Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc-
from page 48 of the nist report:

2) "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories ...."

it wasnt just some part like u are trying to make it sound like. it was the whole damn building not meeting any RESISTANCE. just imagine how much steel and concrete along with all the connection/welding points there are in 8 stories of the wtc 7. free fall means that it did not meet any resistance!!!! all it meet was air resistance. that is what free fall means. 8 stories is almost 20% of the wtc 7 building FYI. it wast just some small part.

and nist admitted it....

It is exactly as I'm making it sound. The report spells it out and you are trying to distort what that report says. Anyone in here can read the report and discover you are fos, and some already have.

here is a simple question for ya. is nist correct when they state that there was freefall speed for 8 stories?
they just measured from the north face. they are not saying that just the north face fell at free fall speed.

I already showed you precisely where they said it was the north face that fell, momentarily, at free-fall speed. It's in their report and the FAQ. Nothing in the report claims the entire building fell at free-fall speed.

Is NIST correct about the north face? Maybe not. There's always that possibility. It's not up to me to prove them right though. It's up to you to prove them wrong. You haven't come close to doing that.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
so what could knock out all those connection points??? maybe this:

Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately
100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
are intimately mixed in the red material. 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.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Prove any of those samples came from WTC7; or WTC1 or 2 for that matter. You can't. Neither can Jones.

so would the usgs gov report on wtc dust be null and void then. how about the rj lee report concerning the wtc dust? would u like to see a more through investigation into this considering u are basically saying jones put thermite into the samples. that sounds like a felony count with yrs and yrs in jail if u can prove that!!

It just dawned on me that you are not expressing the ability of typing whole words. It is relatively pointless for anybody to try to argue against you if you are unable to even muster that little degree of mental acumen.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Babbles
The samples have no meaningful integrity. Without a chain of custody the nature of those samples is inconclusive; the data is worthless. I'm having trouble downloading the article, but I suppose it doesn't really matter in that I don't care too much. I was going to mention that in the abstract the DSC data seems irrelevant.

When using a DSC you essentially put in some material and heat the sucker up then determine if there was any phase change. The fact that it has an exotherm at 430º is somewhat meaningless. That could be any sort of material; there would be such a mix of material in any alleged sample the temperature on the exotherm would not convey any sort of significant data. Typically the DSC is applied when you have a known reference material and want to compare an unknown or manufactured material to determine purity. Based on the abstract, to draw any sort of definitive conclusion on this material being some sort of special thermite is intellectually dishonest.

As a way of background I have ten years of experience in the analytical chemistry world. A few years doing project management stuff where in many instances I evaluated DSC exotherms - to be fair I am not a DSC 'operator' or analyst, but I am somewhat familiar with the instrumentation and data. Furthermore I have had countless firsthand experiences dealing with chain of custody issues. My knee-jerk opinion is that any conclusion in this article is bogus and not based on any reasonable interpretations.

so would u like to see a more through investigation concerning these samples. the USGS found iron spheres in their samples. the rj lee group also found these same iron spheres and said that very high temps were attributed to their creation. so i guess what u are saying is that someone must of planted this nanothermite in the wtc dust samples?
hahaha!!

No, I'm saying that the data does not likely support the hypothesis that there is any thermite in the material sample.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

you have got to be kidding. do u see just the north face dropping. no, the whole damn building is falling. if it were just the north face, we would see the east, west, and south face still standing. do u see that. talk about being owned!!! thats about the dumbest thing i think i have read lately.

notice what u have typed:
(2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stores at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.24 s.....

so are eight stories now just eight floors of the north face?? did u see that happen?
hell no. it was the whole building for 8 stories according to the nist who also said there was "FREEFALL DESCENT" for eight stories.....not just 8 stories of the north face.

are you at all aware that the phrase following the (2) in the nist paragraph cannot be read alone?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc-
from page 48 of the nist report:

2) "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories ...."

it wasnt just some part like u are trying to make it sound like. it was the whole damn building not meeting any RESISTANCE. just imagine how much steel and concrete along with all the connection/welding points there are in 8 stories of the wtc 7. free fall means that it did not meet any resistance!!!! all it meet was air resistance. that is what free fall means. 8 stories is almost 20% of the wtc 7 building FYI. it wast just some small part.

and nist admitted it....

It is exactly as I'm making it sound. The report spells it out and you are trying to distort what that report says. Anyone in here can read the report and discover you are fos, and some already have.

here is a simple question for ya. is nist correct when they state that there was freefall speed for 8 stories?
they just measured from the north face. they are not saying that just the north face fell at free fall speed.

I already showed you precisely where they said it was the north face that fell, momentarily, at free-fall speed. It's in their report and the FAQ. Nothing in the report claims the entire building fell at free-fall speed.

Is NIST correct about the north face? Maybe not. There's always that possibility. It's not up to me to prove them right though. It's up to you to prove them wrong. You haven't come close to doing that.

myabe u need to watch these vids again.

nist admits freefall 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng

nist admits freefall 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Uiww80&feature=related

nist admits freeall 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cKYBm4&feature=related

the northface did fall along with the rest of the building for 8 floors at freefall. and one can read it as a seperate sentence and not togther like someone said. do u see the south, east, and west face standing and the northface falling. that would be a no. the guy that did these vids used a datapoint in the northwest corner. nist used points in the middle. so yes, they are correct when nist states that freefall happened. that means the building met NO resistance while it was falling. just air resistance.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Babbles
The samples have no meaningful integrity. Without a chain of custody the nature of those samples is inconclusive; the data is worthless. I'm having trouble downloading the article, but I suppose it doesn't really matter in that I don't care too much. I was going to mention that in the abstract the DSC data seems irrelevant.

