Errors and omissions in NIST report (gee...what a surprise).

one thing all the shills that have penetrated this site never have an answer for is that many of the witnesses who came forward and gave versions differen than the governments about hearing explosions in the basements,ended up dying in mysterious deaths.

Like one came on alex jones show saying she heard explosions in the basement and that if she ever died,not to believe the official version of the governments,that she would never take her own life.then later on after that,she is found hanging by the ceiling? no foul play there by the government or to murder barry jennings who exposed bld 7? sure there wasnt,and Im going to be the next president of the united states as well.


another one they never have an answer for is that there were other buildings much close to the towers with far more extensive damage and fires to them than bld 7,yet they all remianed standing.somehow the only buildings that fell that day were all owned by zionist jew larry silverstein and they claim there is no involvement from isreal or that silverstein had nothing to do with it. the coincidence theorists.

 

one more thing that proves you have no credibility whatsoever and have no interest in that truth is that DEBWUNKER link has been debunked by griffiths book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,AN ANSWER TO POPULAR MECHANICS AND OTHER DEFENDERS OF THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY.

that link is full of so many outright lies that again,you have exposed you have no credibility around here just like all other OCTA'S here dont.for instance,one thing in that B.S link of yours it says that demolition expert danny jowenko has said it wasnt a controlled demolition.

Jowenko Says The Towers Were Not Demolitions
No conspiracy theorist likes to quote Jowenko when it comes to the towers. He clearly sees that those building’s collapses started from the impact area. Nothing leads him to conclude that those buildings fell from controlled demolition using explosives, no matter how much the interviewer tries to get him to say so.



pure B.S. pure bullcrap.

there are videos out there with Jowenko talking about it being a controlled demolition so that right there, exposes that pathetic link full of lies and b.s that you worship as the truth.miserable fail from you.

grow up and post truth and facts if you want to be taken seriously,not lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

nothing like hearing it form the horses mouth.That link is pure b.s as everyone can see from that video and is full of lies.what a pathetic link used for disinformation.

 

[video=youtube;CF7OnW4XDck]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF7OnW4XDck[/video]

Like I said, hilarity closely follows any post from a Truther

 

In 2009 Scientists from the Department of Chemistry of the University of Copenhagen published a report which has the following abstract (link to complete record below):

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.

End of quote

The NIST says about investigating the possibility of explosives:

14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound’s thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

15. What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?

There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7. The studies that have been conducted to document trace metals, organic compounds, and other materials in the dust and air from the vicinity of the WTC disaster have all suggested common sources for these items. For example, in a published report from the USGS on an analysis of WTC dust, the authors state that "... the trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment.” 2

In a second example, researchers at the EPA measured the concentrations of 60 organic compounds in air samples from Ground Zero using an organic gas and particle sampler. The presence of one of these compounds, 1,3-diphenylpropane, has been suggested as evidence of thermite. However, the authors of the EPA paper state in the opening paragraph that although “… this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling … it has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.”
End of quote

Concerning point 14 NIST says: No, we didn't look because it is unlikely.
In point 15 NIST says that the EPA has found traces of substances which could be evidence for thermite. However those traces also "can be associated to polystyrene". The sentence could be completed by adding "therefore we did not look if those traces originated from combusted polystyrene or from ignited thermite or nano thermite".

Is this a proper investigation? I beg your pardon. It is like saying: "The bullet in the head of the victim had a caliber which matched the caliber of the alleged shooter. We didn't further investigate because other firearms have the same caliber. Therefore it is unlikely that the alleged shooter was responsible for the death of the victim". Would you be satisfied with such a statement? Knowing that the "Homeland Security Act" and the war against Iraq were based on the findings?

Some points criticizing my statement I can confirm. NIST now has published recommendations and the WTC 7 report is available. My knowledge is from the time when I was convinced of the accuracy of the official 9/11 story. After this more than flimsy excuse why NIST did not regard WTC 7 to be necessary to be investigated (or why they were unable to do so) and after the report although being presented as link on their homepage being not accessible for almost 3 years, I changed my mind. If accurate and proper research is presented coming to opposite conclusions, I will change again. Presently such research from the "official story side" has not been produced. The offcial side only produces excuses why proper research is unnecessary to be carried out and refuses to comment on findings of other specialists, whose scientific expertise is out of question and very likely exceeds that of the NIST investigators. At least it could be expected that a comment to other researchers having found components of explosives in the WTC dust has to be made. Do you know of any of those comments?

