9/11

[-SpectraL]

Originally Posted by Rust

...The same article that suffers from the fundamental flaws crazyass and I already pointed out...

It suffers from nothing except maybe the stupidity of people like you with their heads stuck in the sand. This investigation, and others, prove beyond doubt (to any sensible person who isn't a delusional patriotic nutjob, that is) that military-grade nano-thermate was present all over the site of the self-inflicted attack. Anything else is just you and your fairy tales.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

It suffers from nothing except maybe the stupidity of people like you with their heads stuck in the sand. This investigation, and others, prove beyond doubt (to any sensible person who isn't a delusional patriotic nutjob, that is) that military-grade nano-thermate was present all over the site of the self-inflicted attack. Anything else is just you and your fairy tales.

Wrong.

1. It suffers from many flaws, which you still haven't refuted. For instance, the samples were obtained by laymen that followed none of the appropriate protocols for obtaining samples to be used in a scientific study. As a result, not only can they not corroborate what the sample is from, but they cannot even preclude contamination. Furthermore, the samples were studied 6 years after they were collected. It also doesn't even attempt to quantify the byproducts that would be necessary if a thermate reaction had been observed, like barrium.

http://www.911myths.com/html/where_s_the_barium_.html

2. The numerous flaws of the article aside, your claims of it are utter fabrications as well. At no point does the article every say that military-grade thermate was found.

[benny vader]

Originally Posted by Psych

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_...ther_fires.htm

You do realize that the world trade centre tower had been on fire before, for a much longer duration that spread over several floors. Guess what? I didn't collapse. Je...

but it didnt have the added weigh of one complete fucking 747 and hundreds of passengers added to one of its floor during the fire .... did it ?????

didd fucking itt ???????

[patrickyugo]

Idk but here is my opinion.

In 1993, al qaeda started planning the attack on 9/11, by them "unsuccessfully bombing" the WTC. What they were really doing was distracting people by getting them to get out of the building so that they could plant explosives. This explains the collapse and why the government was lying because most of the public would be outraged that they did not find explosives planted 8 years ago or that the government did not even check for secondary explosives, which would cause the public to lose all faith in the government.

[-SpectraL]

Originally Posted by Rust

Wrong.

1. It suffers from many flaws, which you still haven't refuted. For instance, the samples were obtained by laymen that followed none of the appropriate protocols for obtaining samples to be used in a scientific study.

So YOU say. Fortunately what you say doesn't mean shit squat and the evidence stands on its own as is, valid regardless of your meaningless and basically stupid skepticism.

Originally Posted by Rust

As a result, not only can they not corroborate what the sample is from, but they cannot even preclude contamination.

By the same logic we can't include your fairy tales about contamination being present either.

Originally Posted by Rust

Furthermore, the samples were studied 6 years after they were collected. It also doesn't even attempt to quantify the byproducts that would be necessary if a thermate reaction had been observed, like barrium.

Six years or a hundred years, unexpended military-grade thermate was found at the scene of the World Trade Center, although it shouldn't have been found there at all. Throw in all the snipe hunts you want to support your baseless arguments, it changes absolutely nothing as far as the facts are concerned.

[delysid]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Couldn't find any pictures, but I wouldn't doubt the firefighter. If there was a conspiracy, the everyday responders had no knowledge of it and no reason to lie.

I've just found an interview where one of the firefighters is explaining how they used a 'transit' to measure how much building 7 moved. Apparently it only moved by a few inches, but this was (obviously) evidence of it's impending collapse. Which would explain how the guy in the video knows it's leaning, and also why I can't find any pictures/videos.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

So YOU say. Fortunately what you say doesn't mean shit squat and the evidence stands on its own as is, valid regardless of your meaningless and basically stupid skepticism.

So says the article which you clearly haven't read.

- It's a fact that the samples were obtained by laymen:

"All four samples were originally collected by private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust."

-It's a fact that the samples were studied ~6 years after they were taken: The study occured in 2007 onward, where as these samples were obtained the date of the tragedy:

"The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower"

-It's a fact that they could not prevent or rule out contamination:

"He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower"

"The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sul-fur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wall-board material in the buildings."

By the same logic we can't include your fairy tales about contamination being present either.

Except I haven't claimed to know that the samples were contaminated, I claimed that they could not rule out contamination. That's a fact. A fact that not only does the article concede, it uses to explain peaks in the spectra of the samples.

Six years or a hundred years, unexpended military-grade thermate was found at the scene of the World Trade Center, although it shouldn't have been found there at all. Throw in all the snipe hunts you want to support your baseless arguments, it changes absolutely nothing as far as the facts are concerned.

Again, at no point in time did they claim it's military grade thermate. Thats a bold-face lie you keep repeating. I challenge you to quote the article where it says such. You can't. You're a liar. You're making shit up.