When using a DSC you essentially put in some material and heat the sucker up then determine if there was any phase change. The fact that it has an exotherm at 430º is somewhat meaningless. That could be any sort of material; there would be such a mix of material in any alleged sample the temperature on the exotherm would not convey any sort of significant data. Typically the DSC is applied when you have a known reference material and want to compare an unknown or manufactured material to determine purity. Based on the abstract, to draw any sort of definitive conclusion on this material being some sort of special thermite is intellectually dishonest.

As a way of background I have ten years of experience in the analytical chemistry world. A few years doing project management stuff where in many instances I evaluated DSC exotherms - to be fair I am not a DSC 'operator' or analyst, but I am somewhat familiar with the instrumentation and data. Furthermore I have had countless firsthand experiences dealing with chain of custody issues. My knee-jerk opinion is that any conclusion in this article is bogus and not based on any reasonable interpretations.

so would u like to see a more through investigation concerning these samples. the USGS found iron spheres in their samples. the rj lee group also found these same iron spheres and said that very high temps were attributed to their creation. so i guess what u are saying is that someone must of planted this nanothermite in the wtc dust samples?
hahaha!!

No, I'm saying that the data does not likely support the hypothesis that there is any thermite in the material sample.

would u like to see an investigation into this considering the material reacts at 430C and reacts hot enough to melt the iron content in the samples and turn it into iron microspheres. this material placed in a building would violate city codes. if one thinks its only paint, then one would also have to assume that this stuff could also be on other building as well. code violation!!

a vid about the red chip thermite-
http://video.google.com/videop...d=-4186920967571123147

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
3. I don't think any government is above killing its own people in order to reach political or economic gains. The U.S. is no exception...on the contrary. A quick example comes to mind, since it was used as a comparison event: Pearl Harbor. Only in recent years did it come to light that Washington knew the attack will take place, but chose to keep quiet and use it as a reason to enter WWII.

For starters you did are grossly mistating from an ignotant point of view what happenned at pearl harbour.
In fact you have discredited yourself by even going there.
It just proves you are a nutcase who is a conspiracy theorist through and through. By bringing what you do not know about Pearl Harbour into the mix you have proven that nothing matter more to you than to be a nutjob!

As Zenmervolt stated so accurately and intelligently -- You're deliberately mis-stating the Pearl Harbor incident.

Did we have early intelligence suggesting that a Japanese attack somewhere between Japan and the west coast (including Alaska and Hawai'i) was possible soon? Yes. Did we "know" that an attack specifically on Pearl Harbor was imminent? No. The Pacific Ocean is a very big place, after all. In fact, the prevailing military view at the time was that a Japanese attack on Philippines, Thailand, the Malaysian Peninsula or Borneo was most likely.

But, but, but, the carriers were ordered out on maneuvers! We must have known!

Sorry, but the value of the aircraft carrier was not proven until the Battle of Midway some six months after Pearl Harbor. At the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, the US Navy's position was that aircraft carriers were useful as reconnaissance tools, but not as a chief offensive weapon. Prior to the Battle of Midway, the destroyer was considered to be the most important weapon in the Navy's arsenal. Not even an incompetent military planner would have allowed the destroyers to be used as sacrificial bait. Had we known of the attack, it would have been the destroyers out on maneuvers and not the carriers.

You're attempting to use a debunked conspiracy theory to legitimize another conspiracy theory. Logic doesn't work that way.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc-
from page 48 of the nist report:

2) "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories ...."

it wasnt just some part like u are trying to make it sound like. it was the whole damn building not meeting any RESISTANCE. just imagine how much steel and concrete along with all the connection/welding points there are in 8 stories of the wtc 7. free fall means that it did not meet any resistance!!!! all it meet was air resistance. that is what free fall means. 8 stories is almost 20% of the wtc 7 building FYI. it wast just some small part.

and nist admitted it....

It is exactly as I'm making it sound. The report spells it out and you are trying to distort what that report says. Anyone in here can read the report and discover you are fos, and some already have.

here is a simple question for ya. is nist correct when they state that there was freefall speed for 8 stories?
they just measured from the north face. they are not saying that just the north face fell at free fall speed.

I already showed you precisely where they said it was the north face that fell, momentarily, at free-fall speed. It's in their report and the FAQ. Nothing in the report claims the entire building fell at free-fall speed.

Is NIST correct about the north face? Maybe not. There's always that possibility. It's not up to me to prove them right though. It's up to you to prove them wrong. You haven't come close to doing that.

myabe u need to watch these vids again.

nist admits freefall 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng

nist admits freefall 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Uiww80&feature=related

nist admits freeall 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cKYBm4&feature=related

the northface did fall along with the rest of the building for 8 floors at freefall. and one can read it as a seperate sentence and not togther like someone said. do u see the south, east, and west face standing and the northface falling. that would be a no. the guy that did these vids used a datapoint in the northwest corner. nist used points in the middle. so yes, they are correct when nist states that freefall happened. that means the building met NO resistance while it was falling. just air resistance.

If I need to know what's in the NIST document I'll actually read the document, not rely on a truther youtube video. Youtube may be your official source of information about 9/11. For me it is not.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Babbles
The samples have no meaningful integrity. Without a chain of custody the nature of those samples is inconclusive; the data is worthless. I'm having trouble downloading the article, but I suppose it doesn't really matter in that I don't care too much. I was going to mention that in the abstract the DSC data seems irrelevant.