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

 

LoL, seriously? Let's jump in the time machine and go back to 2008

LoL you mean the one that told everyone she wouldn't committ suicide, then got nailed with massive amounts charges and decide to off herself? You mean this massively intelligent government decides to kill her in exactly the way she says they will? That makes sense. Almost as much sense as them waiting for years after 9/11 to kill her instead of stuffing her in the buildings when they went down. Can I get a source please?

That is one of the most digusting things I have heard. He died of Lukemia you insensitive (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). His family didn't have time to mourn him before you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s started tap dancing on his grave. Also, Barry Jennings HATED truthers, he hated that they used his words to push thier BS propoganda. Just disgusting that the slime of the world has no issues in dragging a good man's name through the mud. Even his family has asked truthers to stop using his name, and let him rest in peace. Just pathetic.

You're a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing moron. There were a ton of buildings to go down. WTC 6, 4, etc. There were, I think, 10 buildings that had to be brought down or collapsed that day. DO SOME (*)(*)(*)(*)ING RESEARCH FOR ONCE. Please, at least look into (*)(*)(*)(*) for once in your life.

Anyway, any other trash?

 

They didn't publish a report, and it wasn't from the University of Copenhagen. You're a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing liar. It's the Bentham paper, and the only thing they found was paint. No one is buying your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) around here, this crap has been debunked forever. Get something new, or get lost.

That is all a lie, you should probably catch up on the Millette study that showed the Harrit et. al. are full of (*)(*)(*)(*), and have no idea what they're doing. Also, Bentham is a "pay-to-publish" journal. That paper is not peer reviewed, it's not factual, and the editor of that journal quit because of that paper. She was so offended that such a moronic, train wreck of a paper got posted in a journal that was supposed to be "scientific" that she quit. That's how pathetic your source is....move along kid.

 

Great effort there!

 

Thank you for justifying my position.

 

Bump for 'Fraud.

 

This is at RTWngaFraud

They didn't publish a report, and it wasn't from the University of Copenhagen. You're a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing liar. It's the Bentham paper, and the only thing they found was paint. No one is buying your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) around here, this crap has been debunked forever. Get something new, or get lost.

1. How would you call what was published, if not a "report"? Publication? Paper? Does that make any difference?
2. The first author and principal investigator Niels. H. Harrit gives his affiliation as: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. The address for correspondence is given with: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
3. The Millette study copied the methods used in the paper which had found nano thermite microspheres and did not find any. At least it cannot be said then that the authors "did not know what they are doing". Both studies were discussed after publication. Here is what the one who ordered and paid the Millette study (the second study) said about it ("Kevin" is Kevyn Ryan, co author of the Harrit (the first) paper): Did I make mistakes in this process? Yes, I did. I was afraid of Kevin’s growing impatience with me and I did the search for an independent verifier of his study without him. In hindsight I wish I had asked Kevin if he wanted to work together with me to find a researcher and a verification process both he and the “skeptics” could agree on. It’s never too late to do that. The Jim Millette study turned up no thermitic materials, but as they say, you can’t prove a negative. I am open to helping broker yet another study both sides could sign off on in advance, using Kevin’s samples. If Kevin doesn’t trust me, I know at least one other person who might consider doing this (on the 9/11 Truth side)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=231314
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=212725&page=86

In summary there is an honest scientific discussion about the results of two studies using identical material and methods but coming to different conclusions. The discussion is taking place between two honest scientific groups. At best the actual result is a 1:1 standoff but as the organizer of the Millette study says: "You cannot prove a negative" which simply says: "Not finding in study2 what was found in study1 does not prove that it was not there" . Therefore it is more 1,5:1 for the Harrit study. That alltogether does not give anyone the right to label the first study "crap" and being "debunked forever". In additon nobody is obliged to buy my bull#+*#*# here, everbody gets it for free. In addition it does not answer the main question: Both studies and the complete discussion are results of private initiative, the second study even was paid by a private person. Those forensic investigations and consecutive expert evaluation normally are obligatory task of the main state investigator, the NIST. NIST refused to look because they thought it is "unlikely" to find those traces. It is however the strategy of any perpetrator to cover all traces to make it maximal unlikely to be found. Investigators take that into account and deliberately investigate "unlikely" possibilities to find camouflaged or hidden evidence. That is why I uphold my main concern, that NIST was and is not competent to run such an investigation. It is a shame for a nation like the USA that the crime of mass murder on own territory has to be investigated properly by private organizations on own initiative and cost because the "competent authorities" are either incompetent or fraudulent.

On your last statement: get something new or get lost. Sorry, I don't take orders from you. If you don't change your writing style, attend some lessons in normal conduct or ask your Kindergarten nurse how to behave properly, I will not reply to you anymore.

 

That was my quote, so why you would aim it at 'Fraid is beyond me.

