billvon 3,009 #276 November 9, 2010 >>the US is attacking countries alphabetically. .... >What an idiotic comment. You know what the rest of the world is thinking? >From what source? Sesame Street. It's part of the US's right wing PBS culture-of-war indoctrination program. "A is for - Afghanistan! B is for - Bosnia! C is for - Colombia!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #277 November 9, 2010 Quote >>the US is attacking countries alphabetically. .... >What an idiotic comment. You know what the rest of the world is thinking? >From what source? Sesame Street. It's part of the US's right wing PBS culture-of-war indoctrination program. "A is for - Afghanistan! B is for - Bosnia! C is for - Colombia!" Holy sh*t, that means, we're next: "D" (Deutschland)?? How could I miss this source - oh wait, we do not have such a service over here. Serious defense error. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #278 November 9, 2010 Quote Quote >>the US is attacking countries alphabetically. .... >What an idiotic comment. You know what the rest of the world is thinking? >From what source? Sesame Street. It's part of the US's right wing PBS culture-of-war indoctrination program. "A is for - Afghanistan! B is for - Bosnia! C is for - Colombia!" Holy sh*t, that means, we're next: "D" (Deutschland)?? How could I miss this source - oh wait, we do not have such a service over here. Serious defense error. Not sure if the list is using "D" or "G" this time around. BTW - getting Panama out of sequence was really just a cunning ruse to try to confuse future adversaries who may have cracked the code. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #279 November 9, 2010 Quote>>the US is attacking countries alphabetically. .... >What an idiotic comment. You know what the rest of the world is thinking? >From what source? Sesame Street. It's part of the US's right wing PBS culture-of-war indoctrination program. "A is for - Afghanistan! B is for - Bosnia! C is for - Colombia!" Phew. Thanks for bypassing us and heading straight for Columbia. Signed Canada. PS. you still get to keep Celine Dion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #280 November 9, 2010 QuoteQuote>>the US is attacking countries alphabetically. .... >What an idiotic comment. You know what the rest of the world is thinking? >From what source? Sesame Street. It's part of the US's right wing PBS culture-of-war indoctrination program. "A is for - Afghanistan! B is for - Bosnia! C is for - Colombia!" Phew. Thanks for bypassing us and heading straight for Columbia. Signed Canada. PS. you still get to keep Celine Dion. Not enough brown people to kill in Canada. (Re. George Carlin)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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #281 November 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote>>the US is attacking countries alphabetically. .... >What an idiotic comment. You know what the rest of the world is thinking? >From what source? Sesame Street. It's part of the US's right wing PBS culture-of-war indoctrination program. "A is for - Afghanistan! B is for - Bosnia! C is for - Colombia!" Phew. Thanks for bypassing us and heading straight for Columbia. Signed Canada. PS. you still get to keep Celine Dion. Not enough brown people to kill in Canada. (Re. George Carlin) Besides, we've infiltrated enough of the US society that we now control their empire building agenda... MUAHHHHAAHHHHHAAHHHHAAAAA!!!!!Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #282 November 9, 2010 Where oh where are you tonight? Why did you leave me(us) here all alone? Time to answer simple question I posed, rhys! (Jeopardy music plays....) 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #283 November 9, 2010 QuoteQuote .... The rest of the world thinks the US is attacking countries alphabetically. .... What an idiotic comment. .... Why, yes! Thanks for noticing! It fits right in with most of the rest of this thread, don't you think? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #284 November 9, 2010 >Besides, we've infiltrated enough of the US society that we now control >their empire building agenda... So you're the shadowy mastermind behind Bert and Ernie, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #285 November 9, 2010 Quote Quote >>the US is attacking countries alphabetically. .... >What an idiotic comment. You know what the rest of the world is thinking? >From what source? Sesame Street. It's part of the US's right wing PBS culture-of-war indoctrination program. "A is for - Afghanistan! B is for - Bosnia! C is for - Colombia!" Holy sh*t, that means, we're next: "D" (Deutschland)?? How could I miss this source - oh wait, we do not have such a service over here. Serious defense error. HA - that shows just how much you know - you don't even know that you live in GERMANY!!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #286 November 9, 2010 Quote>Besides, we've infiltrated enough of the US society that we now control >their empire building agenda... So you're the shadowy mastermind behind Bert and Ernie, eh? Green Card... Lorne Green... Coincidence?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #287 November 9, 2010 Quote>>the US is attacking countries alphabetically. .... >What an idiotic comment. You know what the rest of the world is thinking? >From what source? Sesame Street. It's part of the US's right wing PBS culture-of-war indoctrination program. "A is for - Afghanistan! B is for - Bosnia! C is for - Colombia!" Bosnia was done with libs in charge leading the way, Afghanistan has the full blessing of OBarry and co. It is the "good" war, haven't you heard?