painted all around the steel column. Your silent exploding super-thermite propelled the steel 500 feet by your delusional basting super thermite with directional control.

Reality and the truth you are not seeking is gravity collapse did all the debris ejections. Sad you can't grasp reality and understand physics and you prefer to spew lies from 911 truth. As you try to act like the anti-Galileo you drag the name through the refuse of 911Truth junk science, lies, hearsay, and paranoid delusions. Good job denigrating Galileo with your delusional failed ideas on 911.

You violate the JREF rules against personal insults.

You also do not understand that gravity on earth acts vertically, not horizontally.

I want to thank you.

Visiters who come here looking for a debunking will read your posts and then be convinced I am correct.

[ozeco41]

Oh. Super-Sekrit-Nano-Therm*te can blow steel beams weighing many tons 500 feet, yet only make a little sound.......

One for the collection of oxymorons "Silent Explosive"

Given that an explosion is a special form of sound.

Sound = pressure wave, usually in air/gas.

Explosion = pressure wave in air/gas

The pressure wave of the explosion pushes gas/air to do damage.

No sound = no pressure wave = no explosion = no damage.

[lapman]

For those who haven't seen it, this will probably convince you:

Thermite Experiment!

Some clips of Thermite from Brainiac science abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

Looks like the Twin Towers, doesn't it?
Not even close. No big explosion that would hurl large beams hundreds of feet away and it flowed vertically. It couldn't even break a clay pot.

[Galileo]

I have not seen any video with explosions that was not obviously doctored in.

Care to show us a report of the explosives that were found? Seven years of sorting through this balderdash now, and I have not seen any.

"doctored in" eh? The explosions were planted? You are a conspiracy theorist!

[Galileo]

In other words, Jones ALWAYS seems to find thermate/thermite, no matter what is actually presented.
Got sulphur? It's thermate. No sulphur? Thermite.
And so on. Since the composition of thermite is so nebulous, you don't even need much aluminum if at all.

All you really need to go this route is some iron oxide mixed with pretty much whatever you like, and Jones will call it 'thermite'.

It's a bit of a chemical shell game at this point.

Sorry, Jones is not the lead author of this paper. The lead author is a PhD chemist and head of the chemistry department at the University of Copenhagen.

Your smear tactics won't work on me.

[Galileo]

100% false.




Sure. I'm sure objective people will believe an unsupported ramble on a conspiracy website, over a peer reviewed paper written by an international team of distinguished PhD scientists.

[leftysergeant]

"doctored in" eh? The explosions were planted? You are a conspiracy theorist!

I keep getting refewrred to a YouTube video in which some idiot claims you can hear the demolition charges in the south tower, but at the end, you also hear Michael Hezarkhani's voice and a bunch of screaming women, but in the video there are only male fire fighters withion sight of the camera.

Do you believe that that was obviously manipulated?

No?

Oh, well. Let's be friends anyway. Did i tell you I am looking for a partner in a toll bridge oepration in NYC?

[Galileo]

No explosive can blow steel columns 500 feet from the positions those columns originally occupied.

It would need rocket motors.

The only explosives with potential to throw things those distances would be a low explosive such as ANFO. And it would need some constraining and focussing structure which simply was not there.

Even so - for those who try to claim that the global collapse needed explosives to cut floors or columns - cutting explosives are HIGH explosives not LOW explosive "lifters" so the throw would have to be separately set up and distinct from the cutting explosives.

So let us get some engineering reality into the discussion.

Next question please.

you say it would take rocket motors, another FREFer says gravity.

Which is it?

[lapman]

"doctored in" eh? The explosions were planted? You are a conspiracy theorist!
Wow, the delusions continue with a lack of comprehension skills to boot. Doctored in as in the sound was added later. Still waiting for your proof of silent explosives that can hurl steel columns hundreds of feet.

[Galileo]

Links please.

Please link to a tape where explosions can't be heard.

[Galileo]

I keep getting refewrred to a YouTube video in which some idiot claims you can hear the demolition charges in the south tower, but at the end, you also hear Michael Hezarkhani's voice and a bunch of screaming women, but in the video there are only male fire fighters withion sight of the camera.

Do you believe that that was obviously manipulated?

No?

Oh, well. Let's be friends anyway. Did i tell you I am looking for a partner in a toll bridge oepration in NYC?

who manipulated the tape?

[mark4mark]

What explosive did blow the columns 500 feet?

Are you talking about the perimeter columns that fell over?
To audience: Is he talking about the perimeter columns that fell over?

Galileo, you claim Urich's letter doesn't undermine Gage's claims but last I knew the letter remains unanswered. And why don't you point what specifically what Urich got wrong?

Mr. Urich, has Gage or anyone responded to you?

[lapman]

Sure. I'm sure objective people will believe an unsupported ramble on a conspiracy website, over a peer reviewed paper written by an international team of distinguished PhD scientists.
Thermite is not an explosive. So you fail. As has been already shown, "peer-review" is not exacty a term that is used with a vanity journal that is not accepted by the scientific community as valid.

[roundhead]

No explosive can blow steel columns 500 feet from the positions those columns originally occupied.

It would need rocket motors.

The only explosives with potential to throw things those distances would be a low explosive such as ANFO. And it would need some constraining and focussing structure which simply was not there.

Even so - for those who try to claim that the global collapse needed explosives to cut floors or columns - cutting explosives are HIGH explosives not LOW explosive "lifters" so the throw would have to be separately set up and distinct from the cutting explosives.

So let us get some engineering reality into the discussion.

Next question please.


So gravity alone can, and place minute chunk of humans on the roofs of other buildings??

[ozeco41]

you say it would take rocket motors, another FREFer says gravity.

Which is it?

Whoa back there.... lets remember the rules of this game...

You say explosives dunnit so your job to say how THEN I get to comment as to whether you are right or not.

I say beams got there without explosive help.

I say only way help by something similar to explosives, ie expanding gas propelling said steel bits, is rockets.

HIGH explosives will not do it.

"Low" explosives could possibly achieve it with a focussing structure - same not available at WTC on 9/11

So if you want to discuss with me your job is show my claim wrong AND/OR show yours right.

[Galileo]

Thermite is not an explosive. So you fail. As has been already shown, "peer-review" is not exacty a term that is used with a vanity journal that is not accepted by the scientific community as valid.

military grade nano-thermite is explosive. You can see it blowing the WTC to kingdom come.

They even made a classic song to it:

Blown to Kingdom Come
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Blown+to+Kingdom+Come&hl=en&sitesearch=

[Galileo]

Whoa back there.... lets remember the rules of this game...

You say explosives dunnit so your job to say how THEN I get to comment as to whether you are right or not.

I say beams got there without explosive help.

I say only way help by something similar to explosives, ie expanding gas propelling said steel bits, is rockets.

HIGH explosives will not do it.

"Low" explosives could possibly achieve it with a focussing structure - same not available at WTC on 9/11

So if you want to discuss with me your job is show my claim wrong AND/OR show yours right.

The explosives have already been found.

Now it is YOUR job to argue them out of existence.

Sorta like Galileo's opponents argued the moons of Jupiter out of the sky.

[BigAl]

military grade nano-thermite is explosive. You can see it blowing the WTC to kingdom come.



That video certainly doesn't show the sounds of any demolition explosions.

Nobody heard any demolition explosions at WTC.

[GregoryUrich]

Please link to a tape where explosions can't be heard.

You made the claim. You should support it. My Open Letter to Richard Gage has links to relevant videos.

[Galileo]

Thermite is not an explosive. So you fail. As has been already shown, "peer-review" is not exacty a term that is used with a vanity journal that is not accepted by the scientific community as valid.

It is accepted. No one in the scientific community has objected to their airtight findings.

[beachnut]

You violate the JREF rules against personal insults.

You also do not understand that gravity on earth acts vertically, not horizontally.

I want to thank you.

Visiters who come here looking for a debunking will read your posts and then be convinced I am correct.
... dirt dumb idea believers who visit will agree you are right. So; it is everyone’s right to be wrong like you and repeat lies on 911 without evidence? You can’t stay on topic as you spew delusional ideas on 911 like Jones does. Jones found rust and aluminum and declares super thermite, you repeat and then post off topic.

Yes, you are right the delusion seekers will pronounce you the winner of the dumb idea award and make a place for you in the 911Truth hall of experts on 911 who spew lies, hearsay and insane delusions. Can you be more anti-Galileo like as you ignore gravity, which Galileo understood, and you mock gravity?


Visitors will have to use just a tiny bit of a little logic to see you are spreading false information and being anti-Galileo like. Got super thermite ideas on 911? Then you have drank the kool-aid of Jones; must be in the name.

[lapman]

Please link to a tape where explosions can't be heard.
XJHnLYfKdAo
X8jbJukxtKg
4NzSxSUb0Kk

[Galileo]

You made the claim. You should support it. My Open Letter to Richard Gage has links to relevant videos.

Has your open letter to Gage been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal? It has been over a year now, and plenty of time to do it.

I would even be impressed if it were published by a vanity journal.

[ozeco41]

Are you talking about the perimeter columns that fell over?
To audience: Is he talking about the perimeter columns that fell over?...
As far as I am aware the only columns bits which went that far were about 8 outliers from the spread of the columns which fell as you described.

They were only just outside the main "lozenge" patterns of the bulk of the columns.

Only two of them looked "suspicious" - the two upper left on the Verizon Building.

The rest are only just outside the bulk of material - the orange coloured lozenge shapes.
http://conleys.com.au/webstuff/FEMA2.jpg

(Base image from FEMA)

[lapman]

It is accepted. No one in the scientific community has objected to their airtight findings.
Since it was posted in an obscure vanity journal that nobody reads, I'm not surprised.

[Galileo]

You made the claim. You should support it. My Open Letter to Richard Gage has links to relevant videos.

YOU made the claim that no videos have audio of explosions.

[bill smith]

Opaque means light is blocked. Transparent means light passes through without serious distortion or coloor changes. TRANSLUCENT means that only limited light is allowed to pass through.

Jeez...my whole life i thought 'opaque' meant the same as 'translucent'. Thanks.

[leftysergeant]

It is accepted. No one in the scientific community has objected to their airtight findings.

What airtight findings? Does the scientific community even read that rag in the first place?

[Galileo]

Since it was posted in an obscure vanity journal that nobody reads, I'm not surprised.

obscure? It is spreading around the world faster than the SARS virus!

[lapman]

military grade nano-thermite is explosive.
False. You're batting zero here. Where is your proof of the silent explosives that can hurl steel beams hundreds of feet? Funny how you cower away from that question.

[lapman]

obscure? It is spreading around the world faster than the SARS virus!
Proof?

[Jackanory]

What explosive did blow the columns 500 feet?

We have gone from military explosives packed into aircraft................to

Shaped/cutting charges.........................to

Thermite........................to

NanoThermite...........................?

The mass and density is becoming less and less as your cronies run out of theories...........Next week it will be INVISIBLETHERMITE.:rolleyes:

[Galileo]

XJHnLYfKdAo
X8jbJukxtKg
4NzSxSUb0Kk

I heard explosions and other loud noises in all three videos. Super nano-thermate explosions are not as loud as TNT you know.

[Sunstealer]

Opaque doesn't mean see-through. It means light can pass through it. That mght not be visible to the naked eye but could be picked up by instrumentsOK we'll take your definition - how the hell do they determine that from SEM photo? How the hell is light going to pass through an metal oxide or a flake of steel? How do they manage to tell that using an SEM photo? How an SEM Works. (http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/sem/page%202.htm)

[leftysergeant]

Super nano-thermate explosions are not as loud as TNT you know.

Then they are less effective.

Your shipment of fail has arrived.

[lapman]

I heard explosions and other loud noises in all three videos. Super nano-thermate explosions are not as loud as TNT you know.
Why are you lying on all counts?

[Sunstealer]

A very kind JREF poster has given me a link to another person who has analysed chips obtained from Jones. More on that later but here is a nice photograph I'd like people to see. Can you tell why? Recognise anything? Anyone care to describe the individual layers and what conclusions they may lead to. This should be good. click on image.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/5839/frenchreportchipsfromjo.th.jpg (http://img82.imageshack.us/my.php?image=frenchreportchipsfromjo.jpg)

[Galileo]

Proof?

over 1000 comments posted here.

and as of two days ago:

There were over 600 comments posted as of yesterday on www.dailykos.com

over 50 on opednews (plus two new articles today)

over 700 on www.dailypaul.com

a few hundred on www.ronpaulforums,com

www.rawstory.com had over 200

and over 100 on www.spurstalk.com

several hundred at www.digg.com

over 200 on www.infowars.com

a few hundred on screw loose change.

Never challenge Galileo on the evidence. I am the father of modern experimentation.

[Sunstealer]

over 1000 comments posted here.

and as of two days ago:

There were over 600 comments posted as of yesterday on www.dailykos.com

over 50 on opednews (plus two new articles today)

over 700 on www.dailypaul.com

a few hundred on www.ronpaulforums,com

www.rawstory.com had over 200

and over 100 on www.spurstalk.com

several hundred at www.digg.com

over 200 on www.infowars.com

a few hundred on screw loose change.

Never challenge Galileo on the evidence. I am the father of modern experimentation.All of it dross with zero proper analysis.

[Pinch]

Never challenge Galileo on the evidence. I am the father of modern experimentation.

Proof? All those numbers and posts prove is that you like to put up a lot of stupid posts in alot of stupid forums.

You are the father of BS if you are the father of anything.

[ozeco41]

The explosives have already been found.

Now it is YOUR job to argue them out of existence.

Two errors there
1) the false claim that explosives have been found with inference that they were used.

2) And it is a quite simple assignment to show:
a) Explosives not needed; AND
b) Explosives not used.

So if you ever want to seriously discuss it let me know - but I am not interested in feeding trolling behaviour.

Hint/Clue there were only three points of the collapse mechanisms where explosives and/or incendiaries could conceivably have been used.

1) At the __________________. Wasn't because visual evidence shows it wasn't.

2) To cut the ................ therefore precipitating the initial collapse. Would have needed a big team of fire suited suicide volunteers to place devices after the aircraft crash and fires raging.

3) To somehow assist the global collapse. Wasn't needed - "global collapse was inevitable" And no evidence of it being tried.

[lapman]

over 1000 comments posted here.

and as of two days ago:

There were over 600 comments posted as of yesterday on www.dailykos.com

over 50 on opednews (plus two new articles today)

over 700 on www.dailypaul.com

a few hundred on www.ronpaulforums,com

www.rawstory.com had over 200

and over 100 on www.spurstalk.com

several hundred at www.digg.com

over 200 on www.infowars.com

a few hundred on screw loose change.

Never challenge Galileo on the evidence. I am the father of modern experimentation.
Not one single scentific forum. Fail

[metamars]

A chip the size of jones' sample, if it was thermite, would be easily visible from a long distance when ignited (thermite burns brighter than the sun) and air resistance wouldn't be an issue as the small chips would easily be blown out of the building by the large fireball.

What does this mean? I really don't know. I suppose it means that the radiative intensity at the surface of a burning thermite chip is more than the intensity of solar radiation that hits an eyeball, here on earth.

But intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. From, say, 200 m away, the intensity of your 2 mm thermite chip has dropped off by a factor of 4,000. So, if the intensity of solar radiation entering into our eyeballs is less than the intensity of a chip at it's surface by a factor of 10, it's still 400x weaker by the time it hits our eyes. I would not expect that our eyeballs can pick out specs far too small to see if they weren't luminous, just because they now radiate such that they are 400x weaker than sunshine.

Besides which, if they ignite ambient kerosene, their luminous output is going to be obscured not just by kerosene, but the smoke and dust that the burning kerosene creates.

If you look at the flame rate data, nanothermites weigh in at 700-900 m/second. Meanwhile, from the nanofoil people tell us that while the foil can reach 1500 deg C, it starts to cool and can be handled in "seconds". I think I recall reading that it cools at 1,000 deg /sec, but I'm not sure. Basically, they would hit their peak temperature 'long' before they exited the building (I'm assuming that they move the same velocity as the jet debris), and only glow at all for what I'll guesstimate is a fraction of a second.

If you want to make an argument that ignited specs, en masse, would register on our eyeballs, go ahead. You'll have to take into consideration obscuring, ignited kerosene and their luminosity profile as a function of time. Since you don't normally stare into the sun, you need to calculate reflected solar intensity entering your eyes. I'd guesstimate that a lower limit for this is 1/24 th the intensity of staring directly at the sun at high noon (based on eyeballing the power vs. angle of incidence graph here (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~ozer/engr300-solar1N.pdf)). You should also look into the relationship between luminosity and radiation, sensitivity of human eyeballs, etc.

Have fun. Maybe you can publish your work in a Bentham Open Journal. :)

[beachnut]

...
Never challenge Galileo on the evidence. I am the father of modern experimentation.
You are the anti-Galileo spewing lies, hearsay, and delusions as fast as you can post the tripe made up for you by others about super thermite destroying the WTC.
Your super thermite was not at the WTC on 911, it is in the mind of a fired delusional physicist who has to pay money to be published because his work is based on the same lies, hearsay, and delusions you believe. It is funny how many delusion believers are ranting on how great this failed smoking gun is for 911Truth.

How anti-Galileo like can you get super thermite boom man. How did those people survive in the core without being boomed to death by the super thermite? Why is there no evidence of super thermite blast effects on any of the WTC steel? lol

You failed to present evidence on 911, you presented your failed fantasy. Did you forget to bring the evidence?

[T.A.M.]

It is accepted. No one in the scientific community has objected to their airtight findings.

Nobody (outside of some of us here on JREF) in the scientific community knows about it or cares about it, to be honest...but you know that.

TAM:)

[ozeco41]

....never challenge galileo on the evidence. I won't respond with anything intelligent and relevant.

fixed. :d :d

[T.A.M.]

A very kind JREF poster has given me a link to another person who has analysed chips obtained from Jones. More on that later but here is a nice photograph I'd like people to see. Can you tell why? Recognise anything? Anyone care to describe the individual layers and what conclusions they may lead to. This should be good. click on image.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/5839/frenchreportchipsfromjo.th.jpg (http://img82.imageshack.us/my.php?image=frenchreportchipsfromjo.jpg)

sorry man, it looks like two layered carpet to me.

TAM;)

[Galileo]

Two errors there
1) the false claim that explosives have been found with inference that they were used.



The explosives were found in the residue from the explosions, so the inference is valid.

[Sunstealer]

READ POST 1299 - That SEM Photo clarifies once and for all that Jones' samples a-d are paint attached to hematite. No mistakes, no ifs, no buts, it clearly shows a crystalline metallic substrate called steel with an oxidised layer and then paint attached.

Stop with the BS, the spamming the insinuation etc - that photo sinks Jones et al.

[twinstead]

I'm having trouble with the father of modern experimentation not being able to see it (or the lack of it) if it bit him in the face.

[T.A.M.]

READ POST 1299 - That SEM Photo clarifies once and for all that Jones' samples a-d are paint attached to hematite. No mistakes, no ifs, no buts, it clearly shows a crystalline metallic substrate called steel with an oxidised layer and then paint attached.

Stop with the BS, the spamming the insinuation etc - that photo sinks Jones et al.

SO the person who provided you the photo, and analyzed Jones chips, what does he/she think of (A) the photo, and (B) his chips?

TAM:)

[lapman]

The explosives were found in the residue from the explosions, so the inference is valid.
False. No explosive residue has been found.

[Galileo]

fixed. :d :d

You break the JREF rules. You changed my quote. Breaking the rules is not funny.

[boloboffin]

READ POST 1299 - That SEM Photo clarifies once and for all that Jones' samples a-d are paint attached to hematite. No mistakes, no ifs, no buts, it clearly shows a crystalline metallic substrate called steel with an oxidised layer and then paint attached.

Stop with the BS, the spamming the insinuation etc - that photo sinks Jones et al.

I'm not qualified to analyze that picture, but I await the discussion of it eagerly. Please don't get frustrated. Your work is greatly appreciated here.

[roundhead]

False. No explosive residue has been found.


Not true.


This peer reviewed scientific paper says their was.


Until a scientific paper is published to scientifically undermine it( as yet such ISNT the case), gill plate flapping and jumping up and down and screaming carries zero cerebral weight. None. Zilch. Nada.

Especially from you 19.99 Wal-mart starter kit teenage chemists around here

[Galileo]

READ POST 1299 - That SEM Photo clarifies once and for all that Jones' samples a-d are paint attached to hematite. No mistakes, no ifs, no buts, it clearly shows a crystalline metallic substrate called steel with an oxidised layer and then paint attached.

Stop with the BS, the spamming the insinuation etc - that photo sinks Jones et al.

Wrong! An international team of distinguished PhD scientists has debunked your notion.

[T.A.M.]

Not true.


This peer reviewed scientific paper says their was.


Until a scientific paper is published to scientifically undermine it( as yet such ISNT the case), gill plate flapping and jumping up and down and screaming carries zero cerebral weight. None. Zilch. Nada.

Especially from you 19.99 Wal-mart starter kit teenage chemists around here

sorry to inform you, but a single paper by one group of scientists with a single set of UNVERIFIED, UNREPEATED results, does not proof make.

Try again later.

TAM:)

[Galileo]

I keep getting refewrred to a YouTube video in which some idiot claims you can hear the demolition charges in the south tower, but at the end, you also hear Michael Hezarkhani's voice and a bunch of screaming women, but in the video there are only male fire fighters withion sight of the camera.

Do you believe that that was obviously manipulated?

No?

Oh, well. Let's be friends anyway. Did i tell you I am looking for a partner in a toll bridge oepration in NYC?

If there was a conspiracy to doctor the tape, someone would have talked by now.

[lapman]

Not true.


This peer reviewed scientific paper says their was.


Until a scientific paper is published to scientifically undermine it( as yet such ISNT the case), gill plate flapping and jumping up and down and screaming carries zero cerebral weight. None. Zilch. Nada.

Especially from you 19.99 Wal-mart starter kit teenage chemists around here
Thermite is not an explosive. The chips are not claimed to be a residue, but are postulated to be the actual material. However, without an example of real nanothermite to compare it to, they are only speculating. The fact that the refuse to identify the paint that they are using for comparison further proves that they have nothing. Since this is published in a vanity rag and not a recognized, legitimate peer-reviewed journal, it means nothing.

[Galileo]

sorry to inform you, but a single paper by one group of scientists with a single set of UNVERIFIED, UNREPEATED results, does not proof make.

Try again later.

TAM:)

The experiments were repeated several times, read the paper. And the referees confirmed and verified the findings.

The Architects for 9/11 Truth have also confirmed the findings, as well as the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice.

You are mixed up.

The peer reviewed study merely confimed what most 9/11 experts already had proven, that explosives took down the WTC.

[Dog Town]

If there was a conspiracy to doctor the tape, someone would have talked by now.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1092346be7f1c63099.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7632)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1092346be7f1c63099.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7632)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1092346be7f1c63099.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7632)

[roundhead]

Thermite is not an explosive. The chips are not claimed to be a residue, but are postulated to be the actual material. However, without an example of real nanothermite to compare it to, they are only speculating. The fact that the refuse to identify the paint that they are using for comparison further proves that they have nothing. Since this is published in a vanity rag and not a recognized, legitimate peer-reviewed journal, it means nothing.

So says you, a bucket with a huge hole in the bottom of it.

If its junk science, like you regurgitatingly state, i expect we will see a scientific rebuttal in short order....right??

[Galileo]

Thermite is not an explosive. The chips are not claimed to be a residue, but are postulated to be the actual material. However, without an example of real nanothermite to compare it to, they are only speculating. The fact that the refuse to identify the paint that they are using for comparison further proves that they have nothing. Since this is published in a vanity rag and not a recognized, legitimate peer-reviewed journal, it means nothing.

thermite cuts through WTC steel beams like a hot knife through butter. You are just playing word games.

[lapman]

So says you, a bucket with a huge hole in the bottom of it.

If its junk science, like you regurgitatingly state, i expect we will see a scientific rebuttal in short order....right??
Since this vanity rag is not read by legitimate scientists, it won't happen. Nobody would want to waste the $600 to post a rebuttal for an unknown paper that the scentific community will never see. However, scientists like Dr. Greening have torn the paper apart and have attempted to contact Jones et al. Like the other times, Jones will not release all data pertaining to his experiments.

[lapman]

thermite cuts through WTC steel beams like a hot knife through butter. You are just playing word games.
Thermite does not cut horizontally. Fail.

[T.A.M.]

So says you, a bucket with a huge hole in the bottom of it.

If its junk science, like you regurgitatingly state, i expect we will see a scientific rebuttal in short order....right??

Not unless it gets on the scientific radar first. You really think anyone but a few people here at the JREF, and several hundred truthers are waiting with baited breath for the next issue of Bentham's Sham Journal to come out.

Oh My

TAM:)

[Thunder]

T

The Architects for 9/11 Truth have also confirmed the findings, as well as the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice.

submit the evidence to an independent lab for independent analysis. if they say there is thermite in there, then i will believe.

[The Platypus]

This is the same fraud the creationists pull.

Trying to do and end run around real science while dishonestly proclaiming themselves legitimate.

They think most people are as easily fooled by such tactics as they themselves are.

[T.A.M.]

The experiments were repeated several times, read the paper. And the referees confirmed and verified the findings.

The Architects for 9/11 Truth have also confirmed the findings, as well as the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice.

You are mixed up.

The peer reviewed study merely confimed what most 9/11 experts already had proven, that explosives took down the WTC.

1. INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED AND REPEATED!!!
2. Please provide your proof that the "referees" independently repeated and verified the tests that Jones performed on the chips. I certainly am not going to take your or Jones word for it.
3.The rest of your comment is pure crap.

TAM:)

[lapman]

submit the evidence to an independent lab for independent analysis. if they say there is thermite in there, then i will believe.
Jones supposedly did that in 2007. The results were........?

[Sunstealer]

Another thing that we know - from the NIST report and the experiment in Appendix D (where we get the nice photo from) we know that the steels natural oxide layer will spall (fall off in laymens terms) at 650°C. Therefore if the layer of red paint which Jones claims is thermite ever heated up then a 650°C the oxide layer would spall removing the thermite from contact with the steel. The oxide layer is brittle - we see that in Jones' own SEM photographs Fig 4 and 5 and we know that rust is incoherent (crystally) with the parent material so any thermal shock such as quick heating and it's going to spall.

We should congratulate Jones because the only piece of science Jones has done is to clear up the source or a source of his microspheres:

A source of micro-spheres in the WTC dust is burnt paint.

which means that anyone stripping paint with a blow torch whether it be at home or cleaning the Brooklyn Bridge or whatever, if they are stripping red paint they will be producing iron rich microspheres.

Thank you, you've been a lovely audience, good night and god bless (or be touched by his noodley appendage)

Good night

Bow.

[Galileo]

submit the evidence to an independent lab for independent analysis. if they say there is thermite in there, then i will believe.

This is an independent lab. NIST has been overturned.

[Galileo]

Thermite does not cut horizontally. Fail.

You do not know the difference between left and south.

[Galileo]

This is the same fraud the creationists pull.

Trying to do and end run around real science while dishonestly proclaiming themselves legitimate.

They think most people are as easily fooled by such tactics as they themselves are.

You are acting like a flat-earther. Galileo vanquished them 400 years ago!

:k:

[lapman]

You do not know the difference between left and south.
Wow, a non-answer to an established fact. Even the video YOU posted shows that thermite follows the law of gravity.

[Sunstealer]

Jeez...my whole life i thought 'opaque' meant the same as 'translucent'. Thanks.Thanks, I too made the same mistake :o - must slow down.

[GregoryUrich]

Has your open letter to Gage been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal? It has been over a year now, and plenty of time to do it.

I would even be impressed if it were published by a vanity journal.

I'll send that right in to a major journal as soon as you post your links.

[alienentity]

If there was a conspiracy to doctor the tape, someone would have talked by now.

Do I even need to comment on the hilarity of this quote?

I'll let you guys continue your game of 'smack-a-troll', which is similar to 'whack-a-mole' but with a less intelligent victim..:flamed:

Back to Jones/Robertson in 2006, referring to the pools of molten metal (more 'proof of thermite, you see):
'this metal is primarily iron, not aluminum, it also contains traces of unusual trace metals, in unusual quantities anyway, such as Barium and ....Manganese and Zinc...in large quantities. And so these are consistent with a chemical reaction on a large scale'

Cut to 2009, what happened to all the Zinc which used to be proof of thermite? Now the official line is ABSENCE of Zinc is proof of thermite....

But it gets worse.. By carrying out the (highly improbable) almost complete application of this thermite material to structural steel, it would be found all over the place throughout both towers.
No question there.

How then, considering all the structural steel recovered after the collapses, was this material NOT observed by anyone? Remember, truthers, the INTACT steel that was found in large quantities was NOT melted away by thermite. It is not possible that some of the 'thermite paint' would not still be found on the steel. No way.

This is 100% incompatible with the latest paper of Jones et al.

It does not fit. So you must acquit. (nod to Johnny C)

[Dog Town]

It is spreading around the world faster than the SARS virus!

Good analogy! I too see the "twoof", like a disease that infects the weak! Well said, Bravo!

PS
You should probably check your meds!

[Sunstealer]

SO the person who provided you the photo, and analyzed Jones chips, what does he/she think of (A) the photo, and (B) his chips?

TAM:)The irony is they are a truther! But they have a sample that has three layers which are distinct. We have the top layer or red layer as Jones calls it. The we have the "gray layer" and then we have a fibrous crystalline material that can only be metal. So we now have an iron oxide sandwiched between paint and steel. No guesses as to where the oxide is from eh? It can only be from one source and thats the metal (which is steel because he has spectra and makes the same mistake of dismissing the Carbon - see page 16).

Jones never discusses the oxide layer in any detail, they literally ignore it. They don't even say - yes this is rust from the steel that the thermite was painted on and a bit has flaked off. They ignore this layer. Infact we don't even have any photos of the underside of the "gray layer". All the shots, SEM included are from the top or sides. Fishy eh?

