Nanothermite paper, if you think it is bull shit then show us your evidence

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

>Ignorant!

Aaaaand . . . your last warning,

How about you reply to his evidence that you specifically asked for.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

or are you going to ignore it completely.


I find it difficult to descibe ingnorance without using the term ignorant. When someone ignores something repeatedy , like you have in this debate, how do you suggest I describe that dimenour?

If I can be called a nut job, a tin hatter, or an idiot over and over when these claims are unsubstanciated, and unchallenged, it does seem a little one sided when I point out verifiable actions of someone and I am warned about it while blatent PA based on nothing but emotions is overlooked.

Exactly what do you think that chart shows, rhys?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Answer these questions: IF your nanothermite is so explosive and easy to ignite

Can you show me where i said it was easy to ignite?

It can be ignoted with a blow torch and a laser, this does not define an easy ignition.

Quote

What do you think I have been talking about? You are too busy assuming those red and grey chips are naothermite, and that they were not mixed into the samples after collection, to accept any other explanation.

you said take a sample of dirt, and loo at it and it will give you the same results.
you lied, it would only be possible if there were red grey chips of unexploded nano thermite in the dirt, but the dirt itself is not an example of the carbon matrix that holds the aluminium dust and the iron oxide dust to gether with the other trace elements that make up the thermitc composition.

Quote

why is there so much undetonated that it is everywhere around the sight?

Your guess is a good as mine, and explosion maybe. Do not expect me to answer questions that remain unanswered by your government. Acoording to NIST they did not look for explosives becasue there was not enough sound in the audio of the video recordings to do so. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials
including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosion investigations by the NFPA 921 code. If NIST had done thier job and not dry labbed a result they wished for, then thay would answer that question as that is what they were paid $50,000,000 to do.

Quote

Why has not one single person out of the hundreds it would take to pull this off come forward with information?

"Hi everybody, i commited treason and have made enormous amounts of money out of it, I live in luxury but i feel so bad that I thought I eould come clean and face the death penalty now".

But seriously, just because people applied such substances, does not necessarily mean the knew what they were applying.

the fireproofing upgrades and elevator upgrades in the years leading up to the attcks could easily explain the access to do such a job, the fireproofing itself could have been this substance.

but that is speculation and that is what you are requestion fo me to go off on some tangent.

the fact remains that this highly explosive substance exists, and if it was planted in the samples then it would be easy to prove that. the official investigators are not willing to venture into looking for explosives as they seem to be that aware that terrorists do not use explosives in terrorist attacks or anything that is capable of demolishing a building would have to produce a loud noise, so looking for them is unwarrented?


yet fire alone is supposed to be capable of such destruction.

where is the continuity?

Quote

Why is it every time one of your theories is disproven you refuse to accept the facts and come up with an even more fantastic theory?

maybe you have some parrellel universe where you have refuted these claims, but you have not shown us here this evidence, you just lay claim to it.

Bill is the only one that has attempted to show us evidence, but unfortunatly it was of somthing completely different to what was asked of him.

you bring nothing but words to an argument, I have evidence.

I see you are going with the, it was planted thing, then how do you prove it was planted?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Exactly what do you think that chart shows, rhys?

The evidence of iron rich shperes that Bill asked for.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billvon 3,009]

>The evidence of iron rich shperes that Bill asked for.

That chart shows a breakdown of dust from the WTC. It shows lots of iron, aluminum, oxygen, silicon and calcium. This is not surprising since they are the elements that the WTC was made of. They are also the five most abundant elements in the crust of the earth, which means that plain old dust/dirt has those elements in high concentrations as well.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Have you done as I suggested and taken a sample to be tested? Before calling somebody a liar i would suggest you have hard evidence. Your uneducated attempts at interpreting test results is not sufficient to call anybody a liar.

Explosives that can be detonated with a torch are VERY easy to set off. Most just burn when exposed to flame.

So you are saying that an administration that is so inept it cannot keep the identity of it's undercover personel secret somehow managed to convince hundreds of people to remain silent after killing 2500+ of their own citizens?

Quote

Do not expect me to answer questions that remain unanswered by your government.