When using a DSC you essentially put in some material and heat the sucker up then determine if there was any phase change. The fact that it has an exotherm at 430º is somewhat meaningless. That could be any sort of material; there would be such a mix of material in any alleged sample the temperature on the exotherm would not convey any sort of significant data. Typically the DSC is applied when you have a known reference material and want to compare an unknown or manufactured material to determine purity. Based on the abstract, to draw any sort of definitive conclusion on this material being some sort of special thermite is intellectually dishonest.

As a way of background I have ten years of experience in the analytical chemistry world. A few years doing project management stuff where in many instances I evaluated DSC exotherms - to be fair I am not a DSC 'operator' or analyst, but I am somewhat familiar with the instrumentation and data. Furthermore I have had countless firsthand experiences dealing with chain of custody issues. My knee-jerk opinion is that any conclusion in this article is bogus and not based on any reasonable interpretations.

so would u like to see a more through investigation concerning these samples. the USGS found iron spheres in their samples. the rj lee group also found these same iron spheres and said that very high temps were attributed to their creation. so i guess what u are saying is that someone must of planted this nanothermite in the wtc dust samples?
hahaha!!

No, I'm saying that the data does not likely support the hypothesis that there is any thermite in the material sample.

would u like to see an investigation into this considering the material reacts at 430C and reacts hot enough to melt the iron content in the samples and turn it into iron microspheres. this material placed in a building would violate city codes. if one thinks its only paint, then one would also have to assume that this stuff could also be on other building as well. code violation!!

a vid about the red chip thermite-
http://video.google.com/videop...d=-4186920967571123147

The fact that it 'reacts' - it changes phase - at 430 ºC can be considered largely irrelevant in considering if this material is thermite. This sort of test is something that can be considering more of a characterization rather than unknown identification.

How in the hell would know that this violates city codes? Do you have that information? How in the hell would that code read? Are you saying that buildings can not contain material that would change phase at 430 ºC? That would be just about every god-damned thing in the world short of perhaps ceramics. They couldn't put carpet in the building because, as in your nutjob opinion, it would violate code. You just can't make shit up.

I seriously can not comprehend how mentally deficient you are. The World Trade Center buildings were a mixture of many different materials and under high stress and temperatures you should expect all sort of bizarre composition of resultant materials.

Let me put my position this way: I am a professional scientist, I manage analytical chemistry projects - including the use of DSC. I have filed multiple 10,000+ page data packages for regulatory agency overview. Reviewing data and writing reports is what I do for a living. I know what is needed for data to meet compliance.My personal and professional opinion is that the conclusions in this "journal" article are not reliable and the data, at best, has questionable integrity. If I generated this data, there is no way my Quality Control and Quality Assurance groups would allow this to be released - hell I would not want to release it. Really it all starts with the integrity with the chain of custody record - or lack thereof. Then they do something akin to what we call "testing into compliance" meaning they basically know what results they want and they test the materials and draw conclusions that support their pre-defined conclusion.

What, pray-tell, is exactly your background that you think makes you qualified to review this information?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
and one can read it as a seperate sentence and not togther like someone said.

uh, no, you can't. even basic junior high english teaches you that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
and one can read it as a seperate sentence and not togther like someone said.

uh, no, you can't. even basic junior high english teaches you that.

Well, considering the grammar skills he displays in this forum you might want to give him the benefit of the doubt on that point.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Babbles
The samples have no meaningful integrity. Without a chain of custody the nature of those samples is inconclusive; the data is worthless. I'm having trouble downloading the article, but I suppose it doesn't really matter in that I don't care too much. I was going to mention that in the abstract the DSC data seems irrelevant.

When using a DSC you essentially put in some material and heat the sucker up then determine if there was any phase change. The fact that it has an exotherm at 430º is somewhat meaningless. That could be any sort of material; there would be such a mix of material in any alleged sample the temperature on the exotherm would not convey any sort of significant data. Typically the DSC is applied when you have a known reference material and want to compare an unknown or manufactured material to determine purity. Based on the abstract, to draw any sort of definitive conclusion on this material being some sort of special thermite is intellectually dishonest.

As a way of background I have ten years of experience in the analytical chemistry world. A few years doing project management stuff where in many instances I evaluated DSC exotherms - to be fair I am not a DSC 'operator' or analyst, but I am somewhat familiar with the instrumentation and data. Furthermore I have had countless firsthand experiences dealing with chain of custody issues. My knee-jerk opinion is that any conclusion in this article is bogus and not based on any reasonable interpretations.

so would u like to see a more through investigation concerning these samples. the USGS found iron spheres in their samples. the rj lee group also found these same iron spheres and said that very high temps were attributed to their creation. so i guess what u are saying is that someone must of planted this nanothermite in the wtc dust samples?
hahaha!!

No, I'm saying that the data does not likely support the hypothesis that there is any thermite in the material sample.

would u like to see an investigation into this considering the material reacts at 430C and reacts hot enough to melt the iron content in the samples and turn it into iron microspheres. this material placed in a building would violate city codes. if one thinks its only paint, then one would also have to assume that this stuff could also be on other building as well. code violation!!

a vid about the red chip thermite-
http://video.google.com/videop...d=-4186920967571123147

The fact that it 'reacts' - it changes phase - at 430 ºC can be considered largely irrelevant in considering if this material is thermite. This sort of test is something that can be considering more of a characterization rather than unknown identification.