Anyway here is the French data kindly provided by moorea34 (cheers).

http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf

He does what Jones should do and link to where he takes the EDS from. Unfortunately on the corresponding EDS spectra the RHS of the slide is cut off so it's hard to see which "aspiro" correlates with which point. His data is similar to Jones which is not a problem, but his SEM skills are better and there is detail in the EDS spectra.

[Sunstealer]

Wow - all this data and information I'm providing and only one or two truthers have enquired about it.

Come on Bill Smith, Galileo what are you waiting for? Slap me down and show how I'm wrong. At least comment or do you have me on ignore so you don't have to look at the mounting evidence that show that Jones' paper isn't what it claims?

[Pardalis]

Good analogy! I too see the "twoof", like a disease that infects the weak! Well said, Bravo!

Not to mention SARS was defeated.

[Sunstealer]

Will people just put Galileo on ignore he has nothing of any value to say whatsoever, or does he? Care to comment where I've pulled Jones' claims apart? Thought not.

[T.A.M.]

The irony is they are a truther! But they have a sample that has three layers which are distinct. We have the top layer or red layer as Jones calls it. The we have the "gray layer" and then we have a fibrous crystalline material that can only be metal. So we now have an iron oxide sandwiched between paint and steel. No guesses as to where the oxide is from eh? It can only be from one source and thats the metal (which is steel because he has spectra and makes the same mistake of dismissing the Carbon - see page 16).

Jones never discusses the oxide layer in any detail, they literally ignore it. They don't even say - yes this is rust from the steel that the thermite was painted on and a bit has flaked off. They ignore this layer. Infact we don't even have any photos of the underside of the "gray layer". All the shots, SEM included are from the top or sides. Fishy eh?

Anyway here is the French data kindly provided by moorea34 (cheers).

http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf

He does what Jones should do and link to where he takes the EDS from. Unfortunately on the corresponding EDS spectra the RHS of the slide is cut off so it's hard to see which "aspiro" correlates with which point. His data is similar to Jones which is not a problem, but his SEM skills are better and there is detail in the EDS spectra.

Any chance of an english translation of the french PDF?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Not to mention SARS was defeated.

you care to translate the french PDF Sunstealer has presented above...or at least his conclusions and discussions??

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

you care to translate the french PDF Sunstealer has presented above...or at least his conclusions and discussions??

TAM:)

Even though I am a francophone, I would also need the technical knowledge, but I have no training in science or chemistry whatsoever. :(

[A W Smith]

Still waiting for the destruction of steel demonstration. Will the demonstration of supernanothermite be occurring at the next Truth Fail event (http://911truthburn.blogspot.com/)? The sign looks a little rusty.. like it could use a little **ahem** paint

[nicepants]

If its junk science, like you regurgitatingly state, i expect we will see a scientific rebuttal in short order....right??

If it's junk science, why would a scientific rebuttal be necessary?

[boloboffin]

Will people just put Galileo on ignore he has nothing of any value to say whatsoever, or does he? Care to comment where I've pulled Jones' claims apart? Thought not.

You can't put Galileo on ignore. He's the one that started this thread, and it disappears when you put him on ignore. A rather useful tactic to make sure that you can continue to troll the thread.

What we need is for people to just ignore him. If no one takes the bait, the disruptions become one-sided, and the moderators will step in and clean up the thread.

[Pardalis]

He's also a constant reminder of what "kind" of people are pushing for these theories. ;)

[moorea34]

Anyway here is the French data kindly provided by moorea34 (cheers).

.

This data is provided by a well known french truther, Frédéric Henry-Couannier.
He recieved dust from Jones several months ago... They have good relationship...

[metamars]

Why - any layered substance is going to show layers in a SEM.


Well, I'm hoping that detailed pictures will show more than just layers. E.g., what about the eveness of layers? Come to think of it, please make paint chips via both brushing and spray painting. I find it hard to believe that brushed on paint will have even layers, and easy to believe that spray painted surfaces will



Infact I'll do it and that's a promise. I will use the exact same paint that Jones used in the MEK test.......

...... damn, metamars, be a good chap will you and find the bit in Jones' report where it details what paint he used. Thanks.

Thank-you. I just sent Professor Jones and email requesting the exact paint type, but as he didn't directly reply to my last email (though cc'ing me on others), I'm a little doubtful that I'll get a direct answer. We'll see.

[16.5]

Well, I'm hoping that detailed pictures will show more than just layers. E.g., what about the eveness of layers? Come to think of it, please make paint chips via both brushing and spray painting. I find it hard to believe that brushed on paint will have even layers, and easy to believe that spray painted surfaces will


Thank-you. I just sent Professor Jones and email requesting the exact paint type, but as he didn't directly reply to my last email (though cc'ing me on others), I'm a little doubtful that I'll get a direct answer. We'll see.

Cool ask him for those independent test results from 2007 too.

[Dog Town]

Any chance of an english translation of the french PDF?

TAM:)

Put it through a translator,google etc..

[KreeL]

KreeL, if it was universally applied to the extent that it would effect the stability of the entire structure, you are talking about nearly the same mass as all the steel. On the order of 100,000 tons per building. I hope you can see that implementing your theory in practice would be an impossibility. This would also reduce the safety factor to a dangerously low level, at least in the core.

Same mass as all the steel? What are you smoking?:confused:

[T.A.M.]

Put it through a translator,google etc..

Can google or any other translator, translate a PDF file??

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

Cool ask him for those independent test results from 2007 too.

Or lacking that, Have Jonesie give us the names of the labs along with contact info and sample info/number so we can get copies of those reports. :)


That is of course, Unless he got those reports and did some editing to them like Jonesie is famous for? :(Go ahead Jonesie, your secrets safe with us.:D

[metamars]

Never challenge Galileo on the evidence. I am the father of modern experimentation.

Really! Tell us, Galileo, what made you change your mind about Aristotle? Or do you just change your mind, for the heck of it, every few hundred years?

[moorea34]

Any chance of an english translation of the french PDF?

TAM:)

Of course, his conclusions are the same than Jones's...
So you don't need translation !!!:):):)

S1 and S2 are two diferent samples...

First he study microspheres (slides 6-8)
then dust without microsphere (9)

and finally chips...

Slide 14-15 is for the red layer (different points)...
Slide 16-17-18 for the gray layer (different points)...

and the conclusions....

[Pardalis]

Can google or any other translator, translate a PDF file??

TAM:)

I'll give it a try then, automated translators usually suck.

[Sunstealer]

Of course, his conclusions are the same than Jones's...
So you don't need translation !!!:):):)

S1 and S2 are two diferent samples...

First he study microspheres (slides 6-8)
then dust without microsphere (9)

and finally chips...

Slide 14-15 is for the red layer (different points)...
Slide 16-17-18 for the gray layer (different points)...

and the conclusions....And T.A.M. certainly wouldn't have gotten much out of me.

Je voudrais une kilo de pomme sil vous plait! :blush:

[T.A.M.]

Pardalis, how about this,


- Présence de microsphères confirmée
●- Microstructures de surface : S1 couche floconneuse, S2 surface propre
et nue: écailles et ondulations
●- S1 & S2 : Microsphères essentiellement en Fer et Fer oxydé, signature
Fer-Alu nette dans certaines, peu significative dans la majorité (l'Alu est
expulsé par une réaction de thermite).
●- S2 : Séries de raies Fe, Ni, Zn, Mg, Al énigmatiques. Ni est un élément
très rare dans la poussière (USGS)
●- S1 : Une microsphère de Fer pur i.e. non oxydé. Pic du Fer à basse
énergie absent ! : écrantage par une couche superficielle gazeuse
(éléments légers non détectés par le spectro) prise dans les flocons et
absorbant les X de basse énergie (?)

-----

●Présence de chips rouge et constituents des couches à peu près
confirmés : accord avec résultats détaillés de S Jones et collaborateurs
●
● - Couche rouge : Fe, O, Al, Si, C
●Oxyde de Fer domine largement sur le Fer: couleur rouge vif plutôt que
rouille! Couche isolante (brillante au spectro) ==> mélange homogène de
l'oxyde de Fer avec les éléments non conducteurs Al, Si. Faible variabilité
(aspect, couleur, spectre ) ==> mélange homogène à une échelle
inférieure au micron.
● - Couche grise conductrice : Fe, O parfois traces de Mn et Cr .
●Compatible avec de l'acier structurel. Couleur sombre: Fer peu oxydé.
●
●Frontière très nette entre les couches ==> pas par hasard !

------

●Interprétation de S Jones et collaborateurs confirmée.
●
●Observation compatibles avec l'hypothèse de nanothermite, matrice de Si
et particules d' Oxyde de Fer (rouge) et Al, ayant été appliquée sur l'acier
des colonnes. Carbone : probable résidu organique des solvants du solgel
(isopropanol, epoxyde organique).
●
●La méthode sol-gels n'est pas seulement idéale pour gagner en énergie
mais aussi pour un dosage/contrôle précis de la puissance de la réaction.
L'utilisation sous forme de spray est connue ==> la couche nanothermitique
a sans doute permis de chauffer efficacement les colonnes
d'acier. La réaction a produit le Fer liquide. Les explosions l'ont dispersé
en microsphères observées.



TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

And T.A.M. certainly wouldn't have gotten much out of me.

Je voudrais une kilo de pomme sil vous plait! :blush:

baked or in pie?

TAM;)

[Sunstealer]

Well, I'm hoping that detailed pictures will show more than just layers. E.g., what about the eveness of layers? Come to think of it, please make paint chips via both brushing and spray painting. I find it hard to believe that brushed on paint will have even layers, and easy to believe that spray painted surfaces will



Thank-you. I just sent Professor Jones and email requesting the exact paint type, but as he didn't directly reply to my last email (though cc'ing me on others), I'm a little doubtful that I'll get a direct answer. We'll see.You can also ask him why he failed to put that crucial information in his paper and whilst you're at it slap his wrist for such a basic error, it's unforgivable for someone of a post graduate level.

[moorea34]

And T.A.M. certainly wouldn't have gotten much out of me.

Je voudrais une kilo de pomme sil vous plait! :blush:

Your french is better than my english ! ;)

[T.A.M.]

Of course, his conclusions are the same than Jones's...
So you don't need translation !!!:):):)

S1 and S2 are two diferent samples...

First he study microspheres (slides 6-8)
then dust without microsphere (9)

and finally chips...

Slide 14-15 is for the red layer (different points)...
Slide 16-17-18 for the gray layer (different points)...

and the conclusions....

ahhh...

well perhaps don't bother then Pardalis....If he is as ignorant and obtuse as Jones, It will likely just be more biased, poorly conducted science.

TAM:)

[metamars]

Cool ask him for those independent test results from 2007 too.

Done. I wrote:

Many people are asking about independent lab tests you spoke about in 2007. Were they done, and if so, what specific analyses were done and what were the results?

[Sunstealer]

.....9/11 experts....That's an oxymoron. Samples a-d from Jones paper are clearly flaked off iron oxide from steel with some red paint attached. We now have SEM photos showing the steel, it's oxide and the paint red layer all in detail. Jones never shows us the underside of his chips - Why not?

Jones et al and the truth movement do not understand that Jones' paper is self debunking! Jones proves that one of the sources of iron-rich micro-spheres is burnt paint.

Lets see if we can get an answer from the great Galileo - master scientist.

Why do we find Silicon in the thermite?

[A W Smith]

Lets see if we can get an answer from the great Galileo - master scientist.

Why do we find Silicon in the thermite?


Breast implants??

[Dog Town]

Can google or any other translator, translate a PDF file??

TAM:)

Here's what I started with.
Analyse indépendante de poussière
du WTC à Marseille
Afin de donner plus de poids aux découvertes de Steven Jones et ses
collaborateurs en particulier la présence de nanothermite n'ayant pas réagi dans
la poussière du WTC, il importait que celles-ci soient indépendamment
corroborées par des analyses indépendantes.
Les microphotographies et spectres ici présentés ont permis de retrouver
certaines des caractéristiques importantes qui suggèrent fortement la présence de
thermite nanocomposite. Origine et description des échantillons:
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/11%20Septembre%202001.html#sample
Ce sont les tests cruciaux que je n'avais pas les moyens d'effectuer en particulier
la calorimétrie à l'ignition des chips rouges et l'usage de solvants pour isoler et
identifier les différentes composantes du mélange thermitique qui apportent la
démonstration définitive de sa nature:
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/11%20Septembre%202001.html#publi
Here's what I got, using google.
Independent analysis of dust
WTC in Marseille
To give more weight to the findings of Steven Jones and his
employees in particular the presence of unreacted nanothermite in
dust from the WTC, it was important that they are independently
corroborated by independent analysis.
Photomicrographs and spectra presented here reveal
some of the important features that strongly suggest the presence of
nanocomposite thermite. Origin and description of samples:
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/11%% 20 September sample # 202001.html
These are the crucial tests that I could not afford to carry out particular
calorimetry to the ignition of red chips and the use of solvents to isolate and
identify the different components of the mixture thermite which provide
final demonstration of its kind:
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/11%% 20 September publi # 202001.html

Seems ok to me.

[nicepants]

Lets see if we can get an answer from the great Galileo - master scientist.

Why do we find Silicon in the thermite? Breast implants??

9/11 was a FEMBOT job!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418949de6c1c256b3.bmp

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, how about this,TAM:)

Here goes for nothing:

-Presence of microspheres confirmed
- Surface microstructures: S1 “flaky” layer, S2 clean surface: scales and waves
- S1 and S2: Microspheres essentially made of Iron and oxydised Iron, clear “Iron- Aluminum” signature in some, less so in most (Aluminum is expelled through reation with thrermite)
- S2 : series of “enigmatic “strata of Fe, Ni, Zn, Mg, Al. Ni is very rare in dust (USGS) (don’t know what USGS means)
- S1 : A microsphere of pure Iron i.e. non oxydized. No peak of Iron at low energy is observed. “écrantage” (no idea how to translate “écrantage”, “écran” means “screen”, so I guess “screening”?) by superficial layer of gas (light elements not detected by spectrometer) taken in flake samples which absorbed the Xs at low energy (?)

- Presence of red chips and “constituents” (?) of layers for most confirmed: confirms Jones’ data.
- Red layer: Fe, O, Al, Si, C
- Iron Oxyde dominates on the Fe: bright red color rather than rusty color. Layer consistant (bright at the “Spectro”) ==> homogenous mix of Iron Oxyde with non conductive elements Al, Si. Low variability (general aspect, color, spectrum)==> homogenous mix lower than one micron.
- Grey conductive layer : Fe, O sometimes traces of Mn and Cr .
- Compatible with structural steel. Dark color: Fe a little oxydized.
- Clear edge between the strata==> not by chance!

