Discussion in '9/11' started by Eadora, Nov 20, 2015.
I Apologize For The Double
Could a Moderator Please Delete the First Copy ?
For the attempted rebuttal, but you can stick your cheap shot Insult where the sun dont shine
And Be Aware that Richard Gage never said that micro Spheres are only the result of
Thermitic Reaction That is just the sort of Disinformation Lie I recently complained about in post 123
He said that the chemical signature present in the micro Spheres and the NANO material
found in the WTC dust indicated a NANO Thermetic Reaction - Funny Dishonest Neat how
your "Truthers on Thermite" Video edits out & makes unavailable, that Important Caveat in both
.............................. .............................. .............................. ............ ....... the Jones & Harrit interviews
The RJ Lee report estimates that iron Spheres made up 5.87% of the World Trade Center Dust.
& the fly ash from pulverized concrete theory doesn't come close to explaining that kind of abundance
.............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ........ of iron Spheres.
& Thank You for the Chris Mohr - an Easy Mark
Stepping on that Cockroach is always a pleasure
Answers to Chris Mohr (Parts 8 - 11)
So it seems along with Lying, that Washingtons Prostitutes cant do Honest Science
Now here's ONE for you to consider
9/11 - Debunking the Debunkers - Exploding Primer Paint?
Could you please make your posts readable? ... quit trying to be cute with the fonts and colors ... it looks childish ...
I N C O N T R A V E R T A B L E
1st responders Observe ..........................................................
"Molten Steel running down the channels" & "Like Lava"
Are Thermite Cutter Charges Even Possible ?
Active Nano Thermitic Material Discovered
In Dust Of The 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Neils H Harret
I do not think that conventional explosives or thermite caused the molten iron.
The only explanation is that nuclear devices were employed. The 3 months of molten iron were the result of tactical nuclear devices. Like Chernobyl it appears.
Chernobyl was a reactor meltdown not a nuclear bomb.
It is impossible to employ even a tactical nuke to accomplish the limited localized damage of the WTC.
wow ... just frickin wow ... have you any idea how ridiculous and unscientifically impossible that statement sounds? ...
what color crayons are your favorite to eat? ...
Unscientifically impossible, I kinda like that.
Er....ok. That is moronic.
Christ! What a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing mess! No-one has been able to refute Millette's MVA study. Sorry, you fail AGAIN. Please provide an academic paper refuting the Millette study-not idiots on BoobToob.
Can you not address this? Please stop posting old nonsense disproved by Millette. It is now irrelevant.
So just What or Who is irrelevant here ?
Millette or his StllBorn NEVER PUBLISHED Report ?
Or some poor Dude with a bad case of the Blues
Who simply can't stand an unorthodox delivery ?
Millette Chip Study Debunked and Buried: RIP
Your Millette Report was Dead On Arrival - never made it to the Published Stage -
......................................................................... Far 2-to-too many holes !
Yeah, Ryan's Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) was put to bed on ISF. Try again as there are no real facts in that garbage.
BTW - Zombies & the Brainwashed, also have problems with an unorthodox approach to things
......................................................... You should check into that Fact - Blues & try and Relax a bit
The Millette study hasn't been refuted by Kevin Ryan. You know that and I know that.
I'm quite relaxed thanks.
Jeff Farrer, a scientist who worked with Jones and Harritt on the 'pay for publication' journal, 'The Bentham Journal' contributed to the tests that resulted in the 'Thermite/thermate/Nano-therm*te' hypothesis. In the following screen shots (courtesy Chris Mohr), he expresses his concern over the way the results were 'employed' and the conclusions reached by his fellow 'scientists'.
Farrer on the Millette study:
However, Ryan states the following:
"Although Millette´s chips do have some superficial similarities to the chips studied by Harrit et al., neither the red nor the gray layers actually match the composition and characteristics of Dr. Harrit´s chips upon close inspection.
Hmmm....who to believe?