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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #288 November 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Phew. Thanks for bypassing us and heading straight for Columbia. Signed Canada. PS. you still get to keep Celine Dion. Not enough brown people to kill in Canada. (Re. George Carlin) Besides, we've infiltrated enough of the US society that we now control their empire building agenda... MUAHHHHAAHHHHHAAHHHHAAAAA!!!!! I was thinking we already took care of Canada (America Jr) decades ago. As for the Germans, don't be so vain. Denmark is more important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #289 November 10, 2010 If we still see them as "West" Germany they have plenty of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #290 November 12, 2010 Quote: Quote Iron SPHERES, thus. Iron SPHERES. What was the concentration of iron spheres in the raw samples? And please use an objective source this time. Do your own research and come back to me with results, you are slack and have no point to put across, so how about you actuaslly bring something to the conversation and show us ONE of your denying scientists that have taken the time to refute this paper, scientifically, put it through peer review and published it. You have been saying for a long time now that there are more that defend the official story, then show us one. Not some youtube video fo some angry little right wing warmongers doing brown eys, and calling names like twoofers but an actual scientific journal. I thnk you will have difficulty finding one on the nanothermite subejct, because you are trying to discredit science, you are too slack to investigate for yourself and you ignore pertinant information that is the core of the conversation. Like I suggested earlier, show us your argument. As you have none right now other than insulting words which is not very scientific at all. It is about time you bought some credit to your integrety, as your argument is looking pretty weak now if you are stumped by and illiterate radiophobe with no clue, like you claim me to be. It is about time you step up to the plate. QuoteI am only asking questions that you should be able to answer if you understood the paper. You are asking question that makes a point take about 3 or 4 posts (days) longer than it needs to. You already know the point you are trying to make but youy are simply beating around the bush/fucking around because you want to asses my answer first. QuoteI said it before, this paer would have been tossed back in my face had i submitted it in engineering college. Instead of these ambiguous and unsubstanciated remarks, why don't you actually point out what is wrong with the paper. Something you seem to be reluctant to undertake even though you are so certain it is completely incorrect? QuoteThey drew conclusions before any testing was ever done, compared what they thought was nanothermite to conventional thermitic material when they had no data on how actual nanothermite would perform, etc. They suspected explosives/incendiaries were present, looked for them, found them, experiemented with them, ignited them, put them in an electron microscope, determined thier properties and made a conclusion, had it reviewed, then published. The dogmatic and misleading trash that pushes what you consider to be reality is this piece of spin. science and conspiracy The scientific thermite experiment kinda resembles the 9/11 comission..., it is designed not to work. Watch this presentation, the Great thermate debate that completely describes how you or I could make thermate cutter charges with ordinary ingredients. This is a new video, you would not heve seen it before, and the producer conducts experiments that easily debunks NIST's one and only reason to 'NOT' look for explosive residue and the NG science and conspiracy experiment and conclsion. All using basic home made thermite, much less volatile that the nano thermite others have discovered. Every time some spin hit piece is made of this subejct your science becomes less and less intergrated with reality. QuoteIn short, they knew what they wanted to prove and only performed tests that could back up their suspicians... No they also did experiments to eliminate what others suspected Quote.including testing paint chips that anybody who has taken a high school chem class would know would not react the same as the metallic chips they tested. This is exactly thier point of burning the paint, your lot were saying the red gray chis were just primer, they knew it was not but by experiemnt they could safely conclude it. Yet the red gray chis do ignite, quite violently and produce the microsheres that are the result of a thermitic reaction, a point you so easily sidestep. QuoteNow...answer my question. I already know the answer. What is the point of asking then, I guess some wisguy comment about how much more intellegent than me you are, but beating around the bush is not intellegent, it is childish. QuoteWhat was the concentration of Fe spheres in the samples before they were subjected to destructive tests? Hell, the answer is right there in the report. You did