Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

First of all, what did she say about the red/gray chips in that video? it was later determined the chips were primer paint.

Deflecting again sky, what she said was true, it was proven by people and labs around the world, I do not buy the paint chip story, these people and organizations are not going to make fools of themselves.

She is delusional. I have shown in previous threads that Jones' own data is thermodynamically inconsistent with any such "thermitic material." Further, demolitions using thermite cannot be timed which is why noisy, high brisance explosives are used in building demolitions and not thermite.
The chips were primer paint on gray iron oxide scale.

Jones, how about the others, can you even name them ?

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

First of all, what did she say about the red/gray chips in that video? it was later determined the chips were primer paint.

Deflecting again sky, what she said was true, it was proven by people and labs around the world, I do not buy the paint chip story, these people and organizations are not going to make fools of themselves.

She is delusional. I have shown in previous threads that Jones' own data is thermodynamically inconsistent with any such "thermitic material." Further, demolitions using thermite cannot be timed which is why noisy, high brisance explosives are used in building demolitions and not thermite.
The chips were primer paint on gray iron oxide scale.

Yeah, read my above post, she sure is...

I'm glad you agree.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

First of all, what did she say about the red/gray chips in that video? it was later determined the chips were primer paint.

Deflecting again sky, what she said was true, it was proven by people and labs around the world, I do not buy the paint chip story, these people and organizations are not going to make fools of themselves.

She is delusional. I have shown in previous threads that Jones' own data is thermodynamically inconsistent with any such "thermitic material." Further, demolitions using thermite cannot be timed which is why noisy, high brisance explosives are used in building demolitions and not thermite.
The chips were primer paint on gray iron oxide scale.

Yeah, read my above post, she sure is...

I'm glad you agree.

Yeah, right, sure I do...NOT

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

First of all, what did she say about the red/gray chips in that video? it was later determined the chips were primer paint.

Deflecting again sky, what she said was true, it was proven by people and labs around the world, I do not buy the paint chip story, these people and organizations are not going to make fools of themselves.

She is delusional. I have shown in previous threads that Jones' own data is thermodynamically inconsistent with any such "thermitic material." Further, demolitions using thermite cannot be timed which is why noisy, high brisance explosives are used in building demolitions and not thermite.
The chips were primer paint on gray iron oxide scale.

Jones, how about the others, can you even name them ?

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

First of all, what did she say about the red/gray chips in that video? it was later determined the chips were primer paint.

Deflecting again sky, what she said was true, it was proven by people and labs around the world, I do not buy the paint chip story, these people and organizations are not going to make fools of themselves.

She is delusional. I have shown in previous threads that Jones' own data is thermodynamically inconsistent with any such "thermitic material." Further, demolitions using thermite cannot be timed which is why noisy, high brisance explosives are used in building demolitions and not thermite.
The chips were primer paint on gray iron oxide scale.

Yeah, read my above post, she sure is...

I'm glad you agree.

Yeah, right, sure I do...NOT

You agreed. "Yeah, read my above post, she sure is.." Are you confused again?

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

First of all, what did she say about the red/gray chips in that video? it was later determined the chips were primer paint.

Deflecting again sky, what she said was true, it was proven by people and labs around the world, I do not buy the paint chip story, these people and organizations are not going to make fools of themselves.

She is delusional. I have shown in previous threads that Jones' own data is thermodynamically inconsistent with any such "thermitic material." Further, demolitions using thermite cannot be timed which is why noisy, high brisance explosives are used in building demolitions and not thermite.
The chips were primer paint on gray iron oxide scale.

Yeah, read my above post, she sure is...

I'm glad you agree.

Yeah, right, sure I do...NOT

You agreed. "Yeah, read my above post, she sure is.." Are you confused again?

Again, no not ever, I don't buy the OS, I am familiar with the report, so we agree to disagree.

a reply to: pteridine

You agreed. "Yeah, read my above post, she sure is.." Are you confused again?

It's called sarcasm...

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

First of all, what did she say about the red/gray chips in that video? it was later determined the chips were primer paint.

Deflecting again sky, what she said was true, it was proven by people and labs around the world, I do not buy the paint chip story, these people and organizations are not going to make fools of themselves.