All is not so clearly defined in thermite land. Of course Kevin Ryan would denounce the Millette study, as he had a vested interest in the publication of the Jones/Harrit/Farrer document.
It is telling that the Bentham Journal does not appear in the list of top chemistry journals(1), nor has the media run with the story owing to a lack of replication of the testing.
Is Thermite an explosive? In this debate, many assume that thermite is an explosive; an explosive with enough power to destabilise the WTC.
But is it really an explosive that can cause such an event?
"Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder fuel and metal oxide. When ignited by heat, thermite undergoes an exothermic reduction-oxidation (redox) reaction. Most varieties are not explosive but can create brief bursts of high temperature in a small area. Its form of action is similar to that of other fuel-oxidizer mixtures, such as black powder.
Thermites have diverse compositions. Fuels include aluminium, magnesium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron. Aluminium is common because of its high boiling point and low cost. Oxidizers include bismuth(III) oxide, 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,IV) oxide.
The reaction is used for thermite welding, often used to join rail tracks. Thermites have also been used in metal refining, demolition of munitions, and in incendiary weapons. Some thermite-like mixtures are used as pyrotechnic initiators in fireworks.
'Most are not explosive' is a little unclear, but that material doesn't seem to be able to produce the force required for such a catastrophic event. 9/11 truth acknowledged this and posited Thermate as the material.
"Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of very high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades.
The main chemical reaction in thermate is the same as in thermite: an aluminothermic reaction between powdered aluminium and a metal oxide. In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature Various mixtures of these compounds can be called thermate, but to avoid confusion with thermate-TH3, one can refer to them as thermite variants or analogs. The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN). As both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires supervision and sometimes persistent effort.
Because thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite, it has useful military applications in cutting through tank armor or other hardened military vehicles or bunkers. As with thermite, thermate's ability to burn without an external supply of oxygen renders it useful for underwater incendiary devices."
Well, that material could definitely apply. But then, one has to ask, how was it deployed? There are other problems in logic with this hypothesis, for instance, how did this material survive the fires until being triggered immediately prior to the initiation of the collapse sequence? It is, after all, highly flammable.
In addition, in order to demolish a radio tower in the '1930's, thermite was deployed around the supports in tons. This didn't explode, but rather ignited and the subsequent flash was well noted.
Furthermore, how were vast quantities of this material deployed within the complex (especially around the collapse points) without the tenants, staff or the admin questioning or reporting this process? Why won't Jones and Harrit release their samples for scientific replication? If they possessed the courage of their convictions, they should welcome independent verification. Why doesn't 9/11 truth demand verification? I welcome further testing to replicate the results, and so should those who believe this story.
It all smells a little too 'James Bond' to be considered a rational hypothesis, and without any other physical evidence for the deployment of thermite/thermate/nano-therm*te, such as DET cord, RF screening (yes even digital triggering would require this measure), Barotrauma, Munroe effect, larger quantities of thermitic residue owing to the tonnages required, as well as the lack of a huge flash, we can safely conclude that the hypothesis has little foundation (if any).
It has been suggested that the editor of the Bentham Journal resigned owing to the publication of Jones,Harrit & Farrer's paper without her permission.
"...They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.
“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”
She may have also been trying to CHA after the subsequent scandal, but if her release is true, there is a hint perhaps of some 'under the table' deal to gain publication.
The more one looks into this, the more 'unscientific' it all becomes.
As an aside, one point that I note every time I open the Bentham Paper (see supplied link above) is that the writing style employed in the introduction is rather 'unscientific':
"The destruction of three skyscrapers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on
September 11, 2001 was an immensely tragic catastrophe
that not only impacted thousands of people and families directly,
due to injury and loss of life, but also provided the
motivation for numerous expensive and radical changes in
domestic and foreign policy. For these and other reasons,
knowing what really happened that fateful day is of grave
A great deal of effort has been put forth by various government-
sponsored and -funded investigations, which led, in
large part, to the reports released by FEMA and NIST.