How in the hell would know that this violates city codes? Do you have that information? How in the hell would that code read? Are you saying that buildings can not contain material that would change phase at 430 ºC? That would be just about every god-damned thing in the world short of perhaps ceramics. They couldn't put carpet in the building because, as in your nutjob opinion, it would violate code. You just can't make shit up.

I seriously can not comprehend how mentally deficient you are. The World Trade Center buildings were a mixture of many different materials and under high stress and temperatures you should expect all sort of bizarre composition of resultant materials.

Let me put my position this way: I am a professional scientist, I manage analytical chemistry projects - including the use of DSC. I have filed multiple 10,000+ page data packages for regulatory agency overview. Reviewing data and writing reports is what I do for a living. I know what is needed for data to meet compliance.My personal and professional opinion is that the conclusions in this "journal" article are not reliable and the data, at best, has questionable integrity. If I generated this data, there is no way my Quality Control and Quality Assurance groups would allow this to be released - hell I would not want to release it. Really it all starts with the integrity with the chain of custody record - or lack thereof. Then they do something akin to what we call "testing into compliance" meaning they basically know what results they want and they test the materials and draw conclusions that support their pre-defined conclusion.

What, pray-tell, is exactly your background that you think makes you qualified to review this information?

do u realize what u just said. i really dont think that your a scientist at all when it comes to remarks like this.

babbles said, " The World Trade Center buildings were a mixture of many different materials and under high stress and temperatures you should expect all sort of bizarre composition of resultant materials."

that is about the biggest damn lie on this whole thread. yeah.....ok, we have aluminum and alittle rust and when the wtc towers fell, they combined with some other materials to create nanothermite!! hahaha.....That material that jones et el have studied was created by the hand of man.


FYI- even greening thinks its not paint!!
Dr. Frank Greening posted this at the the911forum.freeforums.org regarding WTC paint,

"It's quite difficult to get much information on the WTC primer paint but it is mentioned in Appendix D of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 433 - 438. Here you find a Table D-1 which gives the chemical composition of the primer. The main inorganic constituents are iron oxide, "zinc yellow", "Tnemec pigment of proprietary composition" and diatomaceous silica.

Now the Tnemec pigment caught my eye, but the fact that it's described as having a "proprietary composition" suggests that this material's chemical ingredients are "top secret". However, in the modern world of "right-to-know" legislation, you can determine the composition of just about any proprietary material by looking up its associated MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet).

I have done this for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer and this is what I have found reported as the ingredients:

Iron-oxide fume
Zinc compounds with traces of cobalt
Quartz and amorphous silica (SiO2)
Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2)
Calcium Silicates and Aluminates

Now here lies the rub: Jone's red chips do not contain zinc, although some WTC iron-rich particles do indeed contain significant amounts of zinc. Nevertheless, zinc is essentially absent from Jones' red chips, thus it looks like these mystery particles are definitely not paint chips."

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
Now here lies the rub: Jone's red chips do not contain zinc, although some WTC iron-rich particles do indeed contain significant amounts of zinc. Nevertheless, zinc is essentially absent from Jones' red chips, thus it looks like these mystery particles are definitely not paint chips."

Yeah, they also aren't from the WTC. Go figure.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
do u realize what u just said. i really dont think that your a scientist at all when it comes to remarks like this.

babbles said, " The World Trade Center buildings were a mixture of many different materials and under high stress and temperatures you should expect all sort of bizarre composition of resultant materials."

that is about the biggest damn lie on this whole thread. yeah.....ok, we have aluminum and alittle rust and when the wtc towers fell, they combined with some other materials to create nanothermite!! hahaha.....That material that jones et el have studied was created by the hand of man.

It's a lie? Really? "Aluminum and a little rust?" Do you SERIOUSLY think that's all there was in the WTC rubble? If so that remark displays a staggering level of ignorance on your part. There was copious amounts of gypsum wallboard, miles of conduit and wiring, plastics of all varieties, synthetic materials, and that's just touching the surface and doesn't even account for the materials and compounds introduced by the airplanes.

You're arguing with a guy that does that sort of thing for a living. He's told us what he does and analysing Jones's results are right up his alley. So what do you do that makes you such an expert in chemistry and DSC results analysis?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Babbles
It just dawned on me that you are not expressing the ability of typing whole words. It is relatively pointless for anybody to try to argue against you if you are unable to even muster that little degree of mental acumen.

Actually, I thought about his problem. There are plenty of examples of people who, while caught up in the middle of a Nigerian scam, are completely unwilling to listen to anyone's logic and reason. Instead, they find themselves a couple thousand dollars in the hole and hold on to any chance at all that their case is different - that they may actually be the first legitimate recipient of some deceased person's wealth from Nigeria.

In a way, I wonder if the OP is holding on to every little thread of hope that these conspiracy nuts actually have a case for something. i.e. maybe deep down he does realize that he's behaving like an idiot, but is hoping that there will be some shred of evidence that redeems himself.

And, in a way, it's unfortunate that he chose the internet to spread his message. There are plenty of goof balls out on the streets, walking around wearing billboards that advertise that the end of the world is near. People just look at them, realize "what a nutcase", and move on. If those guys decide tomorrow to put away their little sign & re-enter the world, no one would even stop and think twice "hey, isn't that the weirdo who..."