read and understand it, didn't you? QuoteIron-rich microspheres were so common in WTC dust that EPA’s WTC panel discussed their use as one of the signature components to distinguish WTC dust from so-called “background” dust (i.e. common office-building dust). RJ Lee Group, evaluating the contamination of the Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street, also described these iron-rich spheres, and actually used them as one of their signature markers. In other words, dust wasn’t regarded as WTC dust unless it contained these spheres. The chemical composition and micro-images of two WTC iron-rich spheres were documented by the US Geological Survey. The fraction of microspheres in the dust varied (between 0.2 and 1.3 % for USGS outdoor samples and a mean of 5.87% for all RJ Lee samples) depending on the area where the samples were taken. QuoteTime to step up to the plate, bub, and "put your money where your mouth is". Now get to your point... QuoteWhere oh where are you tonight? Why did you leave me(us) here all alone? Time to answer simple question I posed, rhys! Cool (Jeopardy music plays....) I actually have a life outside of this chatroom. So I oppologise if I let my post average slip. But I have been busy working, socialising with my friends, spending time with my wife, and relaxing. Haha, sorry for not being as dedicated as you. I'll elave you with this short clip of a guy that was describing the explosion in the lobby before any plane hit any building, tell me how they can evacuate the north tower from an explosion, be talking about it outside and while doing so the plane hits the building 9/11 Explosion In The North Tower Lobby Eyewitness And before you say this has been fabricated, this video has just been released by the NIST in a database of 5 Tb of footager currently being anylised by independant investigators. Remember NIST say there is not evidence for explosives and they hve just given us plenty that thay have been in posession of for almost a decade. here is another ; Firemen Explosion Testimony Now I have anbswered your quaestion, It is only fair that you answer mine. 'Show me one peer reviewed and published journal that refuted the existance of this Nano enginerred thermitic residue' You say the paper is a joke, but do not explain how, you say most scientists believe the official story yet you do not give us evidence for this. Dogma is not questioned by those that know the result of them doing so. Your actions along with the insulting and disrespectful connotations and childish name calling of others make damned sure they don't. Unfortunately for you, your back up is falling apart. No matter how many times you move the goal post, you still need to score a goal to win."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 806 #291 November 12, 2010 huh...who would have thought slamming a jetliner into a high rise at several hundred miles per hour would result in an explosion type effect??? wow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #292 November 12, 2010 >I'll elave you with this short clip of a guy that was describing the explosion >in the lobby before any plane hit any building, tell me how they can >evacuate the north tower from an explosion, be talking about it outside and >while doing so the plane hits the building. He is talking about the first plane that hit his building (the North tower.) The video shows the second plane hitting the South tower. >here is another ; >Firemen Explosion Testimony They are talking about explosions in the lobby as the building was collapsing, not about nanothermite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #293 November 12, 2010 QuoteHe is talking about the first plane that hit his building (the North tower.) The video shows the second plane hitting the South tower. I stand corrected, that is the south tower and his comments become ambiguous after that fact as he does not descibe where he was in the building when hwe witnessed this. QuoteThey are talking about explosions in the lobby as the building was collapsing, not about nanothermite. 0If you watch that clip you will hear they talk about multipule explosions, on the ground level after the impact and before the collapse. "the third explosion and the whole lobby collapsed on us" "was that a secondary explosion?..., yes" " you people don;t understand, any one of these buildings could blow up, this aint done yet" It is quite clear that they are not talking about the plane impacting, or the building itself collapsing they are talking about an explosion in the lobby, that made all the stone tiles and ceiling collapse onto them. If it was the building that was collapsing on them and they were in the lobby, dou you really think they would have made it out... Think about it, and take of your dogma goggles. Listen to common sence. You seem to have your wires crossed about the nano thermite, Nobody is saying that nano thermite was the only incendiary/explosive that was used. It may well be, but nobody has said that, they have just found traces of it so it was at least one of the inendiaried found. I don't see you commenting on the shperes any more, nor the experiment that clearly shows that thermite can indeed cut through steel columns and that the National Geographic experiment was a fraud, intended to persuade the public that they have nothing to worry about. Propoganda so to speak. I don't see you debating their false and misleading conclusion, because it helps your false argument. Now how about you or one of your buddies there, show me some evidence that the nano thermite paper was false, incorrect, or misunderstood. You cannot becasue it was well produced and repeatable."