04/17/2009 09:43:29 PM EST

9 scientists find Nano-Thermite Explosive in 9/11 samples

posted by p00j2620

what's your take?

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

Has anyone else seen this video and article? It's kind of weird to think that the conspiracy theorist were right but now they have the scientific evidence to back up the explosion theories.They have found both ignited and non ignited nano-thermite and say there could have been anywhere from 10-100 tons of this in the WTC buildings to bring them down. They concluded it was not the planes that brought the buildings down but these secondary explosives that the govt swore did not exist. I wonder why we have heard nothing about this in the states but it's going all over the other countries...

 http://www.youtube.co m/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&f eature=player_embedded

 

Article here - http://www.bentham-open.org /pages/content.php?TOCPJ/20 09/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ .SGM

can download the PDF 

< "The Worst Generation" or "Torture, Not Just for Juntas Anymore" | How much further? >
 Display:
9 scientists find Nano-Thermite Explosive in 9/11 samples | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 hidden)
I know it may invoke a flame war of some kind.... (4.50 / 2)

The problem with this story has many points. When wiki'd I came up with nothing for any of the "scientists" except for Steven Jones. He is physicist known mainly for his work on cold fusion (Muon-catalyzed fusion). When I googled their names, I only came up with links to anything related to 9/11. This leads me to believe that they have done nothing else or are not scientists at all or at least have never written a paper before. They also speculate the amount of explosive that must have been present which they themselves find to be a ridiculous amount to have gone unnoticed. The main guy mentioned in the youtube clip also makes comments that lead me to believe he was completely unaware of the fact that part of one of the two main buildings fell into and gouged building 7 quite severely.

I wish when evidence was presented for these conspiracy theories, it wasn't the same old things (or very close to it) from the same people.

Flame on!

by Hilikus9191 on 04/18/2009 01:18:35 AM EST

Nothing Noteworthy (none / 0)

Just a thought. But have you ever tried Goggling any other scientists from any other study? It's not like were talking about "American Idol" finalists. Most scientists are complete unknowns who have done nothing noteworthy.

 

by Rincewind on 04/18/2009 03:22:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
peer-reviewed research - PEER REVIEWED (none / 0)
Please see my post below. The integrity of this research was verified by independent third-party scientists. The authors of this study all have PhDs from notable institutions. This isn't a popularity contest involving Google hits. It is hard-core scientific data. If you'd rather not believe the conclusions of this alarming research - that thermite (an explosive) was discovered in dust created by the destruction of the World Trade Centers in New York -- that is a psychological response, not an objective conclusion based on the evidence at hand.  

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 03:37:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The evidence points to controlled demolition (none / 0)

This is a 'peer-reviewed' scientific paper. This cannot be ignored or discredited unless the research is later 'proven' to be incorrect. Simply denying it's content and implications is meaningless.

All three steel structure buildings that collapsed in NYC on 9/11 did so in near freefall acceleration. Never before or since 9/11 have steel structure buildings completely collapsed due to fire. Collapsing downward symmetrically 'into the path of most resistance'. Multi-ton steel support columns were laterally ejected outward as far as 600 feet from their point of origin. If the official government conspiracy theory claims that these buildings all fell as a result of a gravity driven collapse then where did the energy come from the ejected these large steel columns outward? What was the energy source that caused all of the concrete in the two towers to be pulverized into a fine power. How did these buildings collapse at essentially the same speed as it would take to drop a ball from the top of these buildings to hit the ground with only air as it's resistant force?

NIST admits a brief freefall collapse of WTC 7:

NIST's Half-Admission of Yet Another 9/11 Smoking Gun

LINK: http://www.ae911truth.org/i nfo/49

Although NIST was required by fire codes to test the dust and debris for sign of explosives they did not test for those.

--------------------------- -------------------
WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not  hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:  (and some non-standard characteristics)1.  Rapid onset of “collapse”2.&nb sp; Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse3.  Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses7.  Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.8.  FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY





Source: www.ae911truth.org

Bill Manning, Editor of Fire Engineering Magazine, referred to the 9/11 investigation as a 'half-baked farce' and also pleaded for the removal of the steel from GroundZero to stop being sent off to China without allowing for a full investigation.