But, on the internet, rather than simply walk on by, there seems to be no shortage of people who mean well & hope to help people like the OP see their folly. I'd think that everyone "arguing" in this thread with the OP means well & is sincerely hoping that the OP will see the light of day. But, as I said, it's too late for him. He's hoping that something will redeem himself. He grasps for straw after straw. He seems to have completely abandoned the old arguments, after seeing them proven wrong time after time after time. Eventually, he apparently became aware that the "facts" he was presenting were completely wrong. But, instead of admitting that the conspiracy nutcases are just that - nutcases, and he's ashamed to admit that he was once one of those fools, he looks for new shreds of "evidence" of some grand conspiracy.

Tis sad, really. Maybe though, the adage "never argue with an idiot, the people watching might not know the difference" is true. Someone reading this thread may come to the conclusion that the rest of us are idiots - for not coming to the conclusion sooner that there's no way we will ever get the OP to realize, or at least admit, that he's wrong.

 

[Modelworks]

I'm still waiting to hear why they have not recreated the scenario ?
If this "nano-thermite" spray paint exist and burns like they say, and damages steel like they say, and produces chips after burning like they say, then why haven't they recreated the scenario in a lab ?
It must be that the super secret nano-thermite-spray-paint is kept by the evil government top secret agencies and so they can't test it.

Scientist form a hypothesis then they TEST the data to try to prove it true or false. They don't just find some chips on the ground and make claims without proof.

Until they get some steel girders, coat them with this material, set them on fire, then publish the results, their 'news' is about as meaningful as an enquirer front page.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: event8horizon
Now here lies the rub: Jone's red chips do not contain zinc, although some WTC iron-rich particles do indeed contain significant amounts of zinc. Nevertheless, zinc is essentially absent from Jones' red chips, thus it looks like these mystery particles are definitely not paint chips."

Yeah, they also aren't from the WTC. Go figure.

yeah and i guess all that dust the destruction of the wtc made also wasnt from the wtc (since the red chips were found in wtc dust).......damn good logic beaujangles has!!!

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Babbles
It just dawned on me that you are not expressing the ability of typing whole words. It is relatively pointless for anybody to try to argue against you if you are unable to even muster that little degree of mental acumen.

Actually, I thought about his problem. There are plenty of examples of people who, while caught up in the middle of a Nigerian scam, are completely unwilling to listen to anyone's logic and reason. Instead, they find themselves a couple thousand dollars in the hole and hold on to any chance at all that their case is different - that they may actually be the first legitimate recipient of some deceased person's wealth from Nigeria.

In a way, I wonder if the OP is holding on to every little thread of hope that these conspiracy nuts actually have a case for something. i.e. maybe deep down he does realize that he's behaving like an idiot, but is hoping that there will be some shred of evidence that redeems himself.

And, in a way, it's unfortunate that he chose the internet to spread his message. There are plenty of goof balls out on the streets, walking around wearing billboards that advertise that the end of the world is near. People just look at them, realize "what a nutcase", and move on. If those guys decide tomorrow to put away their little sign & re-enter the world, no one would even stop and think twice "hey, isn't that the weirdo who..."

But, on the internet, rather than simply walk on by, there seems to be no shortage of people who mean well & hope to help people like the OP see their folly. I'd think that everyone "arguing" in this thread with the OP means well & is sincerely hoping that the OP will see the light of day. But, as I said, it's too late for him. He's hoping that something will redeem himself. He grasps for straw after straw. He seems to have completely abandoned the old arguments, after seeing them proven wrong time after time after time. Eventually, he apparently became aware that the "facts" he was presenting were completely wrong. But, instead of admitting that the conspiracy nutcases are just that - nutcases, and he's ashamed to admit that he was once one of those fools, he looks for new shreds of "evidence" of some grand conspiracy.

Tis sad, really. Maybe though, the adage "never argue with an idiot, the people watching might not know the difference" is true. Someone reading this thread may come to the conclusion that the rest of us are idiots - for not coming to the conclusion sooner that there's no way we will ever get the OP to realize, or at least admit, that he's wrong.

I totally agree with you.

The real idiots in this thread are the rest of us - everybody but event8horizon. Really it us that are so impassioned with our rightness that we feel compelled to continue our participation in this relatively ridiculous discussion. What is truly amazing, in my opinion, is how much power we gave the OP, event8horizon. Really he is controlling us - we gave ourselves over to hem and he is a puppeteer using us as mere marionettes as we keep dancing our song of how right we are and how wrong he is.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
do u realize what u just said. i really dont think that your a scientist at all when it comes to remarks like this.

babbles said, " The World Trade Center buildings were a mixture of many different materials and under high stress and temperatures you should expect all sort of bizarre composition of resultant materials."

that is about the biggest damn lie on this whole thread. yeah.....ok, we have aluminum and alittle rust and when the wtc towers fell, they combined with some other materials to create nanothermite!! hahaha.....That material that jones et el have studied was created by the hand of man.

It's a lie? Really? "Aluminum and a little rust?" Do you SERIOUSLY think that's all there was in the WTC rubble? If so that remark displays a staggering level of ignorance on your part. There was copious amounts of gypsum wallboard, miles of conduit and wiring, plastics of all varieties, synthetic materials, and that's just touching the surface and doesn't even account for the materials and compounds introduced by the airplanes.