Moreover, even if the article had made that claim, which they didn't, we would have no reason to believe it. The study has several fundamental flaws (as shown above), does not show the byproducts that need to be present when a thermate reaction occurs, and its only evidence is the presence of materials that may be used in thermite (e.g. aluminium, rust), which would be plentiful after the collapse of a building.

[delysid]

Originally Posted by Psych

Physicked, bitch.

Basically what Rust said,
if it were as simple as you say, then NIST wouldn't be using expensive, extremely complex computer simulations to test their theories would they?

[tomjonesa22]

General aladeen has the Porsche 911 the 2012 model

[-SpectraL]

Originally Posted by Rust

[b]Hi. I'm an Internet Disinformant [ID]

I really gotta give it to you, Rust. You can take something that sounds plausible and turn it into a golden goose and run with it. Too bad the facts of this case completely disagree with your brilliant theatrics and ignorance-inducing bedtime stories. I could go into a post book-length-long on the various lies you have posted in this thread, but I have found a single page and just a few paragraphs from a guy who has already summed up the facts better than I could do here, and in it every single one of your ridiculous assertions are addressed beyond doubt. Read it. Everything he says I totally agree with, and that's because it's fact, not like your fiction.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.ca/2009...-chemical.html

[-SpectraL]

Oh, and...

When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for "conventional thermite". Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Just in case you missed that part of the scientific study of the dust done by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen.

You know... the FACTS.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

I really gotta give it to you, Rust. You can take something that sounds plausible and turn it into a golden goose and run with it. Too bad the facts of this case completely disagree with your brilliant theatrics and ignorance-inducing bedtime stories.
...
[insert other evasions]

So you are you saying you can't respond to the facts and are conceding those points or not? I'm not falling for your desperate attempt to change the topic now that it's clear you have no fucking clue what you're talking about and/or are trolling. Here are the points again:

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

So YOU say. Fortunately what you say doesn't mean shit squat and the evidence stands on its own as is, valid regardless of your meaningless and basically stupid skepticism.

So says the article which you clearly haven't read.

- It's a fact that the samples were obtained by laymen:

"All four samples were originally collected by private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust."

-It's a fact that the samples were studied ~6 years after they were taken: The study occured in 2007 onward, where as these samples were obtained the date of the tragedy:

"The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower"

-It's a fact that they could not prevent or rule out contamination:

"He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower"

"The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sul-fur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wall-board material in the buildings."

By the same logic we can't include your fairy tales about contamination being present either.

Except I haven't claimed to know that the samples were contaminated, I claimed that they could not rule out contamination. That's a fact. A fact that not only does the article concede, it uses to explain peaks in the spectra of the samples.

Six years or a hundred years, unexpended military-grade thermate was found at the scene of the World Trade Center, although it shouldn't have been found there at all. Throw in all the snipe hunts you want to support your baseless arguments, it changes absolutely nothing as far as the facts are concerned.

Again, at no point in time did they claim it's military grade thermate. Thats a bold-face lie you keep repeating. I challenge you to quote the article where it says such. You can't. You're a liar. You're making shit up.

Moreover, even if the article had made that claim, which they didn't, we would have no reason to believe it. The study has several fundamental flaws (as shown above), does not show the byproducts that need to be present when a thermate reaction occurs, and its only evidence is the presence of materials that may be used in thermite (e.g. aluminium, rust), which would be plentiful after the collapse of a building.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

Just in case you missed that part of the scientific study of the dust done by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen.

You know... the FACTS.

Missed what exactly? The link to the study we already dealt with? Posting it again to make it appear as if it were another study isn't going to fool anyone.

Or do you mean the paragraph you clearly don't even understand? Having a lower temperature for ignition that thermite doesn't help you in any way.

[-SpectraL]

Scientists and physicists, engineers and doctors are private citizens as well, you fucking dope. Do you actually have a point of merit to make, or are you just going to sit there blowing smoke out of your ass?

It ignites at a lower temperature than normal because that's the way the military works.. it's all about efficiency.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

Scientists and physicists, engineers and doctors are private citizens as well, you fucking dope. Do you actually have a point of merit to make, or are you just going to sit there blowing smoke out of your ass?

Yeah, I have lots of points to make, which you keep ignoring. Do you need me to respost them yet again?

Yes, Scientists and physicists, engineers and doctors are private citizens as well... and so are janitors, clerks, police, and old drummers with no knowledge of physics... Unless you have any shred of evidence suggesting that the private citizens that took the relevant samples were "scientists following appropriate protocols", then you have no point.

It ignites at a lower temperature than normal because that's the way the military works.. it's all about efficiency.

Read the paragraph again. It says it has a lower ignition point than thermite. Run of the mill thermate (i.e. not-military-grade) would have a lower ignition point than thermite.

You claimed it was military-grade thermate. Showing that according to Jones flawed study, the samples had lower ignition temp. than thermite doesn't even show that it was indeed thermate, let alone that it was military grade thermate as you claimed.