Watch the new documentary entitles "Core of Corruption" on Google for many more rare film clips and a plethora of smoking guns.

by Cincy911Truth on 04/19/2009 01:36:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
More about the buildings' collapse (none / 0)
WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not  hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:  (and some non-standard characteristics)
1.  Rapid onset of “collapse”
2.  Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3.  Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
7.  Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8.  FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

Source: www.ae911truth.org

by Cincy911Truth on 04/19/2009 01:44:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wrong on all accounts here (none / 0)
No need for a longer response as clearly you are ignorant or crazy.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/19/2009 02:58:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Invective instead of reason=warning sign (none / 0)
I must have been mistaken about you earlier, Hilikaus. "Clearly you are ignorant of crazy." What a compelling, insightful argument! No low blows, full of logic and reason. You know what? You're right. I've changed my mind. I'm going to ignore this peer-reviewed research and take your account at face value from now on. Thanks for your help on this. </sarcasm>

by truthisall on 04/19/2009 04:01:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok enough (none / 0)

A lot of this stuff is covered elsewhere and I'm tired of doing your homework for you. Please see this site.

http://www.debunking911.com /index.html

It is updated quite frequently from what i can tell. It's not my only source of some information but it is a good place for a large collection of the information. They update when truthers complain or take issue with certain things. You should check it out if you have not seen it yet.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/19/2009 08:05:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not that article and video, but others (none / 1)

Yeah, we saw those videos etc. about 2 years ago. They are definitely circulating here in the US and they even have get-togethers and conventions and stuff. It's pretty convincing, but then again, I watched a special about the US never landing on the moon (as a conspiracy theory) and it was totally convincing as well.

I guess I have that cognitive dissonance thing going on.

Erin

by ilovecenk99 on 04/17/2009 11:57:04 PM EST

Other things "Scientist" can prove.. (none / 1)

There are at least a few "Scientists" that will claim they have 'Proof' not only of the existance of god, but that the earth is in the neighborhood of 6-10 thousand years old. Oh, and also that those colon cleansers really do work!

 

Be skeptical, be very skeptical. 

by rolodex on 04/18/2009 02:18:22 AM EST

Nano-thermite explosive? (none / 1)
What the hell is "nano" thermite explosive?  Thermite is an incindiary which burns at high temperature but does not explode.  It is a simple mixture of rust and aluminum.  Nano would imply that it was mixed as particles in a sub-micron range, but still doesn't explain the explosive part.  Looking up "nano thermite explosive" on google every one of at least the first 20 posts relate to 9/11 conspiracy theories.  most claim that there is "nano thermite" dust in all the debris.  Here is the logical explanation....there was undoubtedly rust and aluminum present in the WTC so of cooouuurse there was aluminum and rust found in the debris. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/18/2009 04:35:34 AM EST

Killjoy (5.00 / 2)
Injecting science into a perfectly good conspiracy theory.

by bfaul on 04/18/2009 01:34:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Science? (1.50 / 2)

We cannot tolerate the otters! Their Science is flawed! Their answer to the Great Question is different from ours.

Our answer to the Great Question is the only logical one. Our Science is great. Let us not forget the great Richard Dawkins who finally freed the world of religion long ago. Dawkins knew that logic and reason were the way of the future. But it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you. Prepare all the troops! We will level the United Atheist Alliance to the ground! 

by 5kfun on 04/18/2009 02:02:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
To be fair (none / 1)

Explosive is the word they use a lot here, but the majority of them usually state that the thermite was used to "cut" strategic support beams. Either way it makes no sense. Let me hit a build with a plane loaded with "explosives", building doesn't go down at that moment, but instead seems to wait almost an hour. Thermite can be effective in controlled situations. Does a building, hit by a large passenger plane, and on fire, sound like a controlled situation? The answer is obvious.