You're arguing with a guy that does that sort of thing for a living. He's told us what he does and analysing Jones's results are right up his alley. So what do you do that makes you such an expert in chemistry and DSC results analysis?

maybe u missed the point. this stuff was not created when the wtc fell. the high level of ignorance goes to babbles. no real scientist would ever say that. we had wallboard, glass, iron microspheres, altittle bit of this, alittle bit of that and this stuff: "The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." read the damn journal article and u will see this is not just something that can come together in the destruction of the wtc. it is bilayered.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Babbles
It just dawned on me that you are not expressing the ability of typing whole words. It is relatively pointless for anybody to try to argue against you if you are unable to even muster that little degree of mental acumen.

Actually, I thought about his problem. There are plenty of examples of people who, while caught up in the middle of a Nigerian scam, are completely unwilling to listen to anyone's logic and reason. Instead, they find themselves a couple thousand dollars in the hole and hold on to any chance at all that their case is different - that they may actually be the first legitimate recipient of some deceased person's wealth from Nigeria.

In a way, I wonder if the OP is holding on to every little thread of hope that these conspiracy nuts actually have a case for something. i.e. maybe deep down he does realize that he's behaving like an idiot, but is hoping that there will be some shred of evidence that redeems himself.

And, in a way, it's unfortunate that he chose the internet to spread his message. There are plenty of goof balls out on the streets, walking around wearing billboards that advertise that the end of the world is near. People just look at them, realize "what a nutcase", and move on. If those guys decide tomorrow to put away their little sign & re-enter the world, no one would even stop and think twice "hey, isn't that the weirdo who..."

But, on the internet, rather than simply walk on by, there seems to be no shortage of people who mean well & hope to help people like the OP see their folly. I'd think that everyone "arguing" in this thread with the OP means well & is sincerely hoping that the OP will see the light of day. But, as I said, it's too late for him. He's hoping that something will redeem himself. He grasps for straw after straw. He seems to have completely abandoned the old arguments, after seeing them proven wrong time after time after time. Eventually, he apparently became aware that the "facts" he was presenting were completely wrong. But, instead of admitting that the conspiracy nutcases are just that - nutcases, and he's ashamed to admit that he was once one of those fools, he looks for new shreds of "evidence" of some grand conspiracy.

Tis sad, really. Maybe though, the adage "never argue with an idiot, the people watching might not know the difference" is true. Someone reading this thread may come to the conclusion that the rest of us are idiots - for not coming to the conclusion sooner that there's no way we will ever get the OP to realize, or at least admit, that he's wrong.

tis sad that mr pizza is attacking the messenger. try reading the article and comment on it.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
do u realize what u just said. i really dont think that your a scientist at all when it comes to remarks like this.

babbles said, " The World Trade Center buildings were a mixture of many different materials and under high stress and temperatures you should expect all sort of bizarre composition of resultant materials."

that is about the biggest damn lie on this whole thread. yeah.....ok, we have aluminum and alittle rust and when the wtc towers fell, they combined with some other materials to create nanothermite!! hahaha.....That material that jones et el have studied was created by the hand of man.

It's a lie? Really? "Aluminum and a little rust?" Do you SERIOUSLY think that's all there was in the WTC rubble? If so that remark displays a staggering level of ignorance on your part. There was copious amounts of gypsum wallboard, miles of conduit and wiring, plastics of all varieties, synthetic materials, and that's just touching the surface and doesn't even account for the materials and compounds introduced by the airplanes.

You're arguing with a guy that does that sort of thing for a living. He's told us what he does and analysing Jones's results are right up his alley. So what do you do that makes you such an expert in chemistry and DSC results analysis?

maybe u missed the point. this stuff was not created when the wtc fell. the high level of ignorance goes to babbles. no real scientist would ever say that. we had wallboard, glass, iron microspheres, altittle bit of this, alittle bit of that and this stuff: "The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." read the damn journal article and u will see this is not just something that can come together in the destruction of the wtc. it is bilayered.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I've didn't miss any point. I don't find your argument compelling at all, not to mention that there's still the huge problem of chain of custody with those samples, a problem you continue to ignore completely because it blows your contention, and Jones's out of the water. btw, did you look at the actual non-microscopic pictures of those samples? They sure don't look man-made. The problem is that you are looking at a highly magnified cross-section and imagining that what appears to be an even deposition of material is not possible through natural means, therefore it must be man-made. That viewpoint comes because you clearly demonstrate, once again, your complete and utter lack of scientific knowledge. There's also the problem that microns thick thermite wouldn't do shit to the massive beams and columns used in the TWC buildings. Maybe it'd scorch them, that's about it. You'd get better results by wrapping a bunch of 4th of July sparklers around the columns and trying to bring them down.

There's also the glaring issue that even Jones realizes. He can't prove this is thermite. That's why he has to resort to the intellectually disingenius phrase "thermitic material."

Lastly, I asked you a question previously that you didn't answer. I will ask it again and I do expect an answer. You felt bold enough to question the background and expertise of another forum member when he has been very open about what he does. So what are your own credentials that allows you to make a determination on Jones's paper or other scientific techniques? What is your own involvement in science and/or engineering that allows you to determine what a scientist would say? I'm waiting, because based on your history in this forum, my guess is that you have zero involvement and very likely little to no scientific background whatsoever. Your narrow argumentation methodologies demonstrate that fact fairly succinctly. You don't seem to have the capacity to reason or discuss anything that doesn't come directly as a quote from a Jones paper, someone else's quote from a truther website, or a youtube video. So, please, tell us what your background is and what you do.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
do u realize what u just said. i really dont think that your a scientist at all when it comes to remarks like this.

babbles said, " The World Trade Center buildings were a mixture of many different materials and under high stress and temperatures you should expect all sort of bizarre composition of resultant materials."

that is about the biggest damn lie on this whole thread. yeah.....ok, we have aluminum and alittle rust and when the wtc towers fell, they combined with some other materials to create nanothermite!! hahaha.....That material that jones et el have studied was created by the hand of man.