Let me clarify this for you, since it's obvious you don't understand. Publications\Papers are academic pieces of material aimed at furthering the scientific field. The Bentham paper is a flaming piece of ridiculous dog (*)(*)(*)(*). You can call it whatever you want, I don't care. I'll call it for what it is.

Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*)? What do I care where he works? Find me one quote, one link that says the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark supports or backs up this paper? I'll be waiting. If anything, all you're showing is that they will use any means possible to create legitimacy for their work, thank you.

I don't even know what you're saying here. There was no nanothermite, it was paint attached to steel. The spheres were formed from the steel as they were expected. Read any report on the WTC, they were found en mass due to the nature of the collapse. I have no idea what stupidity you're rambling on about here.

You don't have to quote Chris Mohr to me, I have been apart of that study from the day it was conceived, I am extremely familiar with it.

It's obvious you have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what Chris is talking about. The reason he wanted to get together with Kevin Ryan is because he knew the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) truthers would pull after the study. They knew they'd say James had "the wrong chips", which is exactly what they're doing now. There is nothing wrong with the data that Jim presented, and he's actually presented it to multiple scientific bodies. You know, what the Bentham Boobs are too afraid to do. Which is why their paper is the laughing stock of the scientific community.

None of this means what you're trying to present it to mean. Like I said, Kevin and the other morons refuse to release any of their "active thermite" to Jim Millette's study. They refuse because they know what will happen. Their scheme will be unmasked, and we will be able to confirm they found nothing but paint. Why do you think they're too afraid to publish the rest of their results? They have the FTIR, so they claim. Why not release it? Why do they continue to run from the facts and hide, Mr. Outsider?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH two honest scientific groups? Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Who are you trying to deceive? Everyone here sees through that crap, buddy. The Benttham team can be described as a lot of things, but honest isn't one of them.

Uh, that's not what Mohr was saying...at all. He was saying that we already knew there wasn't any thermite, so all Millette did was continue to prove their wasn't any thermite. I have to believe at this point that you're a Poe, no one can be that ignorant.

What are you talking about? 1.5:1 for the Harrit study? Are you trying to "win" 9/11? The Harrit study is bogus, they didn't even do the experiments right. They didn't use the correct atmosphere for DSC, they didn't even test all the chips they had. They randomly selected chips, did the tests, then just declared "thermite". That study is crap, it has been debunked for ever.

The second study, the Millette study, was paid for by private PEOPLE. There were a large number of people that donated, and some of them were even truthers. It wasn't paid for by a private person. I know that because I was one of the people that donated. Research kid, do some.

First off, once again, you're wrong. To the point, everyone with a brain knew what brought those towers down. NIST knew it wasn't thermite or explosives, they're professionals. There were several studies done on ground zero, a few EPA tests, and a few private tests. None of them showed explosive residue. NIST refused to look because just the concept is stupid. There was no need to look for explosives as the cause for collapse on the same grounds that police wouldn't look for alzheimer's in a shooting death.

Jesus, what are you talking about? This sentence doesn't even make sense.

Uh, duly noted. Your personal opinion is, obviously, held in the highest regard.

All of the studies that have been performed by private organizations have confirmed the findings of the NIST report (maybe with some minute, extremely small changes that don't effect the overall result). The NIST was neither incompetent nor fraudulent. You are wrong.

Don't reply to me anymore, I couldn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) less. You didn't even know who you were supposed to reply to in the first place. You were talking to 'Fraid. Why would I care if someone who is unable, or unwilling to do research declines to respond to me? Like I said, kid, you're act is nothing new. We've seen it a million times before, and you're just presenting the same ol' debunked bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that's been on AE911T for the last 7 years. This is nothing new, it's just crap. Put me on ignore, it's not going to change.

 

Guys..... it's real simple. A plane crash at the 79th floor, can not have caused damage to the lobby. Yet clearly from videos of fire fighters entering the build, the lobby was severally damage, and people were coming UP from the basement, with burns.

This is *not* possible.

Further, there are videos of molten metal flowing form the side of the building. Jet fuel open air burn temp is 315 °C tops. That's best case. Industrial steel melt temp is 1,370°C. Notice a slight problem? 1370 > 315. What we have here is a physical impossibility. Yet, we have videos of molten metal flowing like bright yellow water off the side of the building.

A week after the buildings fell, rescuers found pools of molten metal, still burning at the site. Even if by some magic of suspension of all laws of physics, the jet fuel was able to melt some of the steel, would it really have produced enough heat to keep steel molten for a week?

Here's a test. I dare you to do it.