She is delusional. I have shown in previous threads that Jones' own data is thermodynamically inconsistent with any such "thermitic material." Further, demolitions using thermite cannot be timed which is why noisy, high brisance explosives are used in building demolitions and not thermite.
The chips were primer paint on gray iron oxide scale.

Yeah, read my above post, she sure is...

I'm glad you agree.

Yeah, right, sure I do...NOT

You agreed. "Yeah, read my above post, she sure is.." Are you confused again?

Again, no not ever, I don't buy the OS, I am familiar with the report, so we agree to disagree.

If you don't like the report, that is one thing. To subscribe to the thermite concept based on the Jones paper is irrational given that it has been shown to be internally inconsistent with thermite. You should consider another conspiracy.

a reply to: pteridine

If you don't like the report, that is one thing. To subscribe to the thermite concept based on the Jones paper is irrational given that it has been shown to be internally inconsistent with thermite. You should consider another conspiracy.

I don't subscribe to any one concept, I don't know what really happened or how it was done, I don't buy the OS, too many red flags..

a reply to: pteridine

What I do know is there were temps way above office fires and jet fuel, RJ Lee group was one and others that pointed that out, so what was responsible.. thats all I ask, 3180* F how ?

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

What I do know is there were temps way above office fires and jet fuel, RJ Lee group was one and others that pointed that out, so what was responsible.. thats all I ask, 3180* F how ?

How do you know what the temperatures were? Where and when do you think these temperatures occurred?

a reply to: pteridine

How do you know what the temperatures were? Where and when do you think these temperatures occurred?

Ask the RJ Lee people...

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

How do you know what the temperatures were? Where and when do you think these temperatures occurred?

Ask the RJ Lee people...

The RJLee samples were taken after the building was being cut up. Steel melts around 2500*F and the torches were above those temperatures. The RJLee analysts only analyzed what they were provided with.

There is no evidence for thermite. Thermite is not a good demolition material.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

How do you know what the temperatures were? Where and when do you think these temperatures occurred?

Ask the RJ Lee people...

The RJLee samples were taken after the building was being cut up. Steel melts around 2500*F and the torches were above those temperatures. The RJLee analysts only analyzed what they were provided with.

Right but samples were taking blocks away, again how is up for discussion, the visual evidence tells a different story..

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

How do you know what the temperatures were? Where and when do you think these temperatures occurred?

Ask the RJ Lee people...

The RJLee samples were taken after the building was being cut up. Steel melts around 2500*F and the torches were above those temperatures. The RJLee analysts only analyzed what they were provided with.

Right but samples were taking blocks away, again how is up for discussion, the visual evidence tells a different story..

What story do you think the visual evidence tells?

a reply to: wildb

Ask the RJ Lee people..

The following was taken from the RJ Lee Group report.

RJ Lee Group Report

• Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but arenot common in “normal” interior office dust.

2.3.5 Heat affected particulate and combustion products

Particles that either were formed as a consequence of high temperature or were modified by exposure to high temperature are important WTC Dust Markers for WTC Dust. Fires that were a part of the WTC Event produced combustion-modified products that traveled with other components of WTC Dust. Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust.

These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

911research.wtc7.net...

www.wtcreflections.rjlg.com...

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Salander

Considering that you have failed to post evidence that refutes what I have posted, you have no case. Now, where is your evidence that refutes my presentations?

The Collapse of World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2

The unique structure of the WTC towers exaggerated the problems caused by the weakened steel. The towers had a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers, with 95% of the structure’s interior consisting of nothing but air (see Figure 1).6 Within this perimeter tube design there was a 27m by 40m core, designed to provide additional support to the tower.

Steel trusses, or joists, connected the outer beams to the core at each story, and provided much of the overall support to the weight of each floor. The impact and explosion of the airplane crashes probably knocked off most of the insulating material intended to fireproof the steel beams, considerably increasing their vulnerability to flames.

www.skeptic.com...

What you have presented here is spam, not evidence. You cannot, you have not, and neither has NIST proved that the towers came down the way you say they did. You allege that, but you have not proved that. Sorry.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Salander

Considering that you have failed to post evidence that refutes what I have posted, you have no case. Now, where is your evidence that refutes my presentations?