- Interpretations of Jones and collaborators confirmed.
- Observations compatible with nanothermite hypothesis, matrix of Si, and Iron Oxyde particles (red) and Al, were applied to steel columns. Carbon: probably organic residue of “sol-gel” solvants (don’t know what “sol-gel” is in English, literally it would be “ground-frost”?)(isopropanol, organic epoxyde).
- The “sol-gel” method isn’t uniquely ideal to gain energy but also to control the force of reaction.
- the use of spray on is well known ==> The nanothermite layer probably was used to heat the steel columns. The reaction produced liguid Iron. The explosions scattered them in microspheres.
In bold what I couldn't translate

[Dog Town]

Pardalis, how about this,



TAM:)

Here ya go.
Quote:
- Presence of microspheres confirmed
● - Microstructures of surface layer flaky S1, S2 clean surface
and naked and scaly ripples
● - S1 & S2: microspheres mainly iron and oxidized iron, signature
Alu-iron net in some marginally significant in the majority (aluminum is
expelled by a thermite reaction).
● - S2: Series rays Fe, Ni, Zn, Mg, Al enigmatic. Neither is a
very rare in the dust (USGS)
● - S1: A True Iron microsphère ie non-oxidized. Pic du Fer low
energy away! : Shielding by a gas layer
(light elements not detected by the spectrometer) taken in the flakes and
absorbing low-energy X (?)

-----

● Presence of chips and red layers are almost
confirmed agreement with detailed results of Jones S et al
●
● - Layer red: Fe, O, Al, Si, C
● Iron Oxide dominant on Iron: bright red rather than
rust! Insulating layer (the shiny spectro) ==> a homogeneous mixture of
Iron oxide with non-conductive elements Al, Si Low variability
(appearance, color, spectrum) ==> mixing at a scale
below the micron.
● - gray conductive layer: Fe, O sometimes traces of Mn and Cr.
● Compatible with structural steel. Dark Iron little oxidized.
●
● clear boundary between layers ==> no coincidence!

------

● Interpretation of S Jones and collaborators confirmed.
●
● Observation compatible with the hypothesis nanothermite matrix Si
and particles of iron oxide (red) and Al, was applied on steel
columns. Carbon probable residue of organic solvents SolGel
(isopropanol, organic epoxide).
●
● The sol-gel method is not only ideal to save energy
but also for a mix / control over the power of the reaction.
Use as a spray is known ==> layer nanothermitique
has undoubtedly helped to effectively heat the columns
steel. The reaction produced a liquid iron. The explosion scattered
observed in microspheres.



See Pard beat me.

[Pardalis]

Here ya go.

See Pard beat me.

Maybe these guys can put both translations together and make some sense out of all this.

I see Google couldn't translate "sol-gel" either, sucker! :p

[leftysergeant]

A clear area between strata is consistant with paint. I know that when I use certain types of paints on my model armor, especially if I am using flat latex, the collors look a little different when wety or dry as pigments migrate to thje surface and particulates settle out of the liquid vehicle.

[KreeL]

I'm still at a loss to explain why NIST didn't check for thermitic material in the debris during the course of their investigation. Surely they had the means to arrive at the same conclusions arrived at by Jones et al. Perhaps they didn't want to confirm their underlying suspicions? Afterall, weren't some NIST scientists actually involved in the nano-technology research back in the nineties for the industrial military complex? Talk about turning a blind eye.:covereyes

[KDLarsen]

which means that anyone stripping paint with a blow torch whether it be at home or cleaning the Brooklyn Bridge or whatever, if they are stripping red paint they will be producing iron rich microspheres.
Incidently, am I mixing things up, or wasn't the lady that found the dust in her apartment, sharing her apartment/studio with an artist that worked primarily with metal art?

I could have sworn I read that about the first time these micro spheres was brought up. :confused:

[leftysergeant]

If there was a conspiracy to doctor the tape, someone would have talked by now.

They don't need to. One man could do it himself, and he did it so poorly that any one with the sense God gave earthworms can see it is faked.

[mark4mark]

I'm still at a loss to explain why NIST didn't check for thermitic material in the debris during the course of their investigation. Surely they had the means to arrive at the same conclusions arrived at by Jones et al. Perhaps they didn't want to confirm their underlying suspicions? Afterall, weren't some NIST scientists actually involved in the nano-technology research back in the nineties for the industrial military complex? Talk about turning a blind eye.:covereyes

That there was no evidence whatsoever to compel such analyses and detract from actual, useful investigation is one idea off the top of my head.

[zorro99]

I'm still at a loss to explain why NIST didn't check for thermitic material in the debris during the course of their investigation. Surely they had the means to arrive at the same conclusions arrived at by Jones et al. Perhaps they didn't want to confirm their underlying suspicions? Afterall, weren't some NIST scientists actually involved in the nano-technology research back in the nineties for the industrial military complex? Talk about turning a blind eye.:covereyes

Probably for the same reason they didn't check for the giant, fire-breathing lizard material either.

[The Platypus]

Their habitual dishonesty and delusions of grandeur are consistant, i'll give em that.

Outside of the 9/11 cult sites and 9/11 related forums, no mention of this crap, no headlines, nothing, not a peep.

Yet they claim "it's gone viral", "it's everywhere", "the scientific community agrees", "NIST is debunked", "case closed!!!", "debunkers lose". (like nobody can see through such nonsense)

Considering their little cult has no credibility due too the last 100 times they played this shady game, what makes this one is so special? Why did they think everyone would be completely fooled this time?

[16.5]

Afterall, weren't some NIST scientists actually involved in the nano-technology research back in the nineties for the industrial military complex? Talk about turning a blind eye.:covereyes

Well, it looks like you answered your own question, big guy! They knew that suggesting the buildings were destroyed by painted on layers of "nano-thermite" was not only completelty stupid it was impossible.

You sure you are a Truther? because you put the De in Debunk with that one, superstar!

[mark4mark]

Their habitual dishonesty and delusions of grandeur are consistant, i'll give em that.

Outside of the 9/11 cult sites and 9/11 related forums, no mention of this crap, no headlines, nothing, not a peep.

Yet they claim "it's gone viral", "it's everywhere", "the scientific community agrees", "NIST is debunked", "case closed!!!", "debunkers lose". (like nobody can see through such nonsense)

Considering their little cult has no credibility due too the last 100 times they played this shady game, what makes this one is so special? Why did they think everyone would be completely fooled this time?
An exponential increase in desperation within most faith-based value systems is to be expected as more and more of their beliefs are exposed.

[The Platypus]

I'm still at a loss to explain why NIST didn't check for thermitic material in the debris during the course of their investigation. Surely they had the means to arrive at the same conclusions arrived at by Jones et al. Perhaps they didn't want to confirm their underlying suspicions? Afterall, weren't some NIST scientists actually involved in the nano-technology research back in the nineties for the industrial military complex? Talk about turning a blind eye.:covereyes

Wow.

You just totally pulled that right out of you ass, and then convinced yourself it was true within moments...

This explains alot about your cult...

[A W Smith]

Outside of the 9/11 cult sites and 9/11 related forums, no mention of this crap, no headlines, nothing, not a peep.

Just watched live at five with Jack Cafferty and Sue Simmons. Not a peep. Not even a WTF from Sue. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzclFi5lAWc)

[Sunstealer]

I'm still at a loss to explain why NIST didn't check for thermitic material in the debris during the course of their investigation. Surely they had the means to arrive at the same conclusions arrived at by Jones et al. Perhaps they didn't want to confirm their underlying suspicions? Afterall, weren't some NIST scientists actually involved in the nano-technology research back in the nineties for the industrial military complex? Talk about turning a blind eye.:covereyesWhat you are effectively asking for is equivalent to asking "why didn't the test for pixie dust?"

You see the mind of a scientist doesn't work like the mind of a truther. Why on earth would anyone be looking for thermite when every piece of evidence they have points to 2 aircraft laden with fuel, crashing horrifically into two towers, damaging them and setting them ablaze across 5 or 6 whole floors, thus reducing the steel's yield point by over 50% causing the steel to be unable to hold take load. Collapse occurs and because of the design of the WTC towers that collapse is not arrested but continues.

The other problem that you have is you ignore evidence and by that I mean specific evidence in the Jones paper that shows directly that his samples a-d are not thermite. Why do you ignore crucial evidence?

Hint: Take of the truther goggles, stop thinking about nano this or nano that, forget about thermite/mate or whatever, put on the thinking cap, go back over my posts and then ask me some questions if I've not explained myself.

Jones has tried to show evidence of thermite in his paper and spectacularly failed (but managed to show that burnt red paint is a source of "iron-rich micro-spheres") especially when we consider other chips he's sent other people.

Jones claims evidence of elemental Aluminium (I hate that phrase - it really should be something like commercially pure Al) but he does not show this. His samples a-d do not show it even though they are good enough to determine sub-micron Fe2O3 and it's crystal structure. He claims it's in the aluminosilicate platelets but fails to show this because rather than use one of these 4 specimens he uses a different one and doesn't produce the same detailed SEM photos before and after the MEK soaking in order to show that is where the purer Al is from.

Stop with the NIST didn't do this, NIST didn't do that, blah, blah, blah nonsense and concentrate on Jones and his findings. NIST didn't test for thermite, Jones tried but didn't find any. What he has is clearly spalled iron oxide from the surface of steel and adhering red paint.

Do you even bother to read anything longer than 20 words? Are you part of the Youtube generation who can't digest anything unless it's spelt out in text speak for you? (sorry young peeps, I'm showing my age and shouldn't label with such a broad brush).

Take off the thermite shades and open your eyes to the unglamorous, albeit dull world of reality and look at the posts I've made here. No it's not exotic and exciting, but then the real answers usually aren't either.

[leftysergeant]

I'm still at a loss to explain why NIST didn't check for thermitic material in the debris during the course of their investigation.

For the same reason they did would not test for unicorn dung in a cow pasture when Elsie and Elmer develop BSE. There was nevera reason in the mind of a rationl person to expect it to have existed.

Surely they had the means to arrive at the same conclusions arrived at by Jones et al.

No. They were impeded by greater-than-room-temperature IQs and testicles that had fully descended from the inguinal canal.

[Sunstealer]

Incidently, am I mixing things up, or wasn't the lady that found the dust in her apartment, sharing her apartment/studio with an artist that worked primarily with metal art?

I could have sworn I read that about the first time these micro spheres was brought up. :confused:Interesting. Can anyone confirm or show this to be false?

[MikeW]

Interesting. Can anyone confirm or show this to be false?
See "Obtaining the first dust sample" at http://911guide.googlepages.com/jones

[Sunstealer]

Their habitual dishonesty and delusions of grandeur are consistant, i'll give em that.

Outside of the 9/11 cult sites and 9/11 related forums, no mention of this crap, no headlines, nothing, not a peep.

Yet they claim "it's gone viral", "it's everywhere", "the scientific community agrees", "NIST is debunked", "case closed!!!", "debunkers lose". (like nobody can see through such nonsense)

Considering their little cult has no credibility due too the last 100 times they played this shady game, what makes this one is so special? Why did they think everyone would be completely fooled this time?Yes they spread it around just like an infant will their own excrement. They don't know what it is, don't know why they do it, put it in their mouths then regurgitate if for other babies to pick up, but do it all the same. The poo only gets smeared over the places where they congregate.

They have no comprehension when an adult comes along and says, phew- what have you been doing? - time to clean you up. Nor do they understand why they need to be cleaned or the parents concerns over children covered in excrement.

I wouldn't be so vitriolic towards the majority of them if they didn't behave worse than a two year old. A couple have actually put forward some good questions and atleast made an effort and I salute them for doing so, unfortunately they have been drowned out by the others who like to wallow and play in their own poo, grinning inanely as they do so. (sorry for the imagery but it seems appropriate!)

I was actually quite shocked that a paper had appeared especially when I saw the first few pages. On the surface it looked like there could be some good science performed, but it was fairly obvious that Jones et al were making basic errors and interpretations even with a cursory reading. I was expecting XRD data that would for once and all clearly show what these samples are, but instead we just get more time on the SEM. Disappointing. Even more so when it's quite easy to provide an everyday, ordinary more than plausible answer based on Jones' paper. Ho-hum.

[A W Smith]

I read somewhere else a few days ago that one of the persons that collected substantial amounts of dust was going to use it in some sort of remembrance sculpture or art exhibit. ill have to go look for the source to cite and edit this post later.


this is not the same artist I read about. but.......more dust

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3577285.stm

[KDLarsen]

See "Obtaining the first dust sample" at http://911guide.googlepages.com/jones
Thank you, I tried searching SLC since I'm fairly sure that's where I saw it first, but to no avail.

[GregoryUrich]

Same mass as all the steel? What are you smoking?:confused:

I think that value is in the ballpark. How much do you think would be needed then?

Here's some help if you really care about the truth:

Dr. Greenings calc max boundary for 100 micron thickness:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-15.html#p2605

A more realistic value:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4599163&postcount=951

Regarding a practical application:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4599832&postcount=1067

We're talking about a 1 in thick coating for 1 in thick steel. The materials are roughly the same weight. Even if it was 1/10th of what I am saying (i.e. 10,000 tons), it would be a ridiculous plan because there are much better alternatives where the perpetrators could avoid that telltale bright white light emanating from the entire building on all sides.

[bill smith]

I read somewhere else a few days ago that one of the persons that collected substantial amounts of dust was going to use it in some sort of remembrance sculpture or art exhibit. ill have to go look for the source to cite and edit this post later.


this is not the same artist I read about. but.......more dust

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3577285.stm

You could heck out if he did any nano-art at the same time.

[stateofgrace]

Interesting. Can anyone confirm or show this to be false?

It does appear to be true, according to the paper, on the morning of Sept 11th the apartment where Mrs Janette MacKinlay lived was evacuated because it was full of dust. It was left empty for a week. When the lady returned, she collected up some of the dust for "possible use in art work". She kept it in "sealed” bags until 2006, when she contacted Jones and gave him a sample.

[KreeL]

That there was no evidence whatsoever to compel such analyses and detract from actual, useful investigation is one idea off the top of my head.

No evidence? Would NIST scientists that knew of this delivery system of nano-thermite be so utterly clueless?:jaw-dropp

[tsig]

For the same reason they did would not test for unicorn dung in a cow pasture when Elsie and Elmer develop BSE. There was nevera reason in the mind of a rationl person to expect it to have existed.



No. They were impeded by greater-than-room-temperature IQs and testicles that had fully descended from the inguinal canal.



Things NIST didn't test for:

Lava-with all the pyroclastic flow it should have been a no-brainer

Fall out from the nukes.

Beam weapons effects.

Nanotermites with steel melting formic acid.

Pigeon crap-millions of the feathered rats could be fed special feed that turned into an explosive.

[T.A.M.]

I'm still at a loss to explain why NIST didn't check for thermitic material in the debris during the course of their investigation. Surely they had the means to arrive at the same conclusions arrived at by Jones et al. Perhaps they didn't want to confirm their underlying suspicions? Afterall, weren't some NIST scientists actually involved in the nano-technology research back in the nineties for the industrial military complex? Talk about turning a blind eye.:covereyes

lol

your an unusually "drinking the koolaid" one aren't you?

NIST did not look for thermite for the same reason they did not look for pixie dust.