Go get any amount of steel. Get as much jet fuel as you wish. A 100 gallons, 200 gallons, 500 gallons, I don't care. And no, it can not be gasoline. Gasoline burns hotter than jet fuel. Actually scratch that, get gasoline if you wish. Must be an open air burn. Unless you think there were bottles of liquid oxygen stored at the twin towers, there were no additives to the burn.

Burn all the gas or jet fuel you want, as much as you desire, and see if you can melt that steel, let alone time how long the steel remains melted.

Good luck with that.

To the point:

You can toss out all your conspiracy theories, dump all your other ideas and claims, ditch all the right-wing radio monkeys and all their hype, throw out all the evidence, all the information, all the videos..... everything.....

And these two facts alone.... by themselves.... no additional information..... prove those two planes could not have caused them. There is absolutely no possible way those two planes caused damage to the lobbies and basement, and there is no possible way those two planes caused steel to melt into rivers of molten metal that flowed into pools still burning a week after the crash.

It's called 'basic physics' people. You keep asking for proof, and there is no more clearer and concrete proof, that this. These are physical impossibilities.

The idea that jet fuel is going to melt steel for weeks on end, and that an air plane wing made of aluminum, is going to sever a steel reinforced concrete pillar, allowing jet fuel to fall 79 floors down the shaft and then explode in the lobby with enough force to damage the walls of lobby..... is absolute total insanity.

In order for a person to look at the physical evidence, and conclude that merely two planes caused those two thing, would require you to toss out all rational thinking, surgically remove your brain, shove it into a blender with fruit and alcohol, and make a cocktail out of it. You would have to be more ignorant and stupid than Forest Gump after drinking a bottle of vodka and snorting cocaine, to believe this crap.

 

The steel was NOT melted,it only had to be weakened by the fire,and I don't know whose sock you are,but all this has been gone over ad nauseam on this board.

You fail.

 

Good, morons coming out of the woodwork for the upcoming anniversary. This is my favorite part! For your information, genius, you should actually do some reading on physics, and maybe catch up on the amount of jet fuel powered down the elevator shafts. LoL...classic. GET IN THE TIME MACHINE AGAIN EVERYONE! TIME GO TO BACK TO 2007!!!! Let's move on to more of this stupidity, shall we?

Two things, source, and evidence it's steel. Cause, I am not seeing either of those being the case. There is one picture of a spark spray coming from, what could be a transformer explosion, but I am not seeing any "flowing metal." Also, you said it, metal. Not steel. There is no evidence any of the steel "melted". This is a fallacy and a strawman.

Are you familiar with an oven? You know, the thing your mom makes your pizza's in. If you leave the door open, you're mom is probably not going to get any delicious pizza to you, since it won't cook. If you close the door, and contain all that heat, then it begins to cook. See how that works? The rubble caused a gigantic oven. However, there was no molten steel, there were no pools, and you've provided no evidence of such. Also, care to explain your theory? No truther ever does this. Can you explain what demolition materials would cause "molten steel" or "molten metal" to stay molten? It's not TNT, and it's sure as (*)(*)(*)(*) not thermite. I'll be waiting

Oh goodie, there's a point somewhere in this.

Strawman, red herring. No one said the planes, themselves, caused the collapse. The jet fuel that got blown down the elevator shaft caused a fire ball that blew out in the lobby. Can you explain how "explosives" could have gone off an hour before the building fell? Does that make any sense at all? "They" detonate "their" explosives and it takes over an hour for the building to fall. Also, the explosives live for over an hour in a fire, then explode? Impossible. The entire time you're preaching about "impossible physics" and you can't even get the basics right.

Right? You should take a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing class.

They're things you don't understand, and so you think they're evidence of a conspiracy. In all actuality it's just your incredulity that you've mentally manifested into a theory.

It didn't, and the only people that have that idea have no idea what's going on. Also, are you saying that the "explosives" the gubbmint used can melt steel for weeks? Cite? Source? Evidence? No? Didn't think so.

wtf? Where were there steel reinforced concrete pillars? Source? The twins were just steel skycrapers. There was no concrete at the impact zone. Also, the speed the plane was going negated the weakness of the metals in comparison. The same reason a board can go through a brick house in a tornado.

Why? Also, remember the impact. The building swayed, and the jet fuel wasn't "allowed" to go down 79 floors. It forced it's way down 79 floors, there was nothing to stop it. More of your incredulity

Two planes didn't "merely" cause the two buildings to fall. The planes caused massive structural damage to the perimeter of the building. The jet fuel lit the office contents, and bodies of the dead on fire. This office fire continued, unfought, for an hour until the heating caused the weakened steel to bow in and collapse. Gravity, heat, fire, and plane impact damage caused those buildings to fall.