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #294 November 12, 2010 Ok, rhys, a couple points to make communicating with each other much easier. First, don't copy the entire thread in a reply. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, to tell what you have written and what was already there. Second, stop contadicting yourself and give data and evidnece that makes sense. You posted, "The chemical composition and micro-images of two WTC iron-rich spheres were documented by the US Geological Survey. The fraction of microspheres in the dust varied (between 0.2 and 1.3 % for USGS outdoor samples and a mean of 5.87% for all RJ Lee samples) depending on the area where the samples were taken." Several points to make. -Why believe the government now? In all other matters concerning 911 you call them liars so why accept their findings on the dust? -What did Jones and Company find in theirs for iron sphere concentration? You can't say because they didn't do a complete analysis which pretty much means their entire report is second-rate high school level bullshit. -Bill has addressed the explosions. -I don't have to show you a peer reviewed article to disprove your bs. It is up to YOU to prove your assertions, which you have not done to anyones satisfaction but your own. -Yes, thermite is easy to make. It is also very easy to find thermitic, reacted and unreacted, material in almost any residue of a building fire. -Jones and company had only HEARD of nanothermite and had never studied it or seen it. Therefore, they have absolutely no foundation on which to base their comparisons. -The towers collapsed as a result of damage from impact and fires caused by the aircraft. Nothing more. This has been proven by many completely independent studies and analysis. Sorry, bub, but those are the facts. You are sitting on a bench with Kennedy CT's, moon landing denyers, and Elvis-seeing-hippies. (Apologies to Elvis fans everywhere, myself included)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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nigel99 507 #295 November 12, 2010 Have you considered that secondary explosions are quite possibly a result of oil/gas/electricity fires and subsequent explosions? Back in the day growing up in Africa the electricity substations were armed by soldiers. One day a "large" electrical breaker tripped and the fire quenching gas cylinders did their job (sulphur hexafluoride) One of the soldiers opened fire believing that he was under attack. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #296 November 12, 2010 >If you watch that clip you will hear they talk about multipule explosions, >on the ground level after the impact and before the collapse. Agreed. >or the building itself collapsing they are talking about an explosion in >the lobby, that made all the stone tiles and ceiling collapse onto them. Also agreed. At the time large pieces of the building were falling off and landing outside. Dozens of rescuers were hit by everything from falling broken glass to falling thousand-pound chunks of building - and, sadly, by falling bodies. It was bad enough that they stopped evacuating people from the lobby, and brought them underground via the parking garage to the street exit. They also moved the FDNY command center away from the lobby for that reason; the falling debris was hitting so hard that it was putting the lobby at risk. When a thousand pound chunk of building falls and impacts at 160mph outside the lobby you are in, you might justifiably describe it as "an explosion." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #297 November 12, 2010 QuoteNow how about you or one of your buddies there, show me some evidence that the nano thermite paper was false, incorrect, or misunderstood. You cannot becasue it was well produced and repeatable. Holy shit, dude. Do you even bother to read what people post in their replies to your crap? That paper and the research it was based on have been shown to be completely rejectable partially in part because it is NOT repeatable! There is no reliable chain of custody for the samples nor their handling. The testing was done with an outcome already determined.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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #298 November 12, 2010 Quote>If you watch that clip you will hear they talk about multipule explosions, >on the ground level after the impact and before the collapse. Agreed. >or the building itself collapsing they are talking about an explosion in >the lobby, that made all the stone tiles and ceiling collapse onto them. Also agreed. At the time large pieces of the building were falling off and landing outside. Dozens of rescuers were hit by everything from falling broken glass to falling thousand-pound chunks of building - and, sadly, by falling bodies. It was bad enough that they stopped evacuating people from the lobby, and brought them underground via the parking garage to the street exit. They also moved the FDNY command center away from the lobby for that reason; the falling debris was hitting so hard that it was putting the lobby at risk. When a thousand pound chunk of building falls and impacts at 160mph outside the lobby you are in, you might justifiably describe it as "an explosion." I might add that, in all likelyhood, the people who claimed to have heard an explosion....had never heard explosion other than in a movie. I guarrantee it is not even close to the same thing.