I would suspect that alpha's post nails it on the head. You could probably dig up old used nails and other metals and detect "thermite".

by Hilikus9191 on 04/18/2009 06:51:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I know, I know - the truth hurts (none / 0)
It is an absolutely critical distinction that this is a peer-reviewed research report published in a legitimate scientific journal.  Do we know the definition of "peer-reviewed" publication here?

This is from one of the authors, Stephen Jones, who received his PhD in physics from Vanderbilt University, conducted is PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and did post-doctoral research at Cornell University:

"Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.


A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process."

The detractors here make analogies to wacky theories involving moon landings and the existence of God. Please link to peer-reviewed research reports related to these topics or kindly shut the f@@k up.

Given a choice, would you tend to trust a team of PhD researchers published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal who having nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this research -- or members of the Bush-Cheney Cabal? There is only one logical answer.   

This is real research. The US mainstream media's absolute silence speaks volumes about the MSM and is a good indication of why the corporate press is going down the tubes in this country.

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 03:02:21 PM EST

Summary (none / 1)

I allow myself to summarize the above comment, so you don't have to read it:

"The publication in question was written by a scientist and reviewed by two other scientists, so SHUT THE F@@k UP!"

 

by OldGerman on 04/18/2009 03:40:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
9 scientists wrote the report (none / 0)
That fact is easily surmised by the HEADLINE of this frigging thread.

It was reviewed by an independent PANEL of scientists who had no skin in the game either way.

Lots of trash talk here - very little substance beyond the peer-reviewed scientific report itself. Look at the quality of the criticisms here -- false analogies, broadside slurs, outright lies -- and contrast them with the research itself - scientific, comprehensive, peer-reviewed.

An interesting contrast indeed.  Draw your own conclusions.

I'm not making the claim that the the government or the White House was responsible for 9/11. But clear evidence of explosives at the scene of the crime are a concrete rationale for a new investigation. The 9/11 Commission has been widely panned as a fraud polluted by conflicts of interest -- even in the mainstream media.  

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 04:03:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Typing a lot, saying almost nothing (none / 0)

I reject this statement.

 Given a choice, would you tend to trust a team of PhD researchers published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal who having nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this research -- or members of the Bush-Cheney Cabal? There is only one logical answer.

From what I could find, only one or two of the people reviewing this piece have PhD's. This is important as BYU began to distance themselves from his work noting that they questioned his interpretation of evidence and expressed doubts over whether or not the work had been submitted to relevant scientific venues to ensure rigorous technical peer review.

To say that the choice is between these scientists or Bush-Cheney is an outright false dichotomy. I don't have any relevant college education on this subject and I am led to believe you don't as well. So we both look at the same facts and come to different answers. You are trusting a few scientists making some bold claims. I am trusting the rest of the scientific world that is not being turned by the evidence and is questioning the validity of the work and review itself. Could the few be right? Of course, but when going on to a subject I have no real training with I tend to believe the majority of what most scientists believe. Why is that? They may have access and experience with things that I just don't know about.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/18/2009 04:07:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The NIST investigation didn't test for explosives (none / 0)
Exactly what "facts" are you referring to?

NIST investigators never tested for evidence of explosives at Ground Zero. That is a "fact". The reason given by NIST was that there was no evidence that explosives were used.

Note the circular logic.

The "fact" is that these scientists tested dust collected near the World Trade Center using a variety of highly reputable methods -- and discovered thermite in all samples tested.

You make the unfounded claim that "most scientists" have questioned or criticized this peer-reviewed, published research. This is an outright fabrication.  

Please post links to ANY writings or blog posts by legitimate scientists  "questioning the validity of the work or the review itself." Even a single link.

I'll be waiting.