It's a lie? Really? "Aluminum and a little rust?" Do you SERIOUSLY think that's all there was in the WTC rubble? If so that remark displays a staggering level of ignorance on your part. There was copious amounts of gypsum wallboard, miles of conduit and wiring, plastics of all varieties, synthetic materials, and that's just touching the surface and doesn't even account for the materials and compounds introduced by the airplanes.

You're arguing with a guy that does that sort of thing for a living. He's told us what he does and analysing Jones's results are right up his alley. So what do you do that makes you such an expert in chemistry and DSC results analysis?

maybe u missed the point. this stuff was not created when the wtc fell. the high level of ignorance goes to babbles. no real scientist would ever say that. we had wallboard, glass, iron microspheres, altittle bit of this, alittle bit of that and this stuff: "The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." read the damn journal article and u will see this is not just something that can come together in the destruction of the wtc. it is bilayered.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I've didn't miss any point. I don't find your argument compelling at all, not to mention that there's still the huge problem of chain of custody with those samples, a problem you continue to ignore completely because it blows your contention, and Jones's out of the water. btw, did you look at the actual non-microscopic pictures of those samples? They sure don't look man-made. The problem is that you are looking at a highly magnified cross-section and imagining that what appears to be an even deposition of material is not possible through natural means, therefore it must be man-made. That viewpoint comes because you clearly demonstrate, once again, your complete and utter lack of scientific knowledge. There's also the problem that microns thick thermite wouldn't do shit to the massive beams and columns used in the TWC buildings. Maybe it'd scorch them, that's about it. You'd get better results by wrapping a bunch of 4th of July sparklers around the columns and trying to bring them down.

There's also the glaring issue that even Jones realizes. He can't prove this is thermite. That's why he has to resort to the intellectually disingenius phrase "thermitic material."

Lastly, I asked you a question previously that you didn't answer. I will ask it again and I do expect an answer. You felt bold enough to question the background and expertise of another forum member when he has been very open about what he does. So what are your own credentials that allows you to make a determination on Jones's paper or other scientific techniques? What is your own involvement in science and/or engineering that allows you to determine what a scientist would say? I'm waiting, because based on your history in this forum, my guess is that you have zero involvement and very likely little to no scientific background whatsoever. Your narrow argumentation methodologies demonstrate that fact fairly succinctly. You don't seem to have the capacity to reason or discuss anything that doesn't come directly as a quote from a Jones paper, someone else's quote from a truther website, or a youtube video. So, please, tell us what your background is and what you do.

like i said before, if jones or anyone else "planted" this evidence, that sounds like major jail time. im all for an investigation into more samples. theres bound to be more samples out there in civilians hands, not to mention usgs and the rj lee group.

are u also for a more through investigation to see if this material is in fact mixed into the dust or bust jones for planting evidence?

why dont u email greening with your excellent theory that these chips were created when the wtc fell from material that the wtc was made of and just so happened to make bilayed chips that are found to be thermitic. i bet he will laugh his arse off.

as for my background, its none of your business. as for babbles, who knows if he is what he says he is with such bold blantent lies that he spews. what 3 letter job do u have tlc?

i forgot to add that some of the chips were 6 layers deep. there is no telling without a more through investigation how many layers this material was originally.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: event8horizon
Now here lies the rub: Jone's red chips do not contain zinc, although some WTC iron-rich particles do indeed contain significant amounts of zinc. Nevertheless, zinc is essentially absent from Jones' red chips, thus it looks like these mystery particles are definitely not paint chips."

Yeah, they also aren't from the WTC. Go figure.

yeah and i guess all that dust the destruction of the wtc made also wasnt from the wtc (since the red chips were found in wtc dust).......damn good logic beaujangles has!!!

Chain of custody my friend. Nobody denies that the WTC spread all sorts of crap over lower Manhattan, but the paper you're touting doesn't even broach the topic of whether the samples were actually from the WTC. We are supposed to take, on faith, that those samples supposedly found a considerable distance from Ground Zero were actually from the WTC. To put it in perspective, the amount of credibility that paper has on its chain of custody is identical to me saying, "I found these pieces of melted steel in the WTC rubble seven years ago and have kept them in a jar in my room." There's simply no way to prove or disprove my statement and evidence like that should be completely inadmissible to our discussion because there's no way to tell that it wasn't simple made up.

Until that paper can provide a verifiable chain of custody and prove that was found on a random street in New York is actually from the WTC, the analysis is completely and utterly useless.

I'm sorry you cannot seem to comprehend that, but until you can, this conversation about nano-thermite bullshit is going to go nowhere.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
do u realize what u just said. i really dont think that your a scientist at all when it comes to remarks like this.

babbles said, " The World Trade Center buildings were a mixture of many different materials and under high stress and temperatures you should expect all sort of bizarre composition of resultant materials."

that is about the biggest damn lie on this whole thread. yeah.....ok, we have aluminum and alittle rust and when the wtc towers fell, they combined with some other materials to create nanothermite!! hahaha.....That material that jones et el have studied was created by the hand of man.