Which it appears you've done

Not sure why we need a ren and stimpy reference here, but whatever. It's your strawman, build it how you want.

LoL if you're insulting other people you might want to use proper sentence structure to avoid looking like a moron.

Anyway, move along. That was fun. I am sure you have other socks to login as.

 

The paint/thermite discussion would be easily resolved with autopsy results of those who jumped down before the collapse of the first building occurred. However, as I am aware of the published literature, those (routine) acquisition of evidence in victims of building fires did not take place. The question is if those victim's immediate death cause was "deceleration trauma" from falling down some hundred feet, inhalation trauma by inhalation of toxic vapors emitted by the multiple plastic materials involved in the fire or thermal injury. One question could be why those test should have been performed when the death cause was clearly obvious. In this case it must be asked why autopsies in all victims having been jumped was carried out at all. Besides that this is a routine investigation, those conducting the autopsies could not know if anyone who was in the building and later being able to escape would have been accused to have pushed someone. The possible defense is: "That person panicked and jumped him/herself" and "That person was already dead before the fall and for whatever reason slipped out of a hole or was pushed aside during evacuation and fell as dead body". The first case is often determined by surrounding factors like the distance from the building itself (Those jumping normally are found in a greater distance from a building compared to those being pushed, resisting by grabbing anything at which they could hold themselves) and eyewitness evidence. For countering the second argumentation one essential procedure is inspection of the content of the airways. If no smoke particles are present this person probably was not in contact with the fire at all. If present, it is necessary to anyalyze the content on presence of toxic combustion products and if possible, if and in which concentration those toxic products are present in tissues like brain. The painting/thermite "red chip" question then easily could be resolved. Those who jumped before the first collapse but were exposed to smoke must have those red chips in their airways. If those red chips were produced by anything directly associated to or even be the direct cause of the collapse (explosions) those chips have to be absent.

I have checked all literature available but only found the information that autopsies had been performed in all those victims. It is another detail showing how easy it would be to finally quiet down all "ae911truthers, pilotsfor9/11truthers and whateverfor9/11truthers". It would be one sentence or one presentation. That would restore all faith and trust into their governement in those, who lost it. It would also make the death of those who jumped not to have been in vain. That all however obviously does not count.

 

1. Let me clarify this for you, since it's obvious you don't understand. Publications\Papers are academic pieces of material aimed at furthering the scientific field. The Bentham paper is a flaming piece of ridiculous dog (*)(*)(*)(*). You can call it whatever you want, I don't care. I'll call it for what it is.

The Bentham Open Journal is a Public Access Journal. There is a worldwide discussion in academia about the way of publication in traditional peer reviewed journals, the cost of investigation and the authors being carried by the society, the journals making profit by publishing results. That discussion started a few years ago, when scientific journals doubled their already high subscription fees and even university libraries couldn't afford those journals anymore. That is when "Public Access" journals like the "Bentham Open" came into being. According to "Bentham Open": All submitted articles are subject to an extensive peer review in consultation with members of the Journal Editorial Board and independent external referees ; usually three reviewers. All manuscripts are assessed rapidly and the decision based on all the peer reviewers comment, taken by the Journal Editor-in-Chief, is then conveyed to author(s).. That is standard operation procedure for peer reviewed journals. From a scientific view it makes no difference if the final product is published in print or electronically in the internet. If publication content can be critcized it should be criticized. That is a standard scientific discussion which like the publiction itself advances scientific knowledge. Those discussions however must be free of "ad hominem" attacks and exclusively be based on scientifc rationale. "Ad Hominem" attacks invalidate the attacken, no one else.

2. Find me one quote, one link that says the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark supports or backs up this paper? I'll be waiting. If anything, all you're showing is that they will use any means possible to create legitimacy for their work, thank you.


Large universities with all their departments publish thousands of publications per year. Nowhere in the world departments "back up" every publication by confirming the author's affiliation. If any affiliation is claimed fraudulently, universities publish rectifications, not the way around.

3. The Millette study copied the methods used in the paper which had found nano thermite microspheres and did not find any. At least it cannot be said then that the authors "did not know what they are doing". Both studies were discussed after publication.
I don't even know what you're saying here.

In your first comment you said that the authors of the first study "did not know what they were doing". The second group copying the investigation procedures of the first group (or using the same standard procedures) confirmed that the authors of the first study knew very well what they were doing.

4. The Harrit study is bogus, they didn't even do the experiments right. They didn't use the correct atmosphere for DSC, they didn't even test all the chips they had. They randomly selected chips, did the tests, then just declared "thermite". That study is crap, it has been debunked for ever.