The Collapse of World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2

The unique structure of the WTC towers exaggerated the problems caused by the weakened steel. The towers had a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers, with 95% of the structure’s interior consisting of nothing but air (see Figure 1).6 Within this perimeter tube design there was a 27m by 40m core, designed to provide additional support to the tower.

Steel trusses, or joists, connected the outer beams to the core at each story, and provided much of the overall support to the weight of each floor. The impact and explosion of the airplane crashes probably knocked off most of the insulating material intended to fireproof the steel beams, considerably increasing their vulnerability to flames.

www.skeptic.com...

What you have presented here is spam, not evidence. You cannot, you have not, and neither has NIST proved that the towers came down the way you say they did. You allege that, but you have not proved that. Sorry.

Yes, and that will always be the case...

a reply to: Salander

What you have presented here is spam, not evidence.

It's right on the money, and as proof, after 14 years, there is not a single piece of evidence of an 9/11 inside job.

Claims that explosives and thermite were responsible has been successfully debunked by structure and civil engineers, demolition experts, architects, firefighters and other experts and investigators.

Videos and photos that depict the collapse of the WTC buildings also debunked the claim that those buildings fell at free fall speed and all it took was the fact that dust plumes and debris are seen outpacing the collapse of those buildings, which was still in progress many stories about the falling debris and dust plumes. That fact has been used to discredit the truth movement because it was clearly evident the WTC buildings were not falling at free fall speed.

Pools of molten steel at ground zero was debunked because there was nothing at ground zero capable of producing pools of molten steel and explosives and thermite do not leave behind pools of molten steel for days, weeks, much less months.

Claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorist have been debunked, such:

* United 93 landed at Cleveland Airport

* 9/11 airliners were switched (how do you switch airliners in flight that are under the radar control of ATC ?)

* ACARS depicted the 9/11 airliners in flight (which ATC radar data disputes)

* United 93 was shot down by an F-16

* United 93 was shot down by a white jet

* United 93 did not crash

* American 77 didn't crash because it overflew the Pentagon and secretly landed safely at Reagan National Airport (how do you land a B-757 secretly at an airport under the eyes of ATC and airport ground controllers ?)

* American 77 crashed into the Pentagon from a flight path that would have been impossible

* A missile crashed into the Pentagon ( despite the fact that no one reported seeing a missile strike the Pentagon)

* The 9/11 aircraft was modified to fly under remote control ( how do you illegally modify B-767's and B-757's to fly under remote control under the noses of the Airlines and the FAA ?)

* The transponders were tampered with which rendered the 9/11 aircraft invisible on radar ( since when are the B-767 and the B-757 considered stealth aircraft? Even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible on radar)

* Nuclear weapons were used to demolish the WTC buildings ( never mind that in doing so, would have rendered much of New York City inhabitable for years.) Take a look back decades ago when a nuclear accident occurred in the Soviet Union that left much of the area in ruins after decades and I am not talking about Chernobyl.

* WTC 7 suffered minor impact damage (which is untrue considering the massive impact hole on the south wall of WTC 7)

* The 9/11 aircraft were holograms

* The 9/11 aircraft were military aircraft

* The WTC buildings were struck by missiles

* The WTC were demolished by space beam weapons

* A modified pod to carry explosives was seen beneath United 175 ( Never mind that 9/11 conspiracy theorist misidentified aerodynamic fairings and MLG doors, which are standard on all B-767's)

* Molten rock was found beneath ground zero (never mind that 9/11 conspiracy theorist confused an ice age formation as molten steel.

* The so-called 9/11 "Meteor" was molten concrete and steel ( never mind that embedded rebar never show signs of being in a molten condition or that paper and carpet material, some not burned, can be seen embedded in the "Meteor" in some photos.

* Dust samples depicted evidence of explosives and thermite (never mind that the RJ Lee Group's own dust sample report debunks the claim that evidence of explosives and thermite was found in its dust samples.)

Just a few examples as to why 9/11 conspiracy theorist cannot be taken seriously.

.

a reply to: wildb

Not true at all. After all, experts have spoken when they said, fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.