. Other studies of the destruction have been less well
publicized but are no less important to the outstanding obligation
that remains to the victims of that tragedy, to determine
the whole truth of the events of that day. A number of
these studies have appropriately focused attention on the remaining
physical material, and on available photographs and
video footage, as sources of evidence still in public hands,
relating to the method of destruction of the three skyscrapers.
The collapses of the three tallest WTC buildings were
remarkable for their completeness, their near free-fall speed
their striking radial symmetry, and the surprisingly
large volume of fine toxic dust that was generated.
In order to better understand these features of the destruction,
the authors initiated an examination of this dust..."
Possibly a little pedantic, but this appears to be more of a politically motivated piece than a scientific examination. Furthermore, who can spot the 'big lie' in this piece?
I have to credit C.J. Newson for some of the material I used in the previous three posts (Metabunk). Apologies for failing to cite you, CJ.
I'm not sure you have to, I don't recall writing any of the information in your 3 posts
That would be this link:
Which contains nothing that would precisely physically identify AA77. There is no known evidence that definitively matches AA77 to the destruction at the Pentagon.
There isn't one piece of forensic evidence that would physically match any of the parts to AA77. The most basic match would be one or more parts with serial numbers (all airplane parts have these) matching the log of parts listed for the plane identified as AA77. The alleged recovered FDR for example or the wheel or engine parts and preferably with the chain of custody. This is as basic as it gets for any forensic investigation of any airplane crash. It seems to me the US government would be eager to show that. The same is true for the other 3 alleged airplanes.
The title of the blog "American Airlines Flight 77 Evidence" is false, there is no publicly available evidence.
Unfortunately, the blog is right until YOU can prove otherwise. Reversing the burden of proof is not a valid debate tactic. The title and content are not false until you can prove they are false.
That's like saying that Santa exists is correct until proven otherwise. Sorry, that's not how it works. The blog does not prove anything about AA77, only physical evidence or clear, indisputable video evidence can prove it. There's no correlation anywhere in the blog between AA77 and what actually hit the Pentagon. All (or at least some) parts must be identified (matched via serial numbers) as belonging to AA77, that would be a start. There is no such thing anywhere, no known attempt to do that anywhere that has been made public (even though an attempt would still not be proof). That's not how a forensic investigation of a plane crash works. Physical identification is extremely basic, especially of the RFD, but it also applies to all parts. The same is true for the remaining alleged 3 other plane crashes.
That's correct and that's the whole point. The blog doesn't prove anything about AA77, it just makes an unsupported claim about AA77, beginning with the title. There is no debate here, if there is no definitive proof and just saying it was AA77 is nothing more than a claim to be taken on faith.
See above, it's false because there is no evidence that any of the alleged evidence was part of AA77. Talk about reverse burden of proof, that must be proven first before anyone can attempt to prove otherwise.
No, it's not.
1) AA77 crashed into the Pentagon: if you don't believe it YOU have the burden of proof.
2) The parts noted are obviously from the aforementioned crash. If you believe they were planted, YOU have the burden of proof.
3) There is eyewitness testimony that interferes with your story. YOU have the burden of proof. It seems that wholesale 'attacking the source' has become the latest evasive tactic with twoofers (cf . the weird claims regarding Stanford etc.) in a weak attempt to avoid addressing the content. If 9/11 truth cannot be bothered addressing the content I provide, why should I give time to their weak retorts?
If you don't believe it, the burden of proof rests with you. The same goes for your claims regarding the NIST report. No one gives a flying **** whether you believe something or not if you cannot demonstrate why. Why should I give a fig about what you think if you can't demonstrate your point? Like your NIST accusations, they are empty until you can prove your point.
Here's what you need to do:
PROVE the parts do not belong to AA77. Until then your argument is vapid, and empty.
Sorry, you can't twist this, you have the burden, not CJ, and it appears to the reader that you're unable to address the evidence, and that is why you need to attack the source.
Separate names with a comma.