I hope you see your problem. If the analytic procedure was correct or not is not possible for me to evaluate. That should be addressed to those who carried out the experiment and the concerns and the reply both should be published. "Randomly" selecting objects from a entity of objects which makes it impossible to investigate all of them is the adequate procedure to avoid selection influenced by personal bias. After those were selected, tests were carried out and the presence of "thermite" was "declared" after those tests were positive. That is the missing little detail in your statement above. The second part is an ad hominem attack to the investigators which always comes in the absence of valid objections. "Crap" in reality is the attack, not the attacked.

There were several studies done on ground zero, a few EPA tests, and a few private tests. None of them showed explosive residue. NIST refused to look because just the concept is stupid. There was no need to look for explosives as the cause for collapse on the same grounds that police wouldn't look for alzheimer's in a shooting death.

EPA investigated ambient air pollution by emissions from WTC dust. They found volatile organic compounds which were compatible with thermite. Because those however also were compatible with polystyrene (styrofoam) they did not look any further. That is as if the question would be of no relevance. To decide between polystyrene and thermite any second volatile compund being indicative for the one or the other should have been determined, which is not more effort than measuring the first. The avoidance of that procedure even in awareness of both alternatives leaves the question open. Do you call this proper conduct in a criminal investigation?

Not police but forensic examiners routineously would look for Alzheimer in the murder victim like psychiatric expert witness would eventually look for Alzheimer disease in the perpetrator. The first could help if the perpetrator defends himself by having carried out some graceful euthanasia or assisted suicide in an endstage Alzheimer patient, the second if the perpetrator had full conscience of the "right" and the "wrong". Those professional standards don't have to be discussed. If experts deviate from normal standards, like the EPA did in the air pollution investigation, then it has to be discussed for what reason.


You were talking to 'Fraid. Why would I care if someone who is unable, or unwilling to do research declines to respond to me? Like I said, kid, you're act is nothing new

Hi Fraid, are you sure that your name isn't "Fraud" with a typo?
Thanks for calling me "Kid". My age is 57.
Having around 250 interational publications in peer reviewed papers, being reviewer for three international journals and working in research since 25 years certainly does not qualify me to be called "researcher". Bcause "Chemistry" is not my subject, I feel free to ask questions even if those sound stupid to real experts in the subjec. My expectation out of experience is to receive answers, not insults. That makes our conversation so difficult.

 

Wow, you really are a special piece of work aren't you. I, generally, get so offended when people say stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) like this that I won't reply. Although, I am bored today at work, and want to make my points.

Once again, a nonsensical sentence.

Please, enlighten me. What is thermal injury in this case? You want them to check the bodies of those that had to make an awful decision, for light burn marks? That's your genius idea? Where do you come up with this crap?

What? Your sentences make no sense. They just jump around randomly. There would be no autopsies on the people that jumped for more than 1 reason. First and foremost, there wasn't much left. These people were jumping from 90 storeys up in the air and landing on solid concrete, or the entryway to the WTC. Take a look at the pictures, I refuse to link to them because I honor the dead, but you can find them if you look. The rest of this paragraph is something related to a murder charge? You're trying to figure out if people that were trapped in the WTC pushed other people? This is just stupid.

What the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you talking about?

Apparently you aren't able to tie things together, but they didn't find much of anyone from the WTC. Sometimes things as small as a bone fragment, sometimes absolutely nothing. Those souls who jumped that day were then crushed by not 1, not 2, but 3 falling buildings. Those buildings act like grinders on the way down, and then landing on the concrete.

More ridiculous commentary. Most of the time the brain, and organs weren't there. How aren't you understanding this? I mean, you have to be a Poe, or so incredibly stupid that it can't be measured. They didn't search for explosives because there wasn't a demolition. Let me make this as painfully clear as I can. If they found 100 (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tonnes of thermite at ground zero, in the dust or on a pallet, it wouldn't make a difference. Got me? There was no demolition. The way the buildings collapsed prove that. There was no demolition at all.

It has been easily resolved, by an intelligent, honest scientist. His name is Dr. James Millette

There isn't an emoticon that can express how hard I am rolling my eyes at this. It's just stupid in every way that something can be stupid.

Anyone that say that is full of (*)(*)(*)(*). No one has checked all available literature. This is a fallacy, you are saying you have absolute knowledge, and you don't.

No, there wasn't autopsies on all those victims. Best case scenario there was enough left over to identify the lost.

If anyone is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dumb enough to believe the "for9/11 truth" retards then I say good riddance to bad rubbish. It'll just be a matter of time before they climb on the next stupidity band wagon. They don't need to be quieted down, because NOBODY gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) about them, except a few die hard boners. That's why the truth movement has gone NO WHERE in the last 12 years.