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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #299 November 12, 2010 Quote Think about it, and take of your dogma goggles. Listen to common sence. Irony scale. Quote Now how about you or one of your buddies there, show me some evidence that the nano thermite paper was false, incorrect, or misunderstood. You cannot becasue it was well produced and repeatable. Prove to me you're not crazy. You can't - in general it's extremely difficult to disprove a negative. That's why the burden of proof is on you, not us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #300 November 12, 2010 Quote Ok, rhys, a couple points to make communicating with each other much easier. First, don't copy the entire thread in a reply. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, to tell what you have written and what was already there. I was taking the subject mater back from the schoolyard name calling and ego building excersizes to the subject at hand. Quote Second, stop contadicting yourself and give data and evidnece that makes sense. Once again a typical response form you, instead of ambiguous comments that are not highlighting anyhting in particular but your desire to discredit me, why not try addressing the subject itself. for example, what data is contradicting and what evidence does not make sense? Quote Several points to make. -Why believe the government now? In all other matters concerning 911 you call them liars so why accept their findings on the dust? that is an outright lie, They say a plane impacted the two towers, I beleive that and them, there are many many factors that are agreed between the 9/11TM nd th offical account. Quote -What did Jones and Company find in theirs for iron sphere concentration? You can't say because they didn't do a complete analysis which pretty much means their entire report is second-rate high school level bullshit. So by your rationale, because they failed to take an account of the percentage of sperees in the dust as apposed to everything else, renders the dicovery of the powerful incendiary withing the said samples useless? Quote -Bill has addressed the explosions. Correct he has, but he has not addressed them correctly. Quote -I don't have to show you a peer reviewed article to disprove your bs. That is because you cannot, not because you don't want to. You would have posted one long ago if you could have, you have been looking but there is not one available to you is there. Quote It is up to YOU to prove your assertions, which you have not done to anyones satisfaction but your own. You still have not explained what is incorrect about the paper, you say you don't have to because they did not make an account of what percentage of the dust was iron spheres. That is irrelevant when you find evidence of highly engineered incendaries within the dust. The Spheres were separated from the other materials with a powerful magnet and the lightly magnetic properties of the red grey chips allowed them to be extracted with the spheres. It is not up to me to prove my assertions to you when we give you vidence, it is up to you to prove that this evidence is incorrect. and ignoring the point and makeing some irelevant point about you teacher in school is just dancing around semantics rather than getting to the point. i'm sure you teacher threw plenty of papers back at you if you fucked around as much as you do here, when it comes to getting to the point. What evidence do you have that this nano thermite is not in the dust, your official sources have admitted to not looking for it, and the only people that have looked for it, have found it, in abundence. they have identified its properties beyond reasonable doubt. You don't really have an argument until you addrees the point, but I am not going to hold my breath though, you are quite predictable. Quote -Yes, thermite is easy to make. It is also very easy to find thermitic, reacted and unreacted, material in almost any residue of a building fire. if it is so easy, then show us the evidence, words are words bro, and that is all you seem to have. If it is so easy to find thermitic material in fire residue, give us one example that resembes what we are talking about here. I suggest you are lying. You said unreacted and reacted. Just an example of unreacted will do, I really doubt you will find anything as unreacted thermitic material is usually reacted by fire. What a fucking joke, you are all hot air and no substance. Quote -Jones and company had only HEARD of nanothermite and had never studied it or seen it. Therefore, they have absolutely no foundation on which to base their comparisons. When you get physicits, chemists and scientists together that have deep understandings of the subject, you can be sure that they can positively identify that nano thermite is nano thermite. they are more than qualified to do so, and you are not. That conclusion of yours is pure trash, and you somehow put yourself above others that have much more experience than you. pure arrogance and ignorence. Quote -The towers collapsed as a result of damage from impact