It's NOT Paint! Here's the Breakdown!

I found this just today while researching a topic to debate some nonsense.

It's a fairly recent article written by Harrit on June 20, 2009. Please refer anyone
who thinks the 'chips' are paint here:

stj911.org...

Sorry for taking a while to post but I wanted the debunkers to have time for a proper rebuttal. It takes a while to research things like this. I have tried to reason with people about this subject but generally to no avail.

As my good friend Gorilla Monsoon would have said: "Well Jesse, conspicuous by their absence are the debunkers".

Amazingly quiet thread. If I put together another "no debunkers here" collective thread, may I have permission to use this as reference?

[edit on 9-7-2009 by jprophet420]

posted by blue tree leaver

Sorry for taking a while to post but I wanted the debunkers to have time for a proper rebuttal. It takes a while to research things like this. I have tried to reason with people about this subject but generally to no avail.

Amazing how the pseudoskeptics and government loyalists are unwilling to make even bigger fools of themselves over the nanothermite issue.

Originally posted by blue tree leaver
As my good friend Gorilla Monsoon would have said: "Well Jesse, conspicuous by their absence are the debunkers".

You are not dropping a hint as to who you are are you?
I only know one Jesse that would be on first name basis with myself as well as Gorilla Monsoon.

What is this red substance from if not paint?

[edit on 9/7/09 by John Matrix]

I am not Jesse Ventura, I was making a reference to a paradox as both a wrestling fan and 911 "conspiracy theorist".

1. People love to point out that wrestling is fake, and mock you for being a fan.
2. People love to point out the OS, and mock you for being a "conspiracy theorist".

I grew up watching wrestling and Gorilla Monsoon was the "face" commentator and Jesse Ventura was the "heel", which brings me to the second paradox:

1. Jesse Ventura is mocked as a 911 "conspiracy theorist" because of his association with wrestling.
2. Still viewed by many as the "heel" for his stance, even though he has had much success in life pre and post WWF.

I said "my good friend" in a "We miss you" kinda way. I did not mean to imply that I was Jesse.

Maybe I should have typed that out in the first place. The point still stands that while there is a 31 page debate going on that mostly involves fallacy and hate, this thread has a well written article that is not by Docta' Jones as it were, and remains free from turbulence. I hope I articulated that better.

OK, I read his article, now go read mine please.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...'thermitethermateclaims

"Dr. Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal."

Again, I have said this before and he says it here. Where is the true demolition evidence?

findarticles.com...

uhm...intruding here..are we talking about 911 and the "inside job" theory?

because i thought that was settled by john lear and the holograph theory.

reply to post by esdad71


See, thats what we need. more people just like you, and I mean that, heres why:


You read the article and said "fine", now go read mine. When you read the article and say fine, it is because the article does not prove CD, you don't believe in CD CT, and you still have evidence that it wasn't CD that you wish to present.

This means that you are
a. not completely close minded, although openly biased
b. willing to look at scientific data

Now that the chips aren't paint, everything needs to be re-evaluated because the data sets WE ALL looked at, both sides, were skewed. Finish the research on the chips and then start the new investigation from there. After all forming a conclusion with an incomplete data set erroneous enough, why exclude known data?

Originally posted by esdad71


Again, I have said this before and he says it here. Where is the true demolition evidence?

findarticles.com...

Harrit, (along with Jones) has moved the goal posts..
now we have "nano-thermite" as a fuse..
and now we need "tons" and tons" of conventional explosives as well

also brings up the several times de-bunked lie, that there were no bomb sniffing dogs on site..

and makes a rather curious claim about arson investigations and thermite being a very common substance to look for..
sheesh.. I think I'll go with B Blanchard on this one..

Originally Posted by Russia Today interview 7/9 2009 Niels Harrit: “And actually, when there is a fire in the United States, which is suspicious, or which is violent, or which is unexpected, according to some regulation, you should look for thermite. Because you can use it for arson; and if you want to burn your house, this is the way to do it. You cook up a thermite reaction, and you go on vacation, and you can trigger it with your cell phone at a long distance, if you wish. So, this is routine for the FBI to look for remains of thermite. This they do very frequently actually. But they didn’t do it this time.”

harrits interview published on RussiaToday.com..

www.russiatoday.com...

short discussion here..

forums.randi.org...

reply to post by esdad71


is this the link you meant?

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

reply to post by jprophet420


You don't need my permission at all. Go nuts and expose these 'critical thinkers' at every chance.

reply to post by blue tree leaver


Thank you for your explanation. Sometimes I am guilty of reading too much between the lines. I read the report again and the evidence is compelling, as is the video evidence presented by the citizen investigation committee concerning the missile strike at the Pentagon.