Obviously you continue to show you have no research skills or knowledge at all. Remember Dr. James Millette? Yeah, he presented his findings at scientific conferences he was invited to. Yes, real scientists, doing real work, and evaluated real scientific data. This isn't dumbass Harrit and dumbass group of boobs running around trying to get donations from college guppies and the downtrodden of society that blame their government for their failures. These are real, accredited scientists.

 

That's all cute and stuff. However, Bentham has been shown to be crap. Quite literally they will publish anything. In fact, most of the scientists that do review the papers and the editors quit!

All of that is incorrect. Support any of it. You're trying to say that Universities support all of the papers their students\teachers\faculty release unless they specifically say that they don't support it? You're serious?

Millette didn't use the exact same process, Millette used the CORRECT process. He used some of the same equipment they did, and replicated some of the tests they did. However, he used other sources, and actually released his data, to acquire the composition of the chip. Harrit et. al. had no idea what they were doing, and then with held their information....cause it would confirm it was paint.

It was, that's why Millette didn't do that, which is what his paper states. Harrit et. al. did not correct the procedure, which is why the paper is crap. Well, there are several reasons why it is crap, but that's one of them.

LoL, what? This makes no sense. Randomly selecting objects is ok? You think that is the scientific process? I don't even know what you're saying.

They weren't positive, that's the problem. There is a presence of kaolin, for one, that cannot exist in thermite. It's impossible to have thermite + kaolin. They debunked themselves, that's why I said it has been debunked forever. Since it's "publication" (I use that phrase VERY lightly) it has been self debunking.

CRAP refers to the paper that confirm Bentham was a bogus joint. Read the above link, it's a pay-to-play. There was no proper peer review, and everyone knows it but you. Even Harrit.

Source? Can you source this? You are making a claim, back it up with something other than more random words. Thanks.

So you're saying it makes WAY more sense to think it was thermite, because that is much more likely than...styrofoam. Despite there being no det cord, no timers, and nothing at all to indicate in anyway there were explosives. It would make more sense to assume it's thermite than styrofoam. You're a Poe right? Seriously? Are you?

For the thousandth (*)(*)(*)(*)ing time, the EPA wasn't in charge of a criminal investigation. The NIST was not apart of the criminal investigation, and to answer your ridiculous question, yes, it is proper. There was nothing, nothing at all indicating that this was a demolition. There is not, and nor was there, any reason at all to test for explosives. Even at this very moment, I think the implication is completely absurd. Look at the collapses, there is absolutely no way they were demos.

You'll fit in well here, Koko's a "lawyer" and 'Fraud works in "IT". Together you guys can get a group together, you can call it "dudesfor9/11T"

 

I notice he conveinetly left out the even MORE incredible inane THEORY, the NIST report and 9/11 coverup commission report.

 

when confronted with pesky facts they cant refute ignoring details like what you mentioned of thermite was declared AFTER the the tests were postive- and are cornered,thats when they get desperate and start using insults as kid.never fails,dodge those pesky facts about thermite being declared after tests showed positive.If they would read griffings book,something they have obvipusly never done,they would know the book debunks their pitiful DEBWUNKER links which I proved,are lies.

 

I am not going to argue this with you. It's fact. There is no possible point of argument on this. I'm going to spell this out for you ONE TIME... If you can't grasp it this time.... then you do not understand basic high school level physics to continue this discussion.

There was molten metal at 9/11. We have photos. We have videos. We have statement made by civilians, and first responders, and the clean up crews. This is not up for debate, it is established FACT.



Does that look like the metal is "just weakened....." to your eye balls? Or is that melted metal? Duh... "weakened" steel does not turn into bright yellow balls flowing like water.

The only question is, how did steel get melted 79 floors up? Jet fuel? No. It's called "high school level physics class". The melt temp of Steel is 1370ºC, is greater than 315ºC open air burn temp of jet fuel. Conclusion (Jet fuel + burning) ≠ Melted Metal.

This is a fact. A law of physics. You can't melt steel with jet fuel. Yet..... we have clear undeniable evidence of melted metal.

I'm going spell this out........
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that jet fuel created that river of molten metal. There is no possible way that jet fuel left POOLS OF MOLTEN METAL a week after the crash.

PERIOD! You are wrong. I would have to throw everything I know, all my education, everything I was ever taught, and believe that the magic tooth fairy suspended the laws of physics, to believe what you are saying. It's wrong. Sorry Mr Tooth-fairy-believer, you are wrong.

...... AND....