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 04:18:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
analysis correct, conclusion wrong (none / 0)
Here is the problem.  The paper analyzed debris and found aluminum and iron oxide in all samples...this I do not doubt one bit.   Of coures a large flying aluminum tube full of jet fuel was on fire inside a huge iron and concrete building that undoubtedly also contained lots of aluminum in things like office furnature, soda cans, appliances etc.....I wonder where all the rust and aluminum came from?  Must be a government conspiracy! 

by alphasigmookie on 04/18/2009 04:51:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not quite (none / 0)
"The "fact" is that these scientists tested dust collected near the World Trade Center using a variety of highly reputable methods -- and discovered thermite in all samples tested."

The fact is that the dust near the WTC contained rust and aluminum residue.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/18/2009 05:13:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
rust isn't the same thing as thermite (none / 0)
The following is a direct quote from an abstract of peer-reviewed research report published this month in "The Open Chemical Physics Journal". It is a description based on scientific analysis of dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Centers in New York City on September 11, 2001:

"The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

http://www.bentham-open.org /pages/content.php?TOCPJ/20 09/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ .SGM

Spin all you want, for whatever reasons or motives you wish. "Unreacted thermitic material" is not the same thing as "rust and aluminum residue."

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 06:12:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Quick point (none / 0)

http://video.google.com/vid eoplay?docid=19574908670303 16250

timestamp 39:44

By this statement it is very easy to assume this is the way it works.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/18/2009 06:17:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
From Wikipedia (none / 0)
Thermites can be a diverse class of compositions. The fuels are often aluminium, magnesium, calcium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron. The oxidizers can be boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,II,IV) oxide. [1]

The most common thermite is aluminium-iron(III) oxide.

"Thermite" is not an element. It is manufactured out of other chemicals and has several formulas. The most common formula is aluminum and RUST.

You find evidence of C-4, PETN or of the hundreds of gnomes required to secretly secrete multiple tons of "thermite" into the structures of both WTC towers (as well as Building 7?) then we can talk.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/18/2009 06:28:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who said Thermite is an element?? (none / 0)
Who said Thermite is an element? Did I say Thermite is an element? Did Jones say Thermite is an element? Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

YOU are the one jumping to conclusions concerning "hundreds of gnomes." You apparently believe the official conspiracy theory, the one that was created mere hours after the attack before ANY investigation occured.

I'm interested in FACTS. Not speculation, not conspiracy theories. And the FACT is that highly reactive thermite material was discovered in these dust samples.

This demands further investigation. That's all I'm saying. You seem very sure of your speculations regarding the events that occured. What do you have to fear from a comprehensive, unbiased investigation? Being so sure of what happened you should EMBRACE further investigation. It will prove your official theory once and for all and silence these "wacky" conspiracy theorists once and for all. Won't it?
 

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 09:54:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You seem very excited (none / 0)
1)  "highly reactive thermite material was discovered in these dust samples." No, aluminum and rust were found. Thermite is composed of aluminum and iron oxide (rust). That aluminum and rust were found in 9/11 samples is hardly surprising.

2) If not magic gnomes then who do you think secretly brought in and installed the tons and tons of "thermite" required (not to mention the miles of electric fuse, blasting caps, det cord, etc...).

3) "the one that was created mere hours after the attack" or the obvious time line based on the historical truth. Just because it was easy to figure out after the fact are you saying that renders it improbable?

4) "Investigate" all you want but stop ignoring common sense explanations in favor of your "gnome theory". The WTC towers collapsed after being struck and set on fire by fully loaded jet airliners.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/18/2009 10:10:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
FBI: No hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11 (none / 0)
With due respect, your MO seems to be to put ridiculous words into other peoples' mouths. The "gnome theory" is all yours, not mine. I don't KNOW what happened. That's the point.

The official conspiracy theory that you take as gospel is not, in fact, "obvious" at all. It's certainly not "easy to find out."  If it was, you'd think the FBI would be able to do so, wouldn't you?

According to your official conspiracy theory, Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of a plot involving 19 hijackers and three planes. If it's "easy to prove," as you assert, you'd think that bin Laden would be formally charged, correct? That's a no brainer, right? But according to the FBI, there is no hard evidence connecting bin Laden with 9/11:

June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.  In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?”  The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.  According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people.  The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.” 