Ok, I won't. But isn't that just what you are attempting to do? It is a good example of how dangerous self-educated people can be when their education barely scratches the surface of what they truly need to have a full understanding of what they are talking about.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

I don't know.., I guess it's just a silly thing but, according to the data recovered from the flight data recorder , the cockpit door never opened on that flight.

Ahhhh That because the cockpit door is NOT a parameter recorded on the FDR. I can post a list of the things that are if you would like.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

>I guess it's just a silly thing but, according to the data recovered from the
>flight data recorder , the cockpit door never opened on that flight.

The cockpit door sensor was not installed on American Airlines 757's. The data field in the flight recorder is still there since the FDR records everything from all channels, even if those channels don't connect to anything.

I don't know how many of American Airlines 757s you've been in command of . Captain Ralph Kolstad with American has an opposing view to yours.

DLJ

Is that really all you got? Even if that plane was built to record that data, it could have been disconnected later. Even if some American Airlines 757s are provided from Boeing with that data being recorded, it doesn't mean that all of them are. Every airplane can be different, sometimes they are, I used to do this kind of stuff for them (Flight deck design).

Seriously, you brought up a number of really trivial "problems", and even you admitted that they weren't such a problem when reasonable explanations were offered. Why is this door position data not the same?

You have been provided these troublesome little "problems" by the conspiracy theorists. What they don't bother to tell you is that each one of them is actually not a problem -is easily understood as nothing unusual, and the conspiracy theorists know it. Therefore, they are lying with each and every one of these "problems". Why do you think that they will do any different for this door "issue"?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,009]

>I don't know how many of American Airlines 757s you've been in
>command of . Captain Ralph Kolstad with American has an opposing view
>to yours.

OK.

The Boeing document entitled "Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit - 757 - Database Interface Control and Requirements" D226A101-3 seems to have an opposing view to both you and Captain Kolstad.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

seems highly unlikely

Seems in whose opinion? Lets ask someone who's worked an incident investigation....................Nope-doesn't seem unlikely to me. So, what experience do you bring to the table?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

I see you are going with the, it was planted thing, then how do you prove it was planted?

I don't have to prove it, and I never made that claim...I only raised the possibility.
In the world of scientific examination and reporting it is up to the writer to provided enough information so that the experiment can be independently reproduced to verify the results. The source of the samples is enough to cast doubt.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Hey, wanna talk about 7/7 in a different thread?

Not really.

How about you acknowledge the the bullshit that you're talking about 9/11 in this thread?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Hi DJ,

I do appreciate it that there is somone else willing to ask questions, but please do not fall for the straw man techniques these guys 'always use' to take you away from points thay cannot refute.

The point that DJ raised can and has been refuted.

No one has dodged it, there's no need for anyone to move away from it - he is quite simply, provably, wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rhys 0]

Quote

That chart shows a breakdown of dust from the WTC. It shows lots of iron, aluminum, oxygen, silicon and calcium. This is not surprising since they are the elements that the WTC was made of. They are also the five most abundant elements in the crust of the earth, which means that plain old dust/dirt has those elements in high concentrations as well.

iron spheres are produced by melting iron, the melting point of iron is what Bill?

or how else do you suggest the spheres were formed.?

you asked for evidence of the spheres, I gave it to you then you get on with your straw man argument based on ignorance.

that is quite expected however, but I did show you what you asked for.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

That chart shows a breakdown of dust from the WTC. It shows lots of iron, aluminum, oxygen, silicon and calcium. This is not surprising since they are the elements that the WTC was made of. They are also the five most abundant elements in the crust of the earth, which means that plain old dust/dirt has those elements in high concentrations as well.

iron spheres are produced by melting iron, the melting point of iron is what Bill?

or how else do you suggest the spheres were formed.?

you asked for evidence of the spheres, I gave it to you then you get on with your straw man argument based on ignorance.

that is quite expected however, but I did show you what you asked for.