It's a lie? Really? "Aluminum and a little rust?" Do you SERIOUSLY think that's all there was in the WTC rubble? If so that remark displays a staggering level of ignorance on your part. There was copious amounts of gypsum wallboard, miles of conduit and wiring, plastics of all varieties, synthetic materials, and that's just touching the surface and doesn't even account for the materials and compounds introduced by the airplanes.

You're arguing with a guy that does that sort of thing for a living. He's told us what he does and analysing Jones's results are right up his alley. So what do you do that makes you such an expert in chemistry and DSC results analysis?

maybe u missed the point. this stuff was not created when the wtc fell. the high level of ignorance goes to babbles. no real scientist would ever say that. we had wallboard, glass, iron microspheres, altittle bit of this, alittle bit of that and this stuff: "The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." read the damn journal article and u will see this is not just something that can come together in the destruction of the wtc. it is bilayered.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I've didn't miss any point. I don't find your argument compelling at all, not to mention that there's still the huge problem of chain of custody with those samples, a problem you continue to ignore completely because it blows your contention, and Jones's out of the water. btw, did you look at the actual non-microscopic pictures of those samples? They sure don't look man-made. The problem is that you are looking at a highly magnified cross-section and imagining that what appears to be an even deposition of material is not possible through natural means, therefore it must be man-made. That viewpoint comes because you clearly demonstrate, once again, your complete and utter lack of scientific knowledge. There's also the problem that microns thick thermite wouldn't do shit to the massive beams and columns used in the TWC buildings. Maybe it'd scorch them, that's about it. You'd get better results by wrapping a bunch of 4th of July sparklers around the columns and trying to bring them down.

There's also the glaring issue that even Jones realizes. He can't prove this is thermite. That's why he has to resort to the intellectually disingenius phrase "thermitic material."

Lastly, I asked you a question previously that you didn't answer. I will ask it again and I do expect an answer. You felt bold enough to question the background and expertise of another forum member when he has been very open about what he does. So what are your own credentials that allows you to make a determination on Jones's paper or other scientific techniques? What is your own involvement in science and/or engineering that allows you to determine what a scientist would say? I'm waiting, because based on your history in this forum, my guess is that you have zero involvement and very likely little to no scientific background whatsoever. Your narrow argumentation methodologies demonstrate that fact fairly succinctly. You don't seem to have the capacity to reason or discuss anything that doesn't come directly as a quote from a Jones paper, someone else's quote from a truther website, or a youtube video. So, please, tell us what your background is and what you do.

like i said before, if jones or anyone else "planted" this evidence, that sounds like major jail time. im all for an investigation into more samples. theres bound to be more samples out there in civilians hands, not to mention usgs and the rj lee group.

are u also for a more through investigation to see if this material is in fact mixed into the dust or bust jones for planting evidence?

why dont u email greening with your excellent theory that these chips were created when the wtc fell from material that the wtc was made of and just so happened to make bilayed chips that are found to be thermitic. i bet he will laugh his arse off.

as for my background, its none of your business. as for babbles, who knows if he is what he says he is with such bold blantent lies that he spews. what 3 letter job do u have tlc?

i forgot to add that some of the chips were 6 layers deep. there is no telling without a more through investigation how many layers this material was originally.

No need to get pissy. Babbles was simply telling you that his job is to analyze things like this and that, in his professional opinion, your doctor and his analysis isn't worth the paper it's written on.

As for planting evidence, I'd hate to think you truthers are that nuts, but I do believe that many are over-ambitious to prove a conspiracy. Paint chips found near a construction site are suddenly "from" the WTC. One sample was suddenly found in five different places. People suddenly start turning in things that were "from" the WTC. It's human nature to want to be right, but the evidence you and your brethren have put forward is not only unconvincing, but it lacks any scientific rigor to stand on.

The point is that just because someone SAYS something doesn't mean their right. It doesn't mean their lying, either. These people could have been misled by others, but your doctor's willful and blind ignorance of the chain of custody of his paint samples points to an ulterior motive.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
like i said before, if jones or anyone else "planted" this evidence, that sounds like major jail time. im all for an investigation into more samples. theres bound to be more samples out there in civilians hands, not to mention usgs and the rj lee group.

How is it major jail time if Jones planted this evidence? He wouldn't face jail time. He'd just further erode his already badly damaged educational credentials.

why dont u email greening with your excellent theory that these chips were created when the wtc fell from material that the wtc was made of and just so happened to make bilayed chips that are found to be thermitic. i bet he will laugh his arse off.

You should know all about people laughing their arse off over their theories. You regularly elicit that sort of response in this forum.

as for my background, its none of your business. as for babbles, who knows if he is what he says he is with such bold blantent lies that he spews. what 3 letter job do u have tlc?

You made your background my business and everyone else's in here when you began casting aspersions over another member's qualifications and background. I had no delusions that you would actually divulge yours though because clearly you have none.

As for me, I'm a senior technical writer. I write specifically for engineering groups that develop medical devices, manufacturing production equipment, transportation equipment, large building structures, and simulation products for various industries. I've been doing that for 21+ years and I'm very good at it, which is why I make a rather significant premium compared to the vast majority of technical writers. Prior to that I purchased raw materials (steel, aluminum, plastics, and elastomers) and wrote specifications that described their specific properties for use in an engineering environment. I can easily apply what I know to the discussion concerning 9/11 because I have a wide gamut of knowledge concerning a variety of engineering principles and practices. Comprehending and applying that knowledge into writing is precisely my area of expertise. It's also why I can read Jones's paper and smell the bullshit eminating from it.

Any more questions?