(A) there was no evidence to support the notion that explosives were used.
(B) even if there was evidence to support explosives, THERMITE IS NOT USED IN DEMOLITIONS, NOR IS IT AN EXPLOSIVE.

talk about turning an paranoid nose.

TAM:)

[KreeL]

I think that value is in the ballpark. How much do you think would be needed then?

Here's some help if you really care about the truth:

Dr. Greenings calc max boundary for 100 micron thickness:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-15.html#p2605

A more realistic value:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4599163&postcount=951

Regarding a practical application:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4599832&postcount=1067

We're talking about a 1 in thick coating for 1 in thick steel. The materials are roughly the same weight. Even if it was 1/10th of what I am saying (i.e. 10,000 tons), it would be a ridiculous plan because there are much better alternatives where the perpetrators could avoid that telltale bright white light emanating from the entire building on all sides.

Here again, gregory, you are assuming 1" thickness. You must remember that military grade nano-thermite remains out of the public domain. Quite simply we can't guess how much, or what thickness, would be required to produce the results witnessed. Your argument fails.:cool:

[T.A.M.]

No evidence? Would NIST scientists that knew of this delivery system of nano-thermite be so utterly clueless?:jaw-dropp

What on gods earth are you getting on with? Are you intentionally acting so stupid? That is an honest question?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Here again, gregory, you are assuming 1" thickness. You must remember that military grade nano-thermite remains out of the public domain. Quite simply we can't guess how much, or what thickness, would be required to produce the results witnessed. Your argument fails.:cool:

Well then why didn't they just simply use piximite. I mean the equivalent amount of piximite to produce the needed heat would be only 1-2 mm thick...that would only be a couple of coats of pixiprimer.

TAM:)

[metamars]

Done. I wrote:

Professor Jones has asked for more details. I know there was a link posted in this, by now, very long thread. Can somebody provide the link to the video (or audio), and the quotes, and, if handy, the point in the video or audio where Professor Jones spoke about lab tests. The date and place of the talk would be nice.

[Brainster]

I read somewhere else a few days ago that one of the persons that collected substantial amounts of dust was going to use it in some sort of remembrance sculpture or art exhibit. ill have to go look for the source to cite and edit this post later.

Yes, this was what Jones implied strongly when he first showed off some pieces of molten metal; IIRC this was at the Los Angeles conference in 2006 that was broadcast on CSPAN. He said that somebody had seen this slag had fallen off one of the memorial sculptures and picked it up and put it in a bucket, and moved out to California a few years later (which MacKinlay did) and left it in her garage for years. I could never quite get a read on whether MacKinlay's boyfriend had been the sculptor or not.

ETA: See this video (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v295680x7bsZnKC) at about 24:10. It is not clear to me that Jones is referring to MacKinlay here.

ETA 2. MacKinlay's dust has also been used to confirm the use of mini-nukes (http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm):

In a collaborative effort between Author/Artist/Survivor/Patriot Janette MacKinlay, Physicist Dr. Bill Deagle, MD, and Dr. Ed Ward, MD, MT, WTC debris has been received by a Certified Laboratory for key tests which may show definitive origination for the massive Tritium Levels in the WTC buildings.

[metamars]

You can also ask him why he failed to put that crucial information in his paper and whilst you're at it slap his wrist for such a basic error, it's unforgivable for someone of a post graduate level.

Professor Jones has replied. He wants to know for which purpose the paint you are asking about is supposed to be for. (AFAIR, there was a test for resistance, and some burn tests).

Can you please formulate the paint question more precisely. As in "The paint you referred to on page X, paragraph y, for which z was claimed, is which exact paint?"

[T.A.M.]

What is the exact name, and composition of the paint they tested to rule out "paint" as a source of the chips?

If he used more than one, then give the names and compositions of all of the ones he used.

Seems simple enough!!!

TAM:)

[The Platypus]

Is there even such a thing in existance as military grade nano thermite?

[ozeco41]

...Regarding a practical application:
{Part only}...If I thought this work was convincing I would support it. My impression of Sunstealer, Mackey and Dr. Greening is that they are good scientists. They are bringing up important issues that should be resolved before getting to far along with acting on any perceived implications....
We're talking about a 1 in thick coating for 1 in thick steel. The materials are roughly the same weight. Even if it was 1/10th of what I am saying (i.e. 10,000 tons), it would be a ridiculous plan because there are much better alternatives where the perpetrators could avoid that telltale bright white light emanating from the entire building on all sides.
Whilst I respect the wishes of persons who want to pursue the scientific aspects of these excursion topics I personally prefer the direct approach to the implicit primary question of "demolition or not?".

Since direct consideration of the "no demolition" evidence legitimately takes us straight to the negative answer of "NO DEMOLITION" I prefer not to give "truthers" or pro demolition conspirisists the ego satisfaction of even responding to nonsense claims.

Hence my advocacy, to those who are interested in the science, of clearly identifying that their interest is in the science of something that cannot affect the primary question of "Demolition or not?"

For example the issue of molten steel in the basements, usually presented with the inference that it had something to do with demolition. Plus the second innuendo in the form of a statement "was still present weeks after" implying it had been there from 9/11 and had remained hot/molten. In reality the only way the metal flow from level 8n could have been molten steel caused by thermxte requires a fire suited suicide team to enter the impact zone after the plane crash and conduct a specific set of logistic operations. So near enough to "impossible" in lay person speak and "veryN improbable" in scientific speak where "N" is a big number.

AND the molten metal at ground level weeks later needs a "multiple quantum leap" into improbabilites to tie it to the material flowing from the 8nth floor.

So your comment ...My impression of Sunstealer, Mackey and Dr. Greening is that they are good scientists. They are bringing up important issues that should be resolved before getting to far along with acting on any perceived implications.... I agree that they are raising interesting issues BUT there is no need to resolve them "...before getting to far along with acting on any perceived implications...." - the implications perceived or intended are far easier dealt with by direct attack and rebuttal of more relevant points.

For example the only location and stage of the collapse where use of thermate may have assisted the actual collapse is in the impact zone in the interval of time between aircraft crash and the "initial collapse" which triggered the inevitable "Global Collapse". (Note my careful structure of "assisted the actual collapse" - there are "logic gaps to cover" but I take the simple track for this illustration). There are two other "possibilities" of time and location but both can be eliminated by simple analysis/logic.

I routinely refer to the "collapse that actually happened" because most demolition techniques are not valid causes of that "collapse that actually happened". So coating low level columns with therm*te OR explosively cutting core columns in the basement OR (many others) are not and cannot be components of a scheme of demolition actually employed on 9/11. They can easily be shown to be inconsistent with the "collapse that actually happened".

Your reference to the absence of a tell tale white hot glow showing no use of Therm*te is one such case. I say "since it couldn't be so" why stroke the egos of the "truther charlatans" by debating it - other than as a matter of interest only.

[boloboffin]

metamars: Any paints Jones used for the purposes of writing this paper, he should divulge.

For our CD advocate friends out there, please read through this report:

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphol ogy.Final.pdf

It's a PDF made by the RJ LeeGroup explaining the composition and morphology of the WTC dust. Their elaborate collection procedure is detailed within. Please compare it to Jones' "some people put dust in baggies and mailed it to us" methodology.

Please remember this - the report quoted in this post shows that paint chips were found in the dust. Did Jones find any paint chips in his dust samples? Wouldn't that have been something worthwhile to have compared to his red/gray chips? Why didn't he?

[ozeco41]

Is there even such a thing in existance as military grade nano thermite?
Not in my day in the Army but that is now 20 years past. :( (gee - I am that old..... :mad: :rolleyes: )

...and that is only one point wrong with all this nano thermite nonsense. :boggled:

[leftysergeant]

Here again, gregory, you are assuming 1" thickness. You must remember that military grade nano-thermite remains out of the public domain.

So you do not even know whether or not such a thing exists, but state that it is ther best explanation for the collapse.

If you cannot descxribe it in full detail, stop expecting rational adults who have reason to believe otherwise that your garbage exists.

You're making less sense than some of those idiots from WeAreChange.

[leftysergeant]

Not in my day in the Army but that is now 20 years past. :( (gee - I am that old..... :mad: :rolleyes: )

...and that is only one point wrong with all this nano thermite nonsense. :boggled:

I would bet that it would leave the same kind of coating on metal that the military thermite I worked with, or the improvised thermite that I made for arson investigations classes left behind.

Insolulable chalky white and baked onto the metal.

[WilliamSeger]

READ POST 1299 - That SEM Photo clarifies once and for all that Jones' samples a-d are paint attached to hematite. No mistakes, no ifs, no buts, it clearly shows a crystalline metallic substrate called steel with an oxidised layer and then paint attached.

Stop with the BS, the spamming the insinuation etc - that photo sinks Jones et al.

Would the steel crystals explain why the chips were attracted to a magnet?

[Sunstealer]

See "Obtaining the first dust sample" at http://911guide.googlepages.com/jonesJust had a look at that and opened some links - I listened to the first 3 minutes or so of the video and she ticked all the boxes in my head that I would prejudicially associate with someone who was a bit more flamboyant, artsy fartsy type etc. Then I looked at the Fortunate Diary and it's well put together with some striking images and I revised my view a little. She's obviously had a traumatic experience. I feel for her (although that won't get in the way of a good objective examination).

The only mention that I can see about her boyfriend and welding along with other info is

This dust was exposed to all surrounding conditions for a minimum of nine days before being collected.

It is also important to note, that her boyfriend, Jim Lecce, was a sculptor who possibly worked with metals and welding equipment

"I (Jannette MacKinlay) moved to New York in September of 1997 with sculptor Jim Lecce to curate art shows featuring both New York and California artists. What was initially going to be a three-month stay turned into four years. Our art loft was directly across the street from the World Trade Center complex."

The dust sample is taken from a household of a man, who was possibly using welding gear to make sculptures. Welding gear can create the iron spheres Jones is talking about. Even the possibility of contamination of the dust samples with dust from his clothing hasn't been ruled out, or even addressed. And this sample was the main piece of evidence he built his theory on

Whilst I can fully appreciate the above statements, there isn't any evidence that he actually did any welding work in the apartment, nor whether he came home in the same overalls or that the overalls ever entered the apartment. However, I take on board the possibility of cross-contamination, whether that be with regard to iron-microspheres, paint or any other material.

This only highlights, again, the problems with such a sample, but also that there is a problem with the method of paint chip extraction from the dust in that it will only pick up certain things and that if you concentrate on them and disregard the rest then you start to get tunnel vision. Why are iron micro-spheres important? Why concentrate on them? Why are subsequent materials removed by the same extraction process important? You get the idea.

I've seen some characterisation under microscope and SEM of the dust and it would be impossible and unreasonable to examine every particle as well as those recovered from magnetic separation, however, it is reasonable to ask for a characterization of the individual chips that Jones has recovered with this method.

It is not unreasonable to want to see a full visual characterization (and therefore labelling) of these chips, especially in light of the view that they are not all the same - as evidence by Jones et al and their paper. A visual characterization would group the specimens accordingly and help the individual in the task of choosing which chips should be used for each testing method. What is clear is that duplication has occurred and we have 3 specimens a,b,d (with "c" coming close - see red layer spectra Fig 7) that are identical, being used with the suggestion that this is typical of each sample. It clearly isn't due to chips such as that found in Fig 31, which have multiple layers - which has significantly different elements observed in the "gray layer" aswell as this layer being considerably thicker than samples a-d.

Is this chip an anomaly? If so how has that been determined? (especially bearing in mind the difference in "gray layer" spectra). Why was it not included for further examination or given greater prominence in a paper that had room taken up by duplication of information from samples a-d?

Now I admit I maybe being a bit harsh here. There is only so much room in a paper and decisions must be made what to publish (in terms of pretty pictures and space) and what to file. Some may think I'm nit picking and that's fair enough, but I'd have preferred to have seen a more measured approach.

Characterize the specimens from each sample - this allows one to observe patterns and determine what is needed for examination. By all means examine samples a-d as has been done, but at least keep one of these for the MEK test rather than do DSC on all of them then select a new sample and not subject it to the same examination as specimens a-d - that way you keep consistency with the experiments and therefore the paper.

OK - I've waffled on and it's probably tl;dr for a few, but I hope that those who do read get the gist of what I'm saying.

[bill smith]

Professor Jones has asked for more details. I know there was a link posted in this, by now, very long thread. Can somebody provide the link to the video (or audio), and the quotes, and, if handy, the point in the video or audio where Professor Jones spoke about lab tests. The date and place of the talk would be nice.

In the Boston lecture in december 2007 he introduced the unreacted thermite for the first time I believe. I think he said something about independent testing at that lecture.Keep us informed of the email exchange if you would.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&ei Boston lecture

[beachnut]

...and that is the crux of your problem, alien. You are assuming that the material was not universally applied.

Once you crack the means with which the towers were demolished, the evidence discovered by Jones becomes insurmountable.

Government hacks - like the majority of posters in this thread - simply lack the power to deduce how the towers were demolished.

You lack the knowledge to understand why the WTC collapse. Lack of knowledge you seem proud of, as you support the idiotic ideas of Jones and 911Truth due to your ignorance on the topics related to 911. You are gullible and have no clue on the mechanisms of failure. At least you wasted no money or time on education in the past 7 years. You are a welcome member of 911Truth, no clue what happen and happy to repeat the lies, hearsay, and failed delusions at will.

[Dog Town]

The only mention that I can see about her boyfriend and welding along with other info is
.

Here's a piece of his art.
http://www.nationalartsclub.org/exhibition/entries/35.htm

[Sunstealer]

Here again, gregory, you are assuming 1" thickness. You must remember that military grade nano-thermite remains out of the public domain. Quite simply we can't guess how much, or what thickness, would be required to produce the results witnessed. Your argument fails.:cool:Actually we can, because we know the energy required to heat a mol of steel up to it's melting point and then the energy required to transform it from a solid phase to a liquid phase - call it A. We know the thickness of steel and it's density.

Once you know this then you know what is required. Then you look at what is proposed, it's constituents and it's volume and calculate the energy generated - call it B.

if A>B for a given volume or weight then A doesn't melt.

You get the idea.

As an aside.

KreeL - Would you be a damn good fellow and help me with a calculation? I've been struggling some what. Come on be a sport, there's a good chap.

I have a material that is 20µm thick (gawd knows what that means) and I cannot work out how many millimetres that is. I also have a piece of steel that's 5 of these blasted metric millimetres thick too! I don't know what happened to good old feet and inches (or chains for that matter), but I need some help old bean.

What I really need to know is the ratio of the thickness (that's a bit like me guffaw) of the steel to the thin 20µm layer thingy. I'm getting all fouled up with this new-fandangled slide-rule what-dya-ma-call-it and I'm in somewhat of a pickle.

I tell you what, why don't you come over and we'll have a spot of afternoon tea, a piece of mother's frightfully good fruit cake, a quick go on the tennis lawn and then you can tell me your answer over a gin and tonic.

Toodle pip.

[alienentity]

I'm still at a loss to explain why NIST didn't check for thermitic material in the debris during the course of their investigation.... Talk about turning a blind eye.:covereyes

Kreel, if I may reply to that question; the initial investigation was carried out be FEMA, not NIST. Large numbers of experienced engineers and other specialists were at GZ fairly shortly after 9/11.
Indeed (I like that word too) there were some notable demolition specialists onsite.

From what I've read there just was no evidence to lead them down that path (CD). The steel was inspected and sorted; if there was no evidence of cutter charges, melting (thermite?) or unexploded devices, det cord, blasting caps or any other physical evidence then why would you expect them to pursue that theory?

I think you should seriously consider that the reason the mainstream, established scientific community has not embraced CD theory is that there isn't the evidence to support it - instead of assuming that they're all either incompetent or part of an unimaginably huge conspiracy.

ie if they didn't find anything, perhaps that's because there was nothing to find. If you can't accept that as a distinct possibility, you're being far too unobjective about it.

[Scientiae Confidimus]

Hi all

I have great concern for the credibility and reputation of the University of Copenhagen and Niels Bohr's old institute.

Harrit and 911 truthsites have attempted to gain credibility for they work and Bentham by pointing out that the dean of the natural science faculty of the university of Copenhagen is a member of The open chemical physical journal's editorial board.

This appears to no longer be the case. Dean Niels O. Andersen has been removed from the list of editors.

List of editors:
URL: ---.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm

I hope this is a step towards repairing some of the damage done.

I'm currently considering translating a recent interview with Harrit from Danish national TV, where he claims:

- They have found nanothermite in WTC dust.
- The nanothermite is an explosive, apparently capable of hurling 30 tons steel beams in parabolic trajectories up to 100m.
- Nanothermite is super high technological front line military research

My poor language skills are holding me back, but if there is interest, i will try.

Interview with Niels Harrit:
URL: ---.youtube.com/watch?v=nP810ssxyo4

Regards
Scientiae Confidimus

[Sunstealer]

Professor Jones has replied. He wants to know for which purpose the paint you are asking about is supposed to be for. (AFAIR, there was a test for resistance, and some burn tests).

Can you please formulate the paint question more precisely. As in "The paint you referred to on page X, paragraph y, for which z was claimed, is which exact paint?"Sure - I'm surprised he hasn't had more queries.

The following is from the bottom of page 16 and the top of page 17 of the paper.

2. Test Using Methyl Ethyl Ketone Solvent

By employing some means to separate the different components of the material, the chemical compositions of the different particles in the red layer were more accurately determined. The initial objective was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK.

Those are the paint specimens I and everyone is interested in - what are they (that requires detail). I presume that this same paint was used for all of the testing comparisons.

I'd also ask why that particular type of paint was chosen as opposed to any other.

I'll leave it there for the moment - thanks.

[alienentity]

Kreel, I don't want to distract you from your calculations, but I'd like to point out some additional things to consider:

1) you're proposing a hypothetical mechanism with an unknown compound! That's all very well, but don't act as if it's something real. It is just unproven speculation.
2) Since these grey/red chips are omnipresent in WTC dust, and have differing molecular characteristics, it MUST be assumed that [a] they were placed deliberately in the dust samples or [b] they are extremely common materials.
If [b] they would be present in fairly large quantities at GZ, and if (as Jones et all propose) originally bonded to structural steel, SOME SUBSTANTIAL quantity would have to still be attached to the steel.

There's just NO way around it. Now, we assume that FEMA and NIST would recognize primer paint on the structural steel. That's a no-brainer. We also assume they DIDN'T see anything suspicious attached to the steel. Again pretty much a no-brainer. Therefore nanothermite paint is virtually guaranteed NOT to be the source of materials such as those seen in the dust.

It can be eliminated fairly confidently without years of tedious confirmation. I wager that NO amount of testing will produce nanothermite from GZ materials, unless by fraud or by misrepresentation (that still amounts to nothing, btw)

The odds are looking very poor indeed (again that word) for Dr. Jones et al, and their loyal followers.

ps if Drs Judy Wood and James Fetzer are reading this thread (LOL) don't get your hopes up kiddies. You're not even in Dr. Jones' league. At least he's still on the planet.

[alienentity]

Scientiae Confidimus - thank you. Very interesting.

'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.' and also
'Something is rotten in the state of Utah'

Which hamlet in Utah is the good Dr. from anyway?

[KreeL]

Well then why didn't they just simply use piximite. I mean the equivalent amount of piximite to produce the needed heat would be only 1-2 mm thick...that would only be a couple of coats of pixiprimer.

TAM:)

Well how about you research a bit for yourself? Have you even read the paper presented?

If the business down the street from you burns down, and in the following investigation it is shown that accelerants were found indicating arson, would you doubt that simply because you don't understand it?:eek:

[KreeL]

Kreel, I don't want to distract you from your calculations, but I'd like to point out some additional things to consider:

1) you're proposing a hypothetical mechanism with an unknown compound! That's all very well, but don't act as if it's something real. It is just unproven speculation.
2) Since these grey/red chips are omnipresent in WTC dust, and have differing molecular characteristics, it MUST be assumed that [a] they were placed deliberately in the dust samples or [b] they are extremely common materials.
If [b] they would be present in fairly large quantities at GZ, and if (as Jones et all propose) originally bonded to structural steel, SOME SUBSTANTIAL quantity would have to still be attached to the steel.

There's just NO way around it. Now, we assume that FEMA and NIST would recognize primer paint on the structural steel. That's a no-brainer. We also assume they DIDN'T see anything suspicious attached to the steel. Again pretty much a no-brainer. Therefore nanothermite paint is virtually guaranteed NOT to be the source of materials such as those seen in the dust.

It can be eliminated fairly confidently without years of tedious confirmation. I wager that NO amount of testing will produce nanothermite from GZ materials, unless by fraud or by misrepresentation (that still amounts to nothing, btw)

The odds are looking very poor indeed (again that word) for Dr. Jones et al, and their loyal followers.

ps if Drs Judy Wood and James Fetzer are reading this thread (LOL) don't get your hopes up kiddies. You're not even in Dr. Jones' league. At least he's still on the planet.

Thermitic evidence was indeed found. I assume you read the paper? How deep can your head be buried in the sand? Somehow being a NIST apologist doesn't suit you well, my friend.

[alienentity]

'Harrit and 911 truthsite have attempted to gain credibility for they work and Bentham by pointing out that the dean of the natural science faculty of the university of Copenhagen is a member of The open chemical physical journal's editorial board.

This appears to no longer be the case. Dean Niels O. Andersen has been removed from the list of editors.

List of editors:
URL: ---.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm
Scientiae Confidimus

Anyone wanna bet that Niels O. Andersen's name won't stay connected with Bentham's in the truthersphere? Truthers to error correction are like Dracula to garlic necklaces.:eye-poppi

[tsig]

Hi all

I have great concern for the credibility and reputation of the University of Copenhagen and Niels Bohr's old institute.

Harrit and 911 truthsites have attempted to gain credibility for they work and Bentham by pointing out that the dean of the natural science faculty of the university of Copenhagen is a member of The open chemical physical journal's editorial board.

This appears to no longer be the case. Dean Niels O. Andersen has been removed from the list of editors.

List of editors:
URL: ---.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm

I hope this is a step towards repairing some of the damage done.

I'm currently considering translating a recent interview with Harrit from Danish national TV, where he claims:

- They have found nanothermite in WTC dust.
- The nanothermite is an explosive, apparently capable of hurling 30 tons steel beams in parabolic trajectories up to 100m.
- Nanothermite is super high technological front line military research

My poor language skills are holding me back, but if there is interest, i will try.

Interview with Niels Harrit:
URL: ---.youtube.com/watch?v=nP810ssxyo4

Regards
Scientiae Confidimus

Welcome. enjoy.

[ozeco41]

I would bet that it would leave the same kind of coating on metal that the military thermite I worked with, or the improvised thermite that I made for arson investigations classes left behind.

Insolulable chalky white and baked onto the metal.
I make no comments or admissions as to my possible involvement in experiments in blowing things up....

....however I did hear some vague rumours about...... :D :o

:blush:

[tsig]

Well how about you research a bit for yourself? Have you even read the paper presented?

If the business down the street from you burns down, and in the following investigation it is shown that accelerants were found indicating arson, would you doubt that simply because you don't understand it?:eek:

If a plane full of fuel ran into it I wouldn't think arson.

[KreeL]

Of course not. It's not your job. That's why NIST failed.

[alienentity]

Thermitic evidence was indeed found. I assume you read the paper? How deep can your head be buried in the sand? Somehow being a NIST apologist doesn't suit you well, my friend.

I'm an apologist for the truth and facts, my friend, not NIST. If you read my post carefully you will understand that the thermite claims ultimately must fit with reality - they cannot remain purely hypothetical. At some point the material would need to be applied in large quantities - you can't get around this. There WOULD be evidence on the leftover steel itself. This isn't a bad TV movie, y'know - stuff just doesn't disappear like magic because you say so. (ie appear in all the dust but NONE on the steel - not possible)

Just because the Jones paper describes this material as thermitic doesn't mean that it could actually do anything to structural steel. You do understand that, don't you?

Do you guys have any idea how far past the evidence you're leaping? Slow down and think, man.

[dtugg]

Well how about you research a bit for yourself? Have you even read the paper presented?

If the business down the street from you burns down, and in the following investigation it is shown that accelerants were found indicating arson, would you doubt that simply because you don't understand it?:eek:

That is crazy funny. Because your're the one ignoring the investigation because you don't understand it. And because you really, really, really, really, want 9/11 to be an inside jobby job. Instead you listen to some quacks who wrote some crappy paper they had to pay to get published.

Hey twoofer, explain how magic super duper mega nano therm*te managed to destroy a skyscraper. Produces the calculations proving it can cut through vertical columns, calculate how much was needed, explain where it was applied and how it all got there, explain how it survived the plane crashes and fires , ect. I dare you, twoofer.

[alienentity]

Hey twoofer, explain how magic super duper mega nano therm*te managed to destroy a skyscraper. Produces the calculations proving it can cut through vertical columns, calculate how much was needed, explain where it was applied and how it all got there, explain how it survived the plane crashes and fires , ect. I dare you, twoofer.

And how it magically vanished off all the structural steel after collapse, but reappeared in Dr. Jones' samples.

[WilliamSeger]

READ POST 1299 - That SEM Photo clarifies once and for all that Jones' samples a-d are paint attached to hematite. No mistakes, no ifs, no buts, it clearly shows a crystalline metallic substrate called steel with an oxidised layer and then paint attached.

Stop with the BS, the spamming the insinuation etc - that photo sinks Jones et al.

Sunstealer, could the steel crystals explain why the chips were attracted to a magnet?

[KreeL]

I'm an apologist for the truth and facts, my friend, not NIST. If you read my post carefully you will understand that the thermite claims ultimately must fit with reality - they cannot remain purely hypothetical. At some point the material would need to be applied in large quantities - you can't get around this. There WOULD be evidence on the leftover steel itself. This isn't a bad TV movie, y'know - stuff just doesn't disappear like magic because you say so. (ie appear in all the dust but NONE on the steel - not possible)

Just because the Jones paper describes this material as thermitic doesn't mean that it could actually do anything to structural steel. You do understand that, don't you?

Do you guys have any idea how far past the evidence you're leaping? Slow down and think, man.

So you don't believe that a thermite reaction can do as much to structural steel than an office fire? Amazing - :jaw-dropp

[Sunstealer]

Would the steel crystals explain why the chips were attracted to a magnet?Firstly sorry for the large text font - it's not my style, but sometimes you have to shout above the noise.

Yes they would - but that is not quite the entire story.

The chip that has been sent to the French "truther" (I hate using that label, but there aren't any better) shows a number of different layers; namely 3.

The first - bottom layer, page 11 and page 13 left hand pic http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf is a fibrous, crystalline metallic layer, which with EDS spectra highly indicates steel. On top of that is an oxide layer, because all stable metals form a stable oxide on the surface, it stops them from burning, (middle - it's brittle - note the cracks) which can only come from the steel (and on top of that paint which is the only explanation for the material given in EDS analysis - it ain't thermite because there are far too many other elements present).

So we can safely say that the chip given to the Frenchman would indeed be attracted by a magnet.

I've alluded to the magnetism of different oxide layers or products before, so search hematite, maghemite and my name and you'll get the post in this thread.

With Jones' chips it's slightly more difficult, because we can't see the underside of the "gray layer".

Another problem is paramagnetism. On researching further, both Al, Fe2O3 in the form of hematite have these properties. In conclusion with other information I think it's wise to say that the chips would be attracted to a magnet either through paramagnetism or through magnetism. As far as I'm aware (and please anyone correct me if I'm wrong) the intention to use magnets was to separate iron-rich micro-spheres from the dust and not any other material.

[KreeL]

Hey twoofer, explain how magic super duper mega nano therm*te managed to destroy a skyscraper.

How about you explain why it was there:confused:...and how it can't be used to produce the obvious.:D

[ozeco41]

....
- The nanothermite is an explosive, apparently capable of hurling 30 tons steel beams in parabolic trajectories up to 100m.....

Welcome from another "Newbie" Scientiae Confidimus.

If that claim is true we are seeing some fundamental revolution in basic physics.


Seriously ask the base question(s) "How does an explosive apply pressure to a mass to make a force which accelerates that mass over a time interval to a velocity which then results in a parabolic trajectory 100m long?"

An explosive works by producing rapidly expanding gas. The particle size for most changes the rate of gas emmission.

For any given quantity of explosive/firearm propellant grinding to smaller particles produces the gas faster but for a short time frame compared with larger particles producing gas more slowly with lower pressures but over a longer period of time. However, to first order accuracy, the quantity of gas is the same for both OR any intermediate sizes of particles.

And, to accelerate a mass the gas has to be constrained - hence most guns have breeches , chambers and barrels - those constrain the expanding gas to pushing the bullet/shell by its arse up the barrel and it accelerates all the way. Remove the constraints of barrel, chamber etc and you can set the cartidge off with a match without serious risk. (For rifle calibre stuff anyway - not Big Mo's 16 inch pop guns or similar.)

So don't hold your breath waiting for some big break through.

[dtugg]

How about you explain why it was there:confused:...and how it can't be used to produce the obvious.:D

In other words, you've got nothing. No surprise. You're a twoofer, after all!

[KreeL]

Quite the contrary. You believe that an office fire is more devastating to structural steel than thermate.
Removed Rule 12 violation.

[alienentity]

So you don't believe that a thermite reaction can do as much to structural steel than an office fire? Amazing

Ah, good question. Just look at the BTU's available in all the office combustibles including carpet, and their distribution in the open floors. Also the FACT that the office materials were actually in the building, as opposed to the SPECULATION that thermite was there as well.

And the further speculation that somehow this (unknown) material was somehow attached (painted? wrapped? baked? fried?) with not one single office worker noticing?

To be perfectly fair we could make a list of all the serious and deadly fires and collapses in the last 30 years caused by a) office fires or b) thermite.

I dunno 'bout you. Seems office fires do a pretty good job of burning things real good.

Bonus point for 'realists' (opposite of 'truthers') is that we know exactly how the WTC fires were started. That's not even speculation.

But in the realm of speculation thermite is much more exciting and sexy to ponder than filing cabinets full of paper, desks and computers. You got us there hands down.

[The Platypus]

So you don't believe that a thermite reaction can do as much to structural steel than an office fire? Amazing - :jaw-dropp

That was lame dude, not even close to what he said...

[KreeL]

Ah, good question. Just look at the BTU's available in all the office combustibles including carpet, and their distribution in the open floors. Also the FACT that the office materials were actually in the building, as opposed to the SPECULATION that thermite was there as well.

And the further speculation that somehow this (unknown) material was somehow attached (painted? wrapped? baked? fried?) with not one single office worker noticing?

To be perfectly fair we could make a list of all the serious and deadly fires and collapses in the last 30 years caused by a) office fires or b) thermite.

I dunno 'bout you. Seems office fires do a pretty good job of burning things real good.

Bonus point for 'realists' (opposite of 'truthers') is that we know exactly how the WTC fires were started. That's not even speculation.

But in the realm of speculation thermite is much more exciting and sexy to ponder than filing cabinets full of paper, desks and computers. You got us there hands down.

Did office workers notice when they updated the fireproofing in the twin towers?

[dtugg]

Quite the contrary. You believe that an office fire is more devastating to structural steel than thermate. Removed quoted violation.

Then you should easily be able to demonstrate that magical super duper mega nano therm*te can cut horizontally through steel. Awesome! I'll be waiting.

[KreeL]

If you haven't already realized the reality of that, you have no business being in this thread.

[alienentity]

Quite the contrary. You believe that an office fire is more devastating to structural steel than thermate. Removed quoted violation.

AFAIK thermite has never once been shown to cut horizontally thru a vertical steel column.

Can you provide a link to correct me if I'm wrong? I always thought thermite responded to gravity by burning straight down.... maybe if you had a hutchison-effect anti-gravity generator attached to it, it might burn sideways, I dunno. ask Dr. Judy.

[dtugg]

And the twoofer dodges yet again. Not that I expected it to actually even attempt to prove its fantasy is possible.

[KreeL]

You are proving yourself unsound in your research. At least the other shills know what has already been proven.

[Dog Town]

Did office workers notice when they updated the fireproofing in the twin towers?

Please provide your proof of such. IIRC it was one tower, and not above the 45th floor.IIRC.

[leftysergeant]

How about you explain why it was there:confused:...and how it can't be used to produce the obvious.:D

None of us with any common sense and experience with thermite or structural steel can distinguish Jonesie's crap from red oxide primer.

If he is half the scientist his fevered little brain pictures him to be, he will make a specimen of the stuff and burn down a few pieces of steel with it.

Otherwise, he has a couple handsful of compost.

It does not, to a rational person, appear to be thermite.

And I see no discription anywhere of what the hundreds of pounds of red, metal-flake-contaminated paint that must have been present in the dust looked like and how it was separated from the faux thermite.

As I recall, they separated the chips with MEK. You know what else dissolves in MEK.

Freaking PAINT.

Catch a clue, if you can.

I think my credentials in arson investigation are far superior to yours or Jonesie's. I see no indication of arson. Live with it.

[Slayhamlet]

You are proving yourself unsound in your research. At least the other shills know what has already been proven.

What a sad little person. There's not a single "shill" in the whole world who thinks Steven Jones has proven one goddamn thing. I defy you to find one. And no, twoofers who you think are "disinfo agents" don't count, retard.

[Slayhamlet]

If you haven't already realized the reality of that, you have no business being in this thread.

That's funny, since you have no idea what thermite even is, much less nanothermite, and have in fact never participated in anything that could be described as scientific in your entire life. You are embarrassing yourself.

[ozeco41]

Ah, good question. Just look at the BTU's available in all the office combustibles including carpet, and their distribution in the open floors. Also the FACT that the office materials were actually in the building, as opposed to the SPECULATION that thermite was there as well.....

I doubt that there were many BTU's there at all given they were American buildings in the US city of Noo York.

:D :D

[The Platypus]

I have a question about shills. Do they get paid in shillings?

[dtugg]

I have a question about shills. Do they get paid in shillings?

I get paid in Ameros.

[AJM8125]

I get paid in Ameros.

I've been told I need to work on my content and I only qualify for the leftover sandwiches.

[Sunstealer]

Quite the contrary. You believe that an office fire is more devastating to structural steel than thermate.Removed quoted violation. Thermate! Thermate? Isn't that the caboodle with the Sulphur in it? Damn, I must have missed somthin'. Yo, KreeL! Hey! show me where all this there Sulphur is at? Hmm? Thermate is packed with Sulphur! How come there is no Sulphur in the majority of EDS spectra that Doctor Jones provides?

I don't know what it is about tonight, maybe a full moon, maybe the fact that I have a long Easter Weekend to enjoy, maybe truthers have driven me insane, but I have the notion to reply to the nonsense in the style of movie characters - is the above Eddie Murphy without the bad language?

[alienentity]

Did office workers notice when they updated the fireproofing in the twin towers?

Good point! If they sprayed the thermite overtop the insulation, it would be much less effective.
AFAIK, the old insulation wasn't removed before application of new.

BTW, since Dr. Jones states emphatically that it had to be applied every 2 to 3 floors, all the way down, HOWDEYDOODAT?

Hard to be a truther - so many conspiracy theories, so little evidence. must be very frustrating, unless you don't give a sh*t about evidence. :idea: (Oh yeah! I forgot, they don't need evidence! Just allegations and rumors)

This round of Whack-a-troll is getting boring. I'm outta here.

[R.Mackey]

Another problem is paramagnetism. On researching further, both Al, Fe2O3 in the form of hematite have these properties. In conclusion with other information I think it's wise to say that the chips would be attracted to a magnet either through paramagnetism or through magnetism. As far as I'm aware (and please anyone correct me if I'm wrong) the intention to use magnets was to separate iron-rich micro-spheres from the dust and not any other material.

Paramagnetism is usually a couple of orders of magnitude weaker than ferromagnetism, where force exerted on a flake by a ferromagnet is concerned -- so I surmise that the magnetic effects have nothing to do with hematite or aluminum, but are instead are caused by pure iron, due to flakes of the steel columns themselves (or some other incidental source of iron) stuck to the paint fragments. Rust layers and spall matches this effect perfectly.

Ferromagnetism is also one of the things that proves it isn't thermite. Iron rather than iron oxide is inert, as far as the basic thermite reaction is concerned. It boggles the mind why this precision-engineered nanononsense would carry such a large fraction of itself as ballast, eating into its precious heat content, which is clearly insufficient given its thin application...

Dr. Greening seems to have picked up on the magnetism as a key counterindicator even faster than I did, over on GregoryUrich's forum. He's right. There's still more reasons that nobody here has listed yet as well.

This thread, however, has become utterly ridiculous. It's a perfect poster child for what the Truth Movement has become. You won't see me around here much if this persists. :D

[alienentity]

Thermate! Thermate?

I don't know what it is about tonight, maybe a full moon, maybe the fact that I have a long Easter Weekend to enjoy, maybe truthers have driven me insane, but I have the notion to reply to the nonsense in the style of movie characters - is the above Eddie Murphy without the bad language?

Healthy reaction to truther silliness... Do it! Do it! (ok, what movie is that from?)

[T.A.M.]

Well how about you research a bit for yourself? Have you even read the paper presented?

If the business down the street from you burns down, and in the following investigation it is shown that accelerants were found indicating arson, would you doubt that simply because you don't understand it?:eek:

I did read the paper, if you are talking about the new Jones paper. It is poor science, and lacks in the fundamentals, namely rigorous controls, and eliminating (or at least discussing) all other reasonable possibilities prior to your conclusions. It lacks details where they are critical. The scientist in question has not produced the results of independent lab analysis he stated was done on the same chips 2 years ago, either because (A) he did not like their conclusions or (B) he did not have the independent analysis done, or (C) why?

TAM:)

[Scientiae Confidimus]

Partial translation of interview with Niels Harrit, regarding the Bentham paper.

The translation is not 100% accurate, I have tried to remain true to the original meaning not the exact wording.

1:02 Interviewer: What are those chips?

1:04 Niels Harrit: Its nanothermite. That is a, let me take the last part of
the word first. A thermite is a chemical expression for compound that is
pulverized aluminum and rust, pulverized rust. Its an old invention from
1893 and if you can get the compound to react, then it develops an
enormous amount of heat. 2500 degree. Iron is formed in the process
and the hot iron, you can use to melt other iron, you can also use it to
weld railroad tracks.

An old fashion thermite, it develops heat, but in a nanothermite, the
particles are so small and they react with each other so fast that it
beings to reassemble, or it becomes an explosive. You also have the
opportunity to mix other components in, it is more complicated than
just iron and rust, there is more things in it, that makes it an explosive.

2:19 Interviewer: We are going to watch a clip. What are we going to watch?

2:23 Niels Harrit: We going to watch the collapse of the north tower.
Where you can see the explosions directly.
It's like a mushroom cloud everything, is ejected up in the
air.
There is some of those 30 tons steel beam that is ejected
110m away.
There is some of those explosions that is ejected out of
the window, that has speeds of 100 mph.

3:10 Clip of the collapse of the north tower is showed and yellow arrows point to “scribs” below the crush zone.

3:24 Niels Harrit: Ok, the issue about ejection up in the air, pay attention to
the fragments, it is giant steel beams we talking about.
They are ejected up in the air in some large,
it's called parabolic, arch formed, trajectories.

3:34 Interviewer: There was two yellow arrows that indicated
something below the crush zone?

3:39 Niels Harrit: It is obvious explosions, that are set off to early, its
complicated business these things. They (The
scribs/puffs) are well below the crush zone.
The argument where you imagine that the puffs coming
out from the side should be caused by the collapsing floors
are clearly disproved by those yellow arrows.

3:59 Interviewer:If there is some that think, that those that believe in this
are very crazy, can you understand this?

4:04 Niels Harrit: Hehe, If we going to look at what happened. then there
has been a crime, ok?, there is 3000 people that died that
day and there has never been a judicial investigation, police
investigation of that event.
There has never been any evidence presented, there is no
one charged in this case. The police, FBI has
not charged anybody. Nobody is wanted, so i do not know
who is the crazy?

Source:
URL:---.youtube.com/watch?v=nP810ssxyo4



Regards
Scientiae Confidimus

[Sunstealer]

You are proving yourself unsound in your research. At least the other shills know what has already been proven.And what they have disproved champ. Care to comment on any part of Jones' paper or any of the of my refutations? Sorry I was clearing out my ears - you want to know what a refutation is? Sure - it's where I hit you over the head with the facts newbie. You've jumped into this thread and impressed us all with your ability to spam, you've got an A++ for that Barbara, now go for it chump, you can reach the dizzying heights of trutherdom by spouting the usual garbage or you can join us in the real world where we drown our sorrows and insecurities with alcohol.

Mmmn, that's more of a cross between Dr Cox and Bob Kelso from Scrubs - needs more work.

[alienentity]

This is newly released footage from WTC towers showing government agents posing as insulation specialists. They were overheard shouting 'Do it' as they ripped thru drywall, carpeting, office furniture while removing old insulation and spraying nanothermite gel from grey cylinders strapped to their backs. (not shown in picture). Rumor has it they were both killed immediately afterwards and rendered into sandwich meats, to be fed to government shills on the JREF forum..
The government has refused to release the other photos. I wonder why?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049deb1f75bb54.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15988)

[Thunder]

This is newly released footage from WTC towers showing government agents posing as insulation specialists. They were overheard shouting 'Do it' as they ripped thru drywall, carpeting, office furniture while removing old insulation and spraying nanothermite gel from grey cylinders strapped to their backs. (not shown in picture). Rumor has it they were both killed immediately afterwards and rendered into sandwich meats, to be fed to government shills on the JREF forum..
The government has refused to release the other photos. I wonder why?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049deb1f75bb54.jpg

"Do it....do it!!"

Is that Yiddish? Sounds like it to me.

[metamars]

Sure - I'm surprised he hasn't had more queries.

The following is from the bottom of page 16 and the top of page 17 of the paper.



Those are the paint specimens I and everyone is interested in - what are they (that requires detail). I presume that this same paint was used for all of the testing comparisons.

I'd also ask why that particular type of paint was chosen as opposed to any other.



I submitted your post as the paint question. Actually, I broke it up into 2 questions, the last line in the quote above being question #2.

[metamars]

In the Boston lecture in december 2007 he introduced the unreacted thermite for the first time I believe. I think he said something about independent testing at that lecture.Keep us informed of the email exchange if you would.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&ei Boston lecture

You're correct. I just sent Professor Jones the following


At the Boston Conference, 12/15/07, you announced the chips, and furthermore said "I've provided red chips samples, now, to an independent laboratory for testing, with the question to them do they agree, do they find, that these red chips are a form of thermite."


You say this at 50:30, in the video as posted at Google, viz., http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&ei

[Sunstealer]

If you haven't already realized the reality of that, you have no business being in this thread.And please good citizen, speak, what business do the seek dear friend? There are plenty of malchecks that need a right tolchecking dear friend, are thoust one?

[Sparky]

Is there even such a thing in existance as military grade nano thermite?

Only Peter Pan knows for sure.

[Sunstealer]

I have a question about shills. Do they get paid in shillings?Shillings! Shillings! What sort o' bloody fancy wage are you on! There be nowt, but penance and pence in this 'ere NWO and don't you forget about it, you......

[16.5]

You're correct. I just sent Professor Jones the following

Metamars I also have a couple of links from 911Blogger should the Doctor need them. They were posted above.

In them he says he sent the samples to a SECOND lab.

I am disturbed however, that Dr. Jones claims he cannot remember sending these samples to TWO independent labs.

It calls into question the validity of the paper, would you not agree?

[Sparky]

Kreel,

I am going to take you down tomorrow when I get to work with the NFPA 72 test fire results. I expect you to match my evidence with yours or I expect you to disappear.

Deal?

[RedIbis]

Partial translation of interview with Niels Harrit, regarding the Bentham paper.

The translation is not 100% accurate, I have tried to remain true to the original meaning not the exact wording.

1:02 Interviewer: What are those chips?

1:04 Niels Harrit: Its nanothermite. That is a, let me take the last part of
the word first. A thermite is a chemical expression for compound that is
pulverized aluminum and rust, pulverized rust. Its an old invention from
1893 and if you can get the compound to react, then it develops an
enormous amount of heat. 2500 degree. Iron is formed in the process
and the hot iron, you can use to melt other iron, you can also use it to
weld railroad tracks.

An old fashion thermite, it develops heat, but in a nanothermite, the
particles are so small and they react with each other so fast that it
beings to reassemble, or it becomes an explosive. You also have the
opportunity to mix other components in, it is more complicated than
just iron and rust, there is more things in it, that makes it an explosive.

2:19 Interviewer: We are going to watch a clip. What are we going to watch?

2:23 Niels Harrit: We going to watch the collapse of the north tower.
Where you can see the explosions directly.
It's like a mushroom cloud everything, is ejected up in the
air.
There is some of those 30 tons steel beam that is ejected
110m away.
There is some of those explosions that is ejected out of
the window, that has speeds of 100 mph.

3:10 Clip of the collapse of the north tower is showed and yellow arrows point to “scribs” below the crush zone.

3:24 Niels Harrit: Ok, the issue about ejection up in the air, pay attention to
the fragments, it is giant steel beams we talking about.
They are ejected up in the air in some large,
it's called parabolic, arch formed, trajectories.

3:34 Interviewer: There was two yellow arrows that indicated
something below the crush zone?

3:39 Niels Harrit: It is obvious explosions, that are set off to early, its
complicated business these things. They (The
scribs/puffs) are well below the crush zone.
The argument where you imagine that the puffs coming
out from the side should be caused by the collapsing floors
are clearly disproved by those yellow arrows.

3:59 Interviewer:If there is some that think, that those that believe in this
are very crazy, can you understand this?

4:04 Niels Harrit: Hehe, If we going to look at what happened. then there
has been a crime, ok?, there is 3000 people that died that
day and there has never been a judicial investigation, police
investigation of that event.
There has never been any evidence presented, there is no
one charged in this case. The police, FBI has
not charged anybody. Nobody is wanted, so i do not know
who is the crazy?

Source:
URL:---.youtube.com/watch?v=nP810ssxyo4



Regards
Scientiae Confidimus

Interesting. His description of the difference between thermite and nano-thermite is very helpful. Thanks for taking the time to translate this.

[Sunstealer]

Have you even read the paper presented?Skimmed, then read more fully with an careful eye for the first part namely samples a-d, then analysed that part adn found some of the text wanting. I've moved on past the BSE data and the DSC data and looked at those closely - I've more than likely spent 10x the time any truther has spent reading it let alone analysing it, yet I'm not even up to fully examining page 19 plus and the meat therein. How about you?

If there was evidence of thermite (nano or otherwise) in the paper then I would be showing that right here, right now and providing additional sources to support the position. So far I've had next to no critical examination of my explanations from the truthers here.

Can you imagine what this JREF thread would be like if I had claimed there was evidence of thermite and backed Jones' paper? There would be so many good questions I would be swamped (and I'd be more than happy and prepared to keep answering those questions in a proper manner), but nope only one or two people who suspect a conspiracy have asked good solid questions - the rest has been dross.

Ask away.

[KreeL]

Good point! If they sprayed the thermite overtop the insulation, it would be much less effective.
AFAIK, the old insulation wasn't removed before application of new.

BTW, since Dr. Jones states emphatically that it had to be applied every 2 to 3 floors, all the way down, HOWDEYDOODAT?

Hard to be a truther - so many conspiracy theories, so little evidence. must be very frustrating, unless you don't give a sh*t about evidence. :idea: (Oh yeah! I forgot, they don't need evidence! Just allegations and rumors)

This round of Whack-a-troll is getting boring. I'm outta here.

So did office workers notice when they upgraded the fireproofing or not?

What were the upgrades? Who performed them? What security clearance did they have? Who was in charge of security?

Do you believe that a day went by in the history of the twin towers that office workers didn't see any maintenance personnel?:eek:

You shills better not be getting paid - you're worthless.

[dtugg]

I think that Kreel is a disinfo agent. He is doing a marvelous job of making twoofers look like complete morons.

[Sparky]

Kreel,

I am going to take you down tomorrow when I get to work with the NFPA 72 test fire results. I expect you to match my evidence with yours or I expect you to disappear.

Deal?

Bump for Kreel.

You've got a big mouth.

Willing to back it up?

[The Platypus]

You shills better not be getting paid - you're worthless.

And then you actually wonder why everyone thinks your a brainwashed nutjob in a cult?

[KreeL]

I simply drop logic bombs all over the place and see how many shill carcasses stack up all around me. If you knew how many times I've seen the idiocy from hackjobs that say/spout things like 'It's impossible to dooooooo...' 'thermite isn't an explosiiiiiive...' 'thermite can't cut a vertical beeeeaaaamm'. Blah, blah, blah, and they lie through their teeth, or they are just plain ignorant, because they have nothing else.

Don't get me wrong. There are a few that will at least try to argue the physics of the collapse. Usually by assigning 0MJ to concrete pulverization, because the Law of Energy Conservation requires them to fudge with the numbers. But hey, that's at least more entertaining than Sparky claiming 'I'm gonna get you man!'. LOL

Wake up and look at what happened on 9/11 and soon after. Look who benefitted.

The scrub up job of the evidence was as good as they could get it. But surely even you guys have to concede they couldn't keep everything a secret forever. The truth is out. Empirical scientific proof is there. Pretty hard to keep up the weak denials with new independent laboratory confirmations of such. It really doesn't hurt my feelings in the slightest because I wasn't duped to begin with.:)

[ozeco41]

Interesting. His description of the difference between thermite and nano-thermite is very helpful. Thanks for taking the time to translate this.

Anyone who has reloaded firearms cartridges would be familiar with the concept. Smaller grain size makes for larger "specific surface area". Burning occurs over the total surface area of all the grains so smaller grains burn faster.

Civil engineers know the same thing from working with concrete mixes where optimum graded aggregates have lowest surface area plus interparticle void volume therefore needing the lowest quantity of cement. Cement is the dearest component.

And, weight for weight, bigger rocks in the aggregate are both cheaper and use less cement provided you have "graded aggregate" to fill the voids between the big rocks.

All same issue of surface area to volume and the effects of grain size.

[Sparky]

But hey, that's at least more entertaining than Sparky claiming 'I'm gonna get you man!'. LOL




I'm not here for entertainment. I want you to back up your so-called "logic bombs" with cold, hard facts. I'm going to post the energy release rates for multiple types of common office fires tomorrow.

Cold, hard facts.

If you expect to maintain a logical argument, using cold, hard facts, I expect you respond likewise with energy release rates to match or exceed those I will post tomorrow with the required quantities needed to prove your demolition argument.

No entertainment.

Prove your point.

Pretty simple, even for you.

[kookbreaker]

I simply drop logic bombs all over the place and see how many shill carcasses stack up all around me.


Ah, the arrogance of the self-impressed conspiracy theorist. So unearned, so undeserved, so self-infalting.


If you knew how many times I've seen the idiocy from hackjobs that say/spout things like 'It's impossible to dooooooo...' 'thermite isn't an explosiiiiiive...' 'thermite can't cut a vertical beeeeaaaamm'. Blah, blah, blah, and they lie through their teeth, or they are just plain ignorant, because they have nothing else.


Uh, yeah. You know those things you are complaining about? They are called facts. I know they are inconvenient to your religion but they are reality and whining won't change them, nor will a hack article in a vanity publication.

[KreeL]

I'm not here for entertainment. I want you to back up your so-called "logic bombs" with cold, hard facts. I'm going to post the energy release rates for multiple types of common office fires tomorrow.

Cold, hard facts.

If you expect to maintain a logical argument, using cold, hard facts, I expect you respond likewise with energy release rates to match or exceed those I will post tomorrow with the required quantities needed to prove your demolition argument.

No entertainment.

Prove your point.

Pretty simple, even for you.

All my points are simple enough for even you to understand. I use intricate care to assure that this is the case. If you can't understand them, you shouldn't be in this thread.

[The Platypus]

I simply drop logic bombs all over the place and see how many shill carcasses stack up all around me. If you knew how many times I've seen the idiocy from hackjobs that say/spout things like 'It's impossible to dooooooo...' 'thermite isn't an explosiiiiiive...' 'thermite can't cut a vertical beeeeaaaamm'. Blah, blah, blah, and they lie through their teeth, or they are just plain ignorant, because they have nothing else.

Don't get me wrong. There are a few that will at least try to argue the physics of the collapse. Usually by assigning 0MJ to concrete pulverization, because the Law of Energy Conservation requires them to fudge with the numbers. But hey, that's at least more entertaining than Sparky claiming 'I'm gonna get you man!'. LOL

Wake up and look at what happened on 9/11 and soon after. Look who benefitted.

The scrub up job of the evidence was as good as they could get it. But surely even you guys have to concede they couldn't keep everything a secret forever. The truth is out. Empirical scientific proof is there. Pretty hard to keep up the weak denials with new independent laboratory confirmations of such. It really doesn't hurt my feelings in the slightest because I wasn't duped to begin with.:)

Do you really think such pompous arrogance and this irrational rant, isn't as transparent as it is?

Again, and then you wonder why you look like a brainwashed nutjob in a cult?

[Sparky]

All my points are simple enough for even you to understand. I use intricate care to assure that this is the case. If you can't understand them, you shouldn't be in this thread.

Am I to understand that you are declining, Kreel of Zacky Farms?

[boloboffin]

Steven Jones has been asked about my Separated at Birth graphic. Here's a report of his reply:

In case you missed it, someone has asked Steven Jones about this image you keep posting all over the place and his response was posted in another forum. He says your NIST photo only provides further evidence this is NOT the same substance since according to the label, it has been exposed to greater than 650 C, and Jones' red-grey chips ignite below 450 C. They're not the same.

Rather clever of him, I'd say. However, wouldn't it be true that the higher heat changed the structure of the paint, making it susceptible to lower temperatures?

My response:

Wow. He might have a point.

Except --

Have any tests been done on the peeling paint to see if they NOW ignite at 450 C? Fire changes things chemically. You are looking at something in the NIST picture that has been changed from what it used to be.

And since the mechanism of transformation was heat energy, that would make the paint MORE susceptible to lower temperatures. Professor Jones knows this if he's a competent scientist. He's pulling your leg.

Take a piece of paper. Gently tug on the top two corners, not enough to tear it. You can feel how much stress you're putting on the paper, though.

Now touch the top two corners and fold the paper sharply. Fold the paper back and forth along this fold line, pressing the fold down firmly each time.

Now take the same corners and pull again. You'll find that you can't use the same amount of force. If you start to, you'll rip the paper in half.

The same principle applies here. The paint was put onto the steel to protect it. It was able to withstand those high temperatures, but there is no reason to expect that you could take a scrap of that same paint now and have it withstand the same high levels of temperatures. Steven Jones knows this. He is deceiving you.

Do not be deceived by Steven Jones.

[Myriad]

Which would do more damage to a building, thermite or an office fire?

That question reminds me of the stress tests I had to pass to become an NWO Internet Operative. Especially the one where each candidate gets locked in an oven for half an hour, and the oven is then heated. The test is, you get to choose the heat source: either a kilogram of nanothermite, a kilogram of gasoline burning in pure oxygen, or a kilogram of old newspaper burning in air.

Needless to say, the candidates who didn't choose the nanothermite made lunch.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[KreeL]

Right now I am reclining, sparky ol' boy. For how long have you been trying to uphold the weak gov't theory? Did you know a plane flew right through the top of the steel structure of the Pirelli Tower? Completely through it. Severed some core beams. Big explosion. Big office fire ignited by the fuel. It burned for longer than an hour. :jaw-dropp The Pirelli Tower is still there. Although I'm sure you can't understand why it didn't self destruct, I will let you in on a secret... it wasn't rigged ahead of time.

[Sparky]

Needless to say, the candidates who didn't choose the nanothermite made lunch.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Made lunch, ate lunch or were lunch?

[mark4mark]

All my points are simple enough for even you to understand. I use intricate care to assure that this is the case. If you can't understand them, you shouldn't be in this thread.
All of your points are nonexistent in any relevant or factual capacity. It's hard to imagine from whence you derive such a grossly misplaced sense of correctness having presented not one fact. Yours is an unflinching denial bordering on the dangerously extreme-possibly matching the extremism of the actual perpetrators of 9/11 for whom you seem to possess a fondness, given the lengths you go to defend them. What is so hard to grasp about the twin towers collapses? Once initiated, there was nothing which could have arrested them. Where else could all of that mass have gone?

Your movement is dead - it hardly ever was alive. And your psychotic ramblings only solidify how insane you and your ilk would ever be in the (God forbid) event of your "revolution" (more like the armchair revolution) taking flight.
There isn't a shred of evidence that supports your fantasy.

[tsig]

Shillings! Shillings! What sort o' bloody fancy wage are you on! There be nowt, but penance and pence in this 'ere NWO and don't you forget about it, you......

I'm afraid the "madness" has claimed another.

Making rational arguments and being answered with gibberish, breaks even the hardiest among us.

Or we become old and bitter.

Look on Beachnut Oh Sunstealer and despair!!:p

[Sparky]

Right now I am reclining, sparky ol' boy. For how long have you been trying to uphold the weak gov't theory? Did you know a plane flew right through the top of the steel structure of the Pirelli Tower? Completely through it. Severed some core beams. Big explosion. Big office fire ignited by the fuel. It burned for longer than an hour. :jaw-dropp The Pirelli Tower is still there. Although I'm sure you can't understand why it didn't self destruct, I will let you in on a secret... it wasn't rigged ahead of time.

Right now I'm laughing, my young paduwan. A Rockwell Commander? My truck is bigger than that!

[KreeL]

Once initiated the only thing that could have arrested them would be overwhelming resistance.

How hard was that?:D

Next.

[tsig]

I simply drop logic bombs all over the place and see how many shill carcasses stack up all around me.

So you're a suicide logic bomber?

[Grizzly Bear]

Did you know a plane flew right through the top of the steel structure of the Pirelli Tower? Completely through it. Severed some core beams. Big explosion. Big office fire ignited by the fuel. It burned for longer than an hour. :jaw-dropp The Pirelli Tower is still there. Although I'm sure you can't understand why it didn't self destruct, I will let you in on a secret... it wasn't rigged ahead of time.

Is there a reason why we should expect the same performance by comparing a reinforced concrete building to a steel framed building? And a building hit by one of these (http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/7/2/1364276.jpg) as opposed to one of these (http://www.drbuzz.org/sr_trip/american-airlines-boeing-767-300er-transportation-aircraft-29013.jpg)? That made my night :)


BTW no nanothermites required,

[KreeL]

So you're a suicide logic bomber?

Nice comeback.... but hey, aren't you one of those guys that claimed you couldn't cut a vertical beam with thermite?;)

[mark4mark]

Once initiated the only thing that could have arrested them would be overwhelming resistance.

How hard was that?:D

Next.
I'm sure we're all quite impressed.

And I suppose the Pirelli Tower being a reinforced concrete structure played little role in how well it performed after being struck by an aircraft.

How about calcs on the "overwhelming resistance" of which you speak.

[KreeL]

BTW no nanothermites required,

Already noted. Glad I made your night, Griz. I'm just a little bored and wanted to spend a few posts humoring the kiddos.:)

[dtugg]

Right now I am reclining, sparky ol' boy. For how long have you been trying to uphold the weak gov't theory? Did you know a plane flew right through the top of the steel structure of the Pirelli Tower? Completely through it. Severed some core beams. Big explosion. Big office fire ignited by the fuel. It burned for longer than an hour. :jaw-dropp The Pirelli Tower is still there. Although I'm sure you can't understand why it didn't self destruct, I will let you in on a secret... it wasn't rigged ahead of time.

You must be a disinfo agent. Nobody is dumb enough to think that these two events compare. Right?