and fires caused by the aircraft. Nothing more. This has been proven by many completely independent studies and analysis... using the data and information given to them from FEMA and the NIST, which are themselves in question here This is because these are the only entities that have had access to the evidence, so the independant investigators are reliant on bogus information. what are these many independant investigators? It is about time you bacme more specific, les ambiguous, arrogant and ignorant, and actually address the subject matter, rather than dancing around it and calling names, and discrediting those you have no authority to discredit. Quote Sorry, bub, but those are the facts. You are sitting on a bench with Kennedy CT's, moon landing denyers, and Elvis-seeing-hippies. (Apologies to Elvis fans everywhere, myself included) Once again you make irrelevant points, to make a false basis for your absurd beleifs. It is about time you grew up a little and showed us the skills of engineering you supposedly have. Dancing around semantics and name calling is not professional, it may get you brownie points with the other outspoken idiots here, but it does you no justice. Read the title of the thread and tell me where you have ever addressed the subject? you simply avoid it like the plague."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 12 of 13 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
normiss 806 #291 November 12, 2010 huh...who would have thought slamming a jetliner into a high rise at several hundred miles per hour would result in an explosion type effect??? wow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #292 November 12, 2010 >I'll elave you with this short clip of a guy that was describing the explosion >in the lobby before any plane hit any building, tell me how they can >evacuate the north tower from an explosion, be talking about it outside and >while doing so the plane hits the building. He is talking about the first plane that hit his building (the North tower.) The video shows the second plane hitting the South tower. >here is another ; >Firemen Explosion Testimony They are talking about explosions in the lobby as the building was collapsing, not about nanothermite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #293 November 12, 2010 QuoteHe is talking about the first plane that hit his building (the North tower.) The video shows the second plane hitting the South tower. I stand corrected, that is the south tower and his comments become ambiguous after that fact as he does not descibe where he was in the building when hwe witnessed this. QuoteThey are talking about explosions in the lobby as the building was collapsing, not about nanothermite. 0If you watch that clip you will hear they talk about multipule explosions, on the ground level after the impact and before the collapse. "the third explosion and the whole lobby collapsed on us" "was that a secondary explosion?..., yes" " you people don;t understand, any one of these buildings could blow up, this aint done yet" It is quite clear that they are not talking about the plane impacting, or the building itself collapsing they are talking about an explosion in the lobby, that made all the stone tiles and ceiling collapse onto them. If it was the building that was collapsing on them and they were in the lobby, dou you really think they would have made it out... Think about it, and take of your dogma goggles. Listen to common sence. You seem to have your wires crossed about the nano thermite, Nobody is saying that nano thermite was the only incendiary/explosive that was used. It may well be, but nobody has said that, they have just found traces of it so it was at least one of the inendiaried found. I don't see you commenting on the shperes any more, nor the experiment that clearly shows that thermite can indeed cut through steel columns and that the National Geographic experiment was a fraud, intended to persuade the public that they have nothing to worry about. Propoganda so to speak. I don't see you debating their false and misleading conclusion, because it helps your false argument. Now how about you or one of your buddies there, show me some evidence that the nano thermite paper was false, incorrect, or misunderstood. You cannot becasue it was well produced and repeatable."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #294 November 12, 2010 Ok, rhys, a couple points to make communicating with each other much easier. First, don't copy the entire thread in a reply. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, to tell what you have written and what was already there. Second, stop contadicting yourself and give data and evidnece that makes sense. You posted, "The chemical composition and micro-images of two WTC iron-rich spheres were documented by the US Geological Survey. The fraction of microspheres in the dust varied (between 0.2 and 1.3 % for USGS outdoor samples and a mean of 5.87% for all RJ Lee samples) depending on the area where the samples were taken." Several points to make. -Why believe the government now? In all other matters concerning 911 you call them liars so why accept their findings on the dust? -What did Jones and Company find in theirs for iron sphere concentration? You can't say because they didn't do a complete analysis which pretty much means their entire report is second-rate high school level bullshit. -Bill has addressed the