 
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11.  The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.  When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” 

 
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?”  Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”  I asked, “How does that work?”  Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence.  Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice.  The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury.  In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury.  He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”


http://www.globalresearch.c a/index.php?context=viewArt icle&code=20060610& articleId=2623

I'm eager to hear how you'd explain that one away? If you can and do, you have a lucrative career awaiting in spin control (if you don't have one already :))   
 

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 10:37:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm eager to hear how you'd explain that one away? (none / 0)

Because al Quada is an amorphous organization with an ever shifting command and control? Bin Laden was not a member of the cell that crafted the 9/11 plot anymore than it was President Obama who personally took the shot on those three pirates last week.

The al Quada organization, run by Bin Laden, orchestrated 9/11. Nineteen Al Quada members were on the planes, there were many recorded telephone calls from passengers and cockpit recordings describing the events as well. Two planes flew into the WTC and it fell down. What's shocking about that? If they fell without being struck, that might have been a little strange.

P.S.  The "gnomes" references are what I like to call "being facetious" because I have a sense of humor. Some people don't.

P.P.S. Just think how embarrassing it would have been for those gnomes if the impact of the two planes had disconnected the electrical detonators of their charges. That certainly would have been hard to explain when the NYFD found tons and tons of deactivated explosives in the partially burned WTC.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/18/2009 11:19:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Building 7 did fall down without being struck (none / 0)
I think it's fair then, to infer that you would think that a steel structure building falling at freefall speed is "a little strange." Especially since a steel frame structure has never before or since collapsed due to fire.

by truthisall on 04/19/2009 11:00:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Urban conspiracy myth (none / 0)

You just parroted three well discredited conspiracy falsehoods. No matter how many times they are disproved, conspiracy theorists continue to repeat them. Feel free to show me otherwise. For example:

1) "Fell down without being struck" If I showed you evidence Building 7 was struck as well as set on fire by WTC debris, would it change your mind?

2)  "Freefall speed" How fast is that, how fast did the WTC fall, how fast do you think a collapsing building would fall and assuming there is some dichotomy - can you explain what you infer from it?

3) "A steel frame structure has never before or since collapsed due to fire" If I showed you evidence several steel frame structures have indeed "collapsed due to fire" would it change your mind?

You keep calling for people to look at the facts. If your facts are shown to be incorrect will you change your mind or will you find new and improved facts?

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/19/2009 02:18:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bam! (none / 0)

"You keep calling for people to look at the facts. If your facts are shown to be incorrect will you change your mind or will you find new and improved facts?"

I think you have gotten to the very nub of the issue there Rob.

by bfaul on 04/19/2009 03:56:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now we're getting somewhere! (none / 0)
Robrob, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to use reason here. Please share links to any of the assertions you make in your post. It truly WOULD make a difference to me!


1) "Fell down without being struck" If I showed you evidence Building 7 was struck as well as set on fire by WTC debris, would it change your mind?

NIST *itself* blames the collapse on fire:

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

"...Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7....”

http://www.nist.gov/public_ affairs/releases/wtc082108. html

2)  "Freefall speed" How fast is that, how fast did the WTC fall, how fast do you think a collapsing building would fall and assuming there is some dichotomy - can you explain what you infer from it?

Here's a video series from Architects for 911 Truth: "NIST Finally Admits Freefall"
http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=V0GHVEKrhng


3) "A steel frame structure has never before or since collapsed due to fire" If I showed you evidence several steel frame structures have indeed "collapsed due to fire" would it change your mind?