For the record... The amount of heat required to even "weaken" the steel.... There are various estimates, but the generally accepted heat level is 700ºC. Notice a small problem? Again.... Jet Fuel open air burn temp is 315ºC. How do you get a fuel that burns at 315ºC to weaken Steel at 700ºC?

And just to mock that a little more........



Well looky there....... That's amazing! A woman, standing in the hole, where *YOU* claim that the Steel right above her head, as at least 700ºC or 1300ºF. Right? The steel was at least hot enough to weaken, and she's standing right in the hole where all that jet fuel was burning and heating up the steel..... right?

She must have been Wonder Woman, with amazing powers of invincibility. Or.... maybe it wasn't hot, like you claim.

 

LoneStr said molten Steel, not molten Metal. There was plenty of molten metal, there were 200 cars parked under the WTC, mostly made of aluminium, which melted and burned. He said there was no molten steel. There is a difference between molten steel, and molten metal.

Tell me again how controlled demolition leaves molten metal in the rubble?

Btw, the women in your picture is standing in an opening where a lot of air/oxygen is rushing in to feed to raging fires above. She's effectively standing in the vent of a fire place, which is cold. But you already knew that.

 

You summed it up nicely....what these truthers fail to understand is that all the fire had to do was weaken the structure and if the paper littering manhattan after the planes hit,there was flenty of combustables in the towers, and him showing 'glowing' metal pulled from the debris pile is NOT 'molten steel',plus we don't know what metal was running out of the tower

 

First off... bottom line... I'm not going to play the "what's your source!" game. I don't need to prove anything to you. The information on this topic has been widely available for over a decade now. There are thousands of sources, from photos, to videos, to statements by the people who were there, and on and on and on and on and on. Just letting you know right now, I don't give the slightest crap in the world what you think of me, I'm not playing this game with you. After all these years, if you are not capable of looking it up yourself, then go away. I got better things to do then play games with you. You are just not that important to me. I'm here to talk to the people who are interested in hearing the other side to the story. They can look up the information themselves, and make up their own mind. I'm not here to spoon feed a baby.

Clear? Moving on.

If it is not steel, then we have another problem. Where did the mystery metal come from? Certainly you don't think plastic chairs, and cheap wooden desks were the source. I think we can rule out concrete and hung ceilings. It certainly wasn't aluminum from the aircraft, which melts into a silver liquid. So what other source of metal is there? Just the steel in the building. It could be iron, which causes additional problems because Iron has an even higher melt temp, and iron isn't used in construction.

But no matter what the source, it could not have been because of those two planes.

And no, don't be silly. Are you seriously suggesting that transformers were out around the outer wall of the building? Name one building with that design.

No, the sub-station power systems were located in the MERs (Mechanical Equipment Rooms), and neither plane hit the floors which had those rooms. WTC 1 was hit no where even close to an MER, and WTC 2 was hit three to four floors above the 75 floor MER.

When the fire fighters climbed up the floors, they never reported any damage to the lower MER. The top MER was on the 108th floor. Further, the MER floors, were special, in that they had a wall around the floor. There was actually a space between the MERs and the outer wall. In short they were designed specifically to prevent a transformer blow out, from escaping the building. It would be impossible for sparks to shoot out the sides of the building, even if some how a power surge caused at the floor of the plane crash, went to a transformer at an MER level resulted in a blowout.

Again, I have no intention of justify anything with you. The evidence has been out there for a decade. Go look. Educate yourself.

Really.... so in your world, you think that jet fuel fell down a shaft for 79 floors and blew out the lobby?

Again, the facts are there was damage to the lobby. I don't need to explain how that happened, because it's a fact that it happened. We have the videos. The fire fighters themselves said it was true. Now unless the fire fighters are all lying, and the videos the fire department made were all doctored.... this is a fact. It happened.

And lastly, show me the fire. There was a lady standing in the hole where the plane hit. She wasn't burning. She was waving.

You don't know jack, and think you are going to tell others to learn something? Practice what you preach baptist boy. Go learn something, and come back when you don't sound so stupid.

No concrete pillars. I misspoke. Core of the building had steel box-columns, the "smaller" of which was 36" by 16". The larger was 52 inches by 22 inches. These are huge. So I ask again.... do you really think that an aluminum wing of an aircraft, that just shattered into a fire ball after smashing through the outer steel frame of the building, is going to slice through these columns sufficiently enough to sever a shaft down to the lobby?

Nah.

And you are just flat out loony if you think that jet fuel that just exploded into a fire ball, is going to flow down that shaft, and collect in sufficient quantity at the lobby to explode and damage the lobby. Not happening.

 

The common game of the 'truther'. They have no evidence, so they get all indignant when asked for a source.