Do you think the iron spheres came from the WTC? Do you honestly think there is nothing in the surrounding area that could produce them?
Let me give you a hint: The WTC buildings were iron structures. Iron structures that were welded. Welding steel is done by...now pay attention...melting steel.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I don't have to prove it, and I never made that claim...I only raised the possibility.
In the world of scientific examination and reporting it is up to the writer to provided enough information so that the experiment can be independently reproduced to verify the results. The source of the samples is enough to cast doubt.

The source of the samples is enough to cast doubt?

how so?

What are you implying?


The paper included all that you say it should, but you didn't even take the time to read it before you discredited it, did you?

All this because you are acting out of emotion and not commmon sense.

It is bizzare that you ask this, when it is clearly published in the journal, Bill askes for evidence of the iron spheres which is also publised in the journal.

So not only do you ignore the evidence you also ignore the journal itself, yet you wish to discredit it.

You call scientists that have the time and energy to creates shuch a journal idiots, lyers and nutcases, yet you suggest we take you seriously when you havn't even taken the time to read it.

You are not worth the energy pal.

An you fancy yourself as an engineer, what a joke.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't have to prove it, and I never made that claim...I only raised the possibility.
In the world of scientific examination and reporting it is up to the writer to provided enough information so that the experiment can be independently reproduced to verify the results. The source of the samples is enough to cast doubt.

The paper included all that, but you didn't even take the time to read it before you discredited it, di you?

All this because you are acting out of emotion and not commmon sense.

It is bizzare that you ask this, when it is clearly published in the journal, Bill askes for evidence of the iron spheres which is also publised in the journal.

So not only do you ignore the evidence you also ignore the journal itself, yet you wish to discredit it.

You call scientists that have the time and energy to creates shuch a journal idiots, lyers and nutcases, yet you suggest we take you seriously when you havn't even taken the time to read it.

You are not worth the energy pal.

An you fancy yourself as an engineer, what a joke.

Yes, i read the paper. Ask any other engineer or scientist if they would take seriously any paper that bases its conclusions on samples from an untracable origin. You won't find any.

The spheres your buddy found and reported on are from the concrete in the WTC and not from any sort of thermitic explosive or incendiary.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Yes, i read the paper. Ask any other engineer or scientist if they would take seriously any paper that bases its conclusions on samples from an untracable origin. You won't find any.

how do you suggest the origins are untracable;

Quote

The spheres your buddy found and reported on are from the concrete in the WTC and not from any sort of thermitic explosive or incendiary.

haha and your definative statement is based on what evidence?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

how do you suggest the origins are untracable;

"All four samples were originally collected by private
citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis..."
Not exactly tracable or reliable let alone scientific. "I got it from some guy who said he got it from his laundry room"

Quote

haha and your definative statement is based on what evidence?

Don't know much about flyash and its use in concrete, do you?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

"All four samples were originally collected by private
citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis..."
Not exactly tracable or reliable let alone scientific. "I got it from some guy who said he got it from his laundry room" Laugh

the scientists have asked numerous times for samples from NIST and government depatrments, but guess what. they are not allowed any.

If you beloved government agencies that are all squeaky clean and so correct have nothing to hide and want to make sure an event like this never happens again, they would allow access to such materials. Instead they keep them behind lock and key.

these observations are repeatable, each sample was collected from independant sources, and each showed the same results. there is a mountain of that dust available for observation. these obsevations are very repeatable.

You are now down to saying that these samples are not samples from the WTC dust, and that the thermite was planted.

That is a weak and unsubstanciated argument.

You could have just said that all along but you didn't you were forced to say that as you cannot refute the paper and its findings.

your ethic is dubious.

Quote

Don't know much about flyash and its use in concrete, do you?

Quote

I expect that collapse theory defenders will dismiss the discovery of active thermitic material in the same way that they dismissed the thermite residues: by claiming that the samples were contaminated and/or that there are other explanations for the origin of these artifacts than pyrotechnics in the WTC Towers. "Debunkers" have proposed that the iron-rich spheres were fly ash residues embedded in the Towers' concrete, ignoring that the iron constituents in fly ash are oxides rather than elemental iron. How will they explain away the bi-layered chips, whose red layers have iron oxide and elemental aluminum in the ratio of Fe2O3 thermite as nano-sized particles of uniform shape?

predictible, so predictable that the answer to your reply was published in one of articles i linked to in this thread.


maybe if you actually read stuff you would be spared these embaressing moments.

you mistake elemental iron for iron oxide and say I have no clue.
Iron rich spheres are not the same as iron oxide. try again sherlock.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billvon 3,009]

>iron spheres are produced by melting iron, the melting point of iron is
>what Bill?

About 1500C.

>or how else do you suggest the spheres were formed.?

The table you posted didn't say anything about spheres. It showed several common materials seen in dust, including basalt (a rock), rock wool (extruded basalt often used for insulation) soda lime glass (i.e. ordinary glass) concrete etc.

>but I did show you what you asked for.

Uh, no. You keep posting graphs and pictures that you don't seem to understand, and then claiming that equals proof. It does not. Anyone can post pictures and graphs.

[rhys 0]

Quote

The table you posted didn't say anything about spheres. It showed several common materials seen in dust, including basalt (a rock), rock wool (extruded basalt often used for insulation) soda lime glass (i.e. ordinary glass) concrete etc.

Go back to the table and read it more clearly, look a the 'iron - 03' and 'iron - 04' column and read the description. the word 'sphere' generally means 'sphere' wouuld you not agree? then when you scroll across to the photo column, you will see the word 'yes', that yes is a link to a photo of an example of the sphere.

The rest of your post is moot (in the obsolete sense) as this descibes pefectly what you asked for.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billvon 3,009]

>Go back to the table and read it more clearly, look a the 'iron - 03'
>and 'iron - 04' column and read the description.

You are correct - missed that column, sorry. Yes, they described metal spheres.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

these observations are repeatable, each sample was collected from independant sources, and each showed the same results

Once again, I never claimed they were tampered with. I only pointed out the possibility they were due to how the samples were collected and handled. You are wrong in your assertion that the samples were collected in proper manner. They weren't since the writer has only the assurance of each person that they got the samples as they claim.

Think about it, rhys. Which makes more sense: Dozens or hundreds of people conspiring and working over months to destroy several buildings while murduring their own countrymen....or one or two non-objective people intentionally contaminating dust samples with a substance they want to be sure is found?

BTW, the iron oxide spheres in fly ash are not pure iron oxide. The ratio of Fe2O3/Fe varies considerably and can actually change over time due to reactions with other elements within the concrete. In some instances these spheres are almost entirely Fe and, as Bill explained earlier, when forced airborne they will segregate into groups of similar size and composition.

Since you read the paper and have a complete understanding of the contents.....what percentage of the raw samples were elemental Fe in any form?

The paper is also very poorly written. If I had submitted a work like that while in engineering college it would have been thrown back into my face.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

these observations are repeatable, each sample was collected from independant sources, and each showed the same results

Once again, I never claimed they were tampered with. I only pointed out the possibility they were due to how the samples were collected and handled. You are wrong in your assertion that the samples were collected in proper manner. They weren't since the writer has only the assurance of each person that they got the samples as they claim.

Think about it, rhys. Which makes more sense: Dozens or hundreds of people conspiring and working over months to destroy several buildings while murduring their own countrymen....or one or two non-objective people intentionally contaminating dust samples with a substance they want to be sure is found?

BTW, the iron oxide spheres in fly ash are not pure iron oxide. The ratio of Fe2O3/Fe varies considerably and can actually change over time due to reactions with other elements within the concrete. In some instances these spheres are almost entirely Fe and, as Bill explained earlier, when forced airborne they will segregate into groups of similar size and composition.

Since you read the paper and have a complete understanding of the contents.....what percentage of the raw samples were elemental Fe in any form?

The paper is also very poorly written. If I had submitted a work like that while in engineering college it would have been thrown back into my face.

Speaking of paper

I want to know how many rolls of toilet paper there were in the WTC

Just sayin

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

I want to know how many rolls of toilet paper there were in the WTC

None. The thieving conspirators who planted the nanothermite stole it all when they left. Rumor is they even took all the light bulbs. (Were any intact lightbulbs found in the debris? No! Proof that it was an inside job.)

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.