Please do show such evidence. I'd be eager to see it. I've been unable to unearth a single example other than WTC 7. NIST itself describes the WTC 7 collapse as an "extraordinary event." Here is some more info. from WTC7.net:

Fires have never been blamed for the collapse of a steel frame high rise before, and there are examples of skyscrapers being ravaged by severe fires. Recent examples of highrise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building; and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3 1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members".


http://911research.wtc7.net /materials/wtc/b7.html

I appreciate the opportunity to engage in rational discussion here.  I'm not kidding. I don't relish the idea that there was some nefarious inside plot to do this. It's a sad thing to contemplate.

by truthisall on 04/19/2009 04:29:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Please refer to the bottom post (none / 0)
I don't like how replies get more and more "squeezed" in.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/19/2009 10:35:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok if you must (none / 0)

 All the links open new windows. (Or at least should)

http://chronicle.com/free/v 52/i42/42a01001.htm

http://newsnet.byu.edu/stor y.cfm/57724

http://www.deseretnews.com/ article/1,5143,645199800,00 .html

http://www.deseretnews.com/ article/1,5143,645201360,00 .html

http://www.deseretnews.com/ article/1,5143,650200587,00 .html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article-403757/Fury-ac ademics-claim-9-11-inside-j ob.html

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148 &sid=476951

A correction of sorts; NIST investigators never tested for the kinds of explosives used since there was no evidence of explosives being used at all. Typically, explosive use is obvious upon visual inspection and the tests are to figure out exactly what kind had been used.

Now onto a short review of the new paper put forward. I will type things as i read them.

The dust samples seem to be taken from citizens living in the area, and then given to this group six years later. The dust is magnetic in nature. The dust is very small, chip shaped, between .2 and 3 mm in width and 10 to 100 micros thick. Scanned by an electron microscope. Scanned by a calorimeter to test for heat flow. Two layers to the chips, one red, one grey. Grey layer is of high iron and oxygen (rust) content and a little carbon. Red layers are the same with the addition of aluminum and silicon and higher amount of carbon.

Chips all ignited in the range of 779F - 815F. Of the four samples analyzed, yields are estimated at 1.5, 3, 6, 7.5 kJ/g. Afterwords microspheres of iron and silcon were observed. The paper continues to test these chips against paint chips for reasons i can not determine. The paper mentions a video clip of the test of ignition but the link appears to be broken. 

The paper begins to go into speculation about how such a product could have been applied to a structure. 

I have a few issues with the paper. Firstly, the samples were taken from citizens of New York six years after the fact. To say that the validity of the samples is questionable is an understatement. Secondly, they test the "9/11 chips" against paint chips. I would be testing them against things I think they may actually be. Thirdly, they claim such a product could be spread safely onto a surface with the application of a gel. Whether or not this gel has to be spread onto the actual beams of a building or if the drywall or cement will do is not mentioned. This is one of the sources stated in the paper.

http://awards.lanl.gov/PDFf iles/Super-Thermite_Electri c_Matches_2003.pdf

To me that is a joke. Its more of an ad then an actual source. In fact a lot of the sources for the paper come from the people involved with this paper. Sometimes even worse, just linking to 9/11 conspiracy sites that have little or no scientific merit. In one of the video sources, Jones mentions that he can make a thermate that matches what they found in the chips very easily.

http://video.google.com/vid eoplay?docid=19574908670303 16250

Timestamp 40:24

I think this is enough for now.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/18/2009 06:08:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your links PREDATE THE PEER-REVIEWED PAPER! (none / 0)
We're talking about the scientific integrity of the peer-reviewed paper, correct??? The one that was just published???

Then WHY on God's green earth are your links from 2006 and 2007?

Let's talk about the research at hand, shall we? Send me a SINGLE link to someone questioning the integrity of this study and then we can have a conversation.

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 09:47:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Its called building a case... (none / 0)

And I thought that part was obvious. He is well known for jumping to conclusions, so parden me if I think the source of his "WTC chips" is questionable.

From the comments made here, and also the ones to Robrob, I think I am done here until you have something real to add. My guess, and its just a guess, is that you probably don't know a whole lot about what happened and are following the conspiracy theories out of ignorance (meaning lack of knowledge). ...and please stop refering to the accepted sequence of events as the Official Conspiracy Theory or the Bush-Cheney Conspiracy, it really doesn't help your side.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/19/2009 12:46:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The scientific integrity still not challenged (none / 0)
Bountiful personal attacks, no substance, imprecise or outright incorrect definitions of terms.  And not a single link critical of the peer-reviewed research we're talking about.