explosions. -I don't have to show you a peer reviewed article to disprove your bs. It is up to YOU to prove your assertions, which you have not done to anyones satisfaction but your own. -Yes, thermite is easy to make. It is also very easy to find thermitic, reacted and unreacted, material in almost any residue of a building fire. -Jones and company had only HEARD of nanothermite and had never studied it or seen it. Therefore, they have absolutely no foundation on which to base their comparisons. -The towers collapsed as a result of damage from impact and fires caused by the aircraft. Nothing more. This has been proven by many completely independent studies and analysis. Sorry, bub, but those are the facts. You are sitting on a bench with Kennedy CT's, moon landing denyers, and Elvis-seeing-hippies. (Apologies to Elvis fans everywhere, myself included)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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 507 #295 November 12, 2010 Have you considered that secondary explosions are quite possibly a result of oil/gas/electricity fires and subsequent explosions? Back in the day growing up in Africa the electricity substations were armed by soldiers. One day a "large" electrical breaker tripped and the fire quenching gas cylinders did their job (sulphur hexafluoride) One of the soldiers opened fire believing that he was under attack. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #296 November 12, 2010 >If you watch that clip you will hear they talk about multipule explosions, >on the ground level after the impact and before the collapse. Agreed. >or the building itself collapsing they are talking about an explosion in >the lobby, that made all the stone tiles and ceiling collapse onto them. Also agreed. At the time large pieces of the building were falling off and landing outside. Dozens of rescuers were hit by everything from falling broken glass to falling thousand-pound chunks of building - and, sadly, by falling bodies. It was bad enough that they stopped evacuating people from the lobby, and brought them underground via the parking garage to the street exit. They also moved the FDNY command center away from the lobby for that reason; the falling debris was hitting so hard that it was putting the lobby at risk. When a thousand pound chunk of building falls and impacts at 160mph outside the lobby you are in, you might justifiably describe it as "an explosion." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #297 November 12, 2010 QuoteNow how about you or one of your buddies there, show me some evidence that the nano thermite paper was false, incorrect, or misunderstood. You cannot becasue it was well produced and repeatable. Holy shit, dude. Do you even bother to read what people post in their replies to your crap? That paper and the research it was based on have been shown to be completely rejectable partially in part because it is NOT repeatable! There is no reliable chain of custody for the samples nor their handling. The testing was done with an outcome already determined.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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #298 November 12, 2010 Quote>If you watch that clip you will hear they talk about multipule explosions, >on the ground level after the impact and before the collapse. Agreed. >or the building itself collapsing they are talking about an explosion in >the lobby, that made all the stone tiles and ceiling collapse onto them. Also agreed. At the time large pieces of the building were falling off and landing outside. Dozens of rescuers were hit by everything from falling broken glass to falling thousand-pound chunks of building - and, sadly, by falling bodies. It was bad enough that they stopped evacuating people from the lobby, and brought them underground via the parking garage to the street exit. They also moved the FDNY command center away from the lobby for that reason; the falling debris was hitting so hard that it was putting the lobby at risk. When a thousand pound chunk of building falls and impacts at 160mph outside the lobby you are in, you might justifiably describe it as "an explosion." I might add that, in all likelyhood, the people who claimed to have heard an explosion....had never heard explosion other than in a movie. I guarrantee it is not even close to the same thing.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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #299 November 12, 2010 Quote Think about it, and take of your dogma goggles. Listen to common sence. Irony scale. Quote Now how about you or one of your buddies there, show me some evidence that the nano thermite paper was false, incorrect, or misunderstood. You cannot becasue it was well produced and repeatable. Prove to me you're not crazy. You can't - in general it's extremely difficult to disprove a negative. That's why the burden of proof is on you, not us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #300 November 12, 2010 Quote Ok, rhys, a couple points to make communicating with each other much easier. First, don't copy the entire thread in a reply. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, to tell what you have written and what was already there. I was taking the subject mater back from the schoolyard name calling and ego building excersizes to the subject at hand. Quote Second, stop contadicting yourself and give data and evidnece that makes sense. Once again a typical response form you, instead of ambiguous comments that are not highlighting anyhting in particular but your desire to discredit me, why not try addressing the subject itself. for example, what data is contradicting and what evidence does not make sense? Quote Several points to make. -Why believe the government now? In all other matters concerning 911 you call them liars so why accept their findings on the dust? that is an outright lie, They say a plane impacted the two towers, I beleive that and them, there are many many factors that are agreed between the 9/11TM nd th offical account. Quote -What did Jones and Company find in theirs for iron sphere concentration? You can't say because they didn't do a complete analysis which pretty much means their entire report is second-rate high school level bullshit. So by your rationale, because they failed to take an account of the percentage of sperees in the dust as apposed to everything else, renders the dicovery of the powerful incendiary withing the said samples useless? Quote -Bill has addressed the explosions. Correct he has, but he has not addressed them correctly. Quote -I don't have to show you a peer reviewed article to disprove your bs. That is because you cannot, not because you don't want to. You would have posted one long ago if you could have, you have been looking but there is not one available to you is there. Quote It is up to YOU to prove your assertions, which you have not done to anyones satisfaction but your own. You still have not explained what is incorrect about the paper, you say you don't have to because they did not make an account of what percentage of the dust was iron spheres. That is irrelevant when you find evidence of highly engineered incendaries within the dust. The Spheres were separated from the other materials with a powerful magnet and the lightly magnetic properties of the red grey chips allowed them to be extracted with the spheres. It is not up to me to prove my assertions to you when we give you vidence, it is up to you to prove that this evidence is incorrect. and ignoring the point and makeing some irelevant point about you teacher in school is just dancing around semantics rather than getting to the point. i'm sure you teacher threw plenty of papers back at you if you fucked around as much as you do here, when it comes to getting to the point. What evidence do you have that this nano thermite is not in the dust, your official sources have admitted to not looking for it, and the only people that have looked for it, have found it, in abundence. they have identified its properties beyond reasonable doubt. You don't really have an argument until you addrees the point, but I am not going to hold my breath though, you are quite predictable. Quote -Yes, thermite is easy to make. It is also very easy to find thermitic, reacted and unreacted, material in almost any residue of a building fire. if it is so easy, then show us the evidence, words are words bro, and that is all you seem to have. If it is so easy to find thermitic material in fire residue, give us one example that resembes what we are talking about here. I suggest you are lying. You said unreacted and reacted. Just an example of unreacted will do, I really doubt you will find anything as unreacted thermitic material is usually reacted by fire. What a fucking joke, you are all hot air and no substance. Quote -Jones and company had only HEARD of nanothermite and had never studied it or seen it. Therefore, they have absolutely no foundation on which to base their comparisons. When you get physicits, chemists and scientists together that have deep understandings of the subject, you can be sure that they can positively identify that nano thermite is nano thermite. they are more than qualified to do so, and you are not. That conclusion of yours is pure trash, and you somehow put yourself above others that have much more experience than you. pure arrogance and ignorence. Quote -The towers collapsed as a result of damage from impact and fires caused by the aircraft. Nothing more. This has been proven by many completely independent studies and analysis... using the data and information given to them from FEMA and the NIST, which are themselves in question here This is because these are the only entities that have had access to the evidence, so the independant investigators are reliant on bogus information. what are these many independant investigators? It is about time you bacme more specific, les ambiguous, arrogant and ignorant, and actually address the subject matter, rather than dancing around it and calling names, and discrediting those you have no authority to discredit. Quote Sorry, bub, but those are the facts. You are sitting on a bench with Kennedy CT's, moon landing denyers, and Elvis-seeing-hippies. (Apologies to Elvis fans everywhere, myself included) Once again you make irrelevant points, to make a false basis for your absurd beleifs. It is about time you grew up a little and showed us the skills of engineering you supposedly have. Dancing around semantics and name calling is not professional, it may get you brownie points with the other outspoken idiots here, but it does you no justice. Read the title of the thread and tell me where you have ever addressed the subject? you simply avoid it like the plague."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