Intelligent, reasonable people aren't generally convinced by this sort of desperate debating tactic, regardless of where they stand on an issue.

Still waiting for a link to a legitimate scientist criticizing the integrity of this peer-reviewed research:

http://rawstory.com/news/20 08/Scientists_find_active_s uperthermite_in_WTC_0404.ht ml



by truthisall on 04/19/2009 10:57:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
say WHAT? (none / 0)
You wrote that "BYU began to distance themselves from his work noting that they questioned his interpretation of evidence and expressed doubts over whether or not the work had been submitted to relevant scientific venues to ensure rigorous technical peer review."

THIS PAPER WAS SUBMITTED AND ACCEPTED BY A RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC VENUE (The Open Chemical Physics Journal) TO ENSURE RIGOROUS TECHNICAL PEER REVIEW! That's what we're talking about here, friend!

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 04:51:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A quick point (none / 0)
You are confusing the way events occurred in time. Jones started doing this stuff a few years back. His methods were questionable then. The university then started to back away from him and even put him on paid leave at a point. He acknowledge the suspension as valid and made a claim that he would restructure his methods. Since then he has at least tried to go in a more scientific direction.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/18/2009 06:13:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's. The. Point. (none / 0)
He has not only "tried to go in a more scientific direction." He has *succeeded* in going in a more scientific direction. The scientific integrity of his peer-reviewed paper finding thermitic material in dust samples taken near the World Trade Center remains unchallenged. That is. The. Point. Of. What. I've. Been Saying. All. Along.

by truthisall on 04/19/2009 11:09:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hardly any science (none / 0)

Chips were examined, found to be energetic, that's it. Where they were found is hearsay. How they were used is hearsay. Crunching numbers as to how much of this stuff is needed to get the job done, quickly dumps it into crazy bin.

But I have a question for you. Lets assume this was staged and it happened as you think it did. What was the overall goal? Crimes always have some kind of motive. I am interested in what you think. 

by Hilikus9191 on 04/19/2009 03:15:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"nano thermite" (none / 0)

Is the conspiracy theorists' MacGuffin. Just like when in Star Trek they "invert the power couplers", it's the "magic" tech that let's them explain their way out of any improbable event.

"anywhere from 10-100 tons of this in the WTC"

Reality check: what sane person thinks you could sneak 10-100 TONS of explosives (plus wiring, detonators, fuze and electronics) into the WTC without witnesses?

http://www.debunking911.com /thermite.htm

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/18/2009 03:40:44 PM EST

Why Debunkers Are Loosing Ground (none / 0)
Debunkers are loosing ground for several reasons:

(1) Debunkers support a conspiracy theory (the official theory) which has yet to be proven.

(2) Debunkers are not providing solid evidence in support of their conspiracy theory. Therefore, they are slowly loosing support as evidence continues to come out contradicting the official conspiracy theory.

(3) Debunkers too often employ bully tactics rather than reason and evidence to advance their cause. This further erodes their support.

(4) Debunkers are not committed to the pursuit of truth and therefore will not have the inherent conviction and perseverance to maintain their fight. At some point, they will just give up. But the 911 Truth Movement will never give up until the full truth is revealed.

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." --Albert Einstein
    
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." --Mohandas Gandhi

by Concerned Citizen on 04/19/2009 02:58:38 PM EST

Mmmmm (none / 0)
The projection is so tangible its almost juicy.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/19/2009 03:19:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They need to learn to spell "losing" (none / 0)

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." --Mohandas Gandhi

Here's another quote for you:

"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

by bfaul on 04/19/2009 03:54:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here you go, one stop shopping (none / 0)


http://www.debunking911.com /pull.htm

You might want to spend some time perusing the 'debunking911.com' site. It analyzes a number of other 9/11 "urban conspiracy myths" and will save us having to cover the same ground here.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/19/2009 10:40:35 PM EST

9 scientists find Nano-Thermite Explosive in 9/11 samples | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: