Gosh, History Channel... you forgot to mention the nano-thermite!!

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Do you actually believe this? Maybe re-read it and think what it really means...

It means you have already decided you're right, and believe that anyone who is against your opinion is doing something unethical! Your "definition" is obscene.

No, it means that the conspiracy theorists have been caught manipulating, embellishing, and distorting the information they've been giving out time after time after time, to the point where it's clear that it's a conscious act to give their conspiracy claims false credibility.

Case in point #1- Loose Change presented a photo of a group of people carrying some large blue thing on their shoulders, and it was billed as some mysterious tarp covered thing being carried out of the Pentagon complex. When the photo is researched, we find this is false- it's really a triage tent being carried INTO the Pentagon complex.

Case in point #2- In his "Conspiracy Theory" series, Jesse Ventura claimed that NORAD was in a stand down mode during the attack, but when we research the case, we find this is false- several squadrons of fighters were scrambled to intercept the hijacked aircraft. The squadrons simply didn't reach them in time.

Case in point #3- David Ray Griffin wrote a book called, "9/11 Ommissions and Distortions" where, among other claims, he stated the Pentagon had an anti-aircraft missile system that should have shot down the approaching plane, but mysteriously didn't. When we investigate the claim, we find this is false- the anti-aircraft battery was installed one year *after* 9/11, specifically *because* of 9/11.

...and so on and so forth. I stand ready to be convinced there may have been some gov't conspiracy involved, but when the conspiracy theorists have to resort to lies, misrepresentation, and trickery like this to convince us of said conspiracy, it's a de facto admission that they know what they're claiming is false. This IS the definition of scandal mongoring and sensationalism, and it IS unethical whether you want to admit the fact or not.

reply to post by Thermo Klein



dr judy wood
2Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science, from the Department of
Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1992
M.S. Engineering Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1983
B.S. Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering), Virginia Tech, 1981


www.drjudywood.com...

"And how could thermite, which is little more than a cutting torch, melt mass quantities of metal "

"Yet these pictures from Ground Zero suggest room for doubt. In the tangle of the WTC mess, thermite would be useful to cut steel under conditions of poor accessibility. Nor is thermite as dangerous as Jones suggests."

"What about nanoaluminum for cutting steel? Jones calls it "superthermite" and jumps to the conclusion that it caused the molten metal pools burning 99 days without eliminating competing hypotheses. There is no proof that thermite could cause such long-lived, intense fires."

"With 236 perimeter columns and 47 core columns and 110 floors to cut loose in each tower, it might take 31,000 large thermite deposits/canisters igniting in a computerized sequence to bring each tower down. Even if thermite was placed on alternate floors, that would be 15,500 charges in each tower. "

So one says spheres from fire, one says spheres from thermite, one says it was not thermite it was something else. How do we know who is correct?

reply to post by iamcpc


Thanks for that - I am such an idiot for ever believing a single word or intention of Good Ol Dave... I appreciate the background and look forward to reading more about these scientists.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Faith without facts - you'd make a great Christian. If you're not already you should check it out.

Pictures, graphs, scientific data go a whole lot further than he-said-she-said and ignorant "arguments". I'm pretty sure you've NEVER actually answered a single question I've posed but let's try again.

We have photos and electron micrograph data of high-carbon, high-oxygen, high-iron material. When it was burned at 700 degrees it made little iron micro-spheres. Science, Dave - do we agree on that basic aspect of this? Specifically...

Do you think there were iron micro-spheres found in the rubble of the twin towers?
it's a yes/no question.

The RJ Lee report was sponsored by Deutsche Bank! After I stopped laughing I recognized that this source, RJ Lee report for NY Enviro Law, never had any intention of proving nano-thermite was or was not there. It is a TOXICITY report to determine if Deutsche Bank has insurance rights for the whole building rather than just the physically damaged floors.

Is iron even a toxin?? They didn't even say they looked for it or thermitic substances.

In a subsequent section they mention "the WTC Dust constitute a complex, recognizable
pattern or 'signature' that is based on a profile comprised of WTC Dust
Markers" including:
F) Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature (Figure 2 E and Figure 2 F)

So, they found it as part of a signature, assumed it was from high temperatures, and went on.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Reputing professionals and PhDs while pretending to have any idea what happened down there is just ignorant...

I see chemical analyses with high levels of Sulfur and an explanation (and common sense in my opinion) that sulfur means explosives. I used to make gun powder as a kid back when things like that didn't freak everyone out - sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate - simple chemistry.

I wasn't repudiating anyone in particular. I was stating a fact that there were underground fires. That is the only way things could have remained hot over a period of weeks. If you think that I was somehow repudiating Jones' paper, he doesn't say that there weren't fires.

Of course, his nanothermite paper is garbage, so I'd happily repudiate that.

You see chemical analyses with high levels of sulfur and assume explosives? Black gunpowder? Why didn't you assume that sulfur meant wall board? Thousands of tons of CaSO4.2H2O were in the rubble.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

We have photos and electron micrograph data of high-carbon, high-oxygen, high-iron material. When it was burned at 700 degrees it made little iron micro-spheres. Science, Dave - do we agree on that basic aspect of this? Specifically...

Steven Jones said those microshperes could only be created at temperatures much higher than 700 degrees. That was where he disagreed with the other report.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

We have photos and electron micrograph data of high-carbon, high-oxygen, high-iron material. When it was burned at 700 degrees it made little iron micro-spheres. Science, Dave - do we agree on that basic aspect of this? Specifically...

Steven Jones said those microshperes could only be created at temperatures much higher than 700 degrees. That was where he disagreed with the other report.

If those spheres could be created at 700 degrees than that is a source that refutes the thermite theories.



[edit on 3-6-2010 by iamcpc]

As far as Steven Jones paper it has been Peer Reviewed as some already have been shown the proof on some of my other posts in other threads.
Now back to thread topic:

Since opinions are, being accepted as truth in the 911 threads here’s mine.
The reason History channel left out thermite in their fraudulent documentary is that they to sold out in supporting the OS lie. Money can buy lies, these people have no concern for the truth they have lost their integrity. Obviously, the History channel must get some of their funding through the government.

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

We have photos and electron micrograph data of high-carbon, high-oxygen, high-iron material. When it was burned at 700 degrees it made little iron micro-spheres. Science, Dave - do we agree on that basic aspect of this? Specifically...

Steven Jones said those microshperes could only be created at temperatures much higher than 700 degrees. That was where he disagreed with the other report.

If those spheres could be created at 700 degrees than that is a source that refutes the thermite theories.
[edit on 3-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Fair question - here's why they seem to disagree. The equipment they used in the lab only reached 700 degrees F, but that 700 degrees initiated the thermitic reaction causing something in excess of the 1600 F or so required to make the micro-sphericles.

So, the initial heat required was LESS than an office fire (uncited 1100 or so max?)
the heat created by the exploding thermitic material reaches well over that.

Fair question - here's why they seem to disagree. The equipment they used in the lab only reached 700 degrees F, but that 700 degrees initiated the thermitic reaction causing something in excess of the 1600 F or so required to make the micro-sphericles.

They seem to disagree on a lot of things:

jones: spheres only created at VERY VERY high temperatures.
(thermite was used)
your source: spheres created at 700 degrees
(thermite was not used)
rj lee: spheres from the building materials and fire
(thermite was not used)
dr wood: thermite is not even possible. Even if it was there is no chain of possession to show that someone mixed the dust with thermite AFTER the attacks.
(thermite was not used.

We are only talking about little spheres of iron. We have not even started talking about the collapse of the WTC center towers, the temperatures of the fires, the temperature of the rubble, if thermite can even demolish a building like the WTC towers, if thermite has EVER been used to demolish a skyscraper ever, how much thermite would be needed to demolish the WTC towers, where the thermite would have to be placed, how the thermite was placed there, where the smoke was from all the thermite (assuming it was placed all throughout the building and not only where the airplanes hit). So after several hours of research we don't know if the iron spheres indicate thermite was or was not used.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by iamcpc

.....thermite would be useful to cut steel under conditions of poor accessibility.

That is really one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Does whoever said this have any idea about how fussy thermite is? You can't get it wet, its a powder so it must be contained in order to burn, etc, etc.

Originally posted by impressme
As far as Steven Jones paper it has been Peer Reviewed as some already have been shown the proof on some of my other posts in other threads.
Now back to thread topic:

Since opinions are, being accepted as truth in the 911 threads here’s mine.
The reason History channel left out thermite in their fraudulent documentary is that they to sold out in supporting the OS lie. Money can buy lies, these people have no concern for the truth they have lost their integrity. Obviously, the History channel must get some of their funding through the government.

You can say the earth is flat and be 100% correct. All you have to do is say that everyone that disagrees with you is a liar. All you have to do is say that all evidence against you was funded by the bad guys.

I notice that several times you have said there is no scientific evidence that supports the OS "LIES". I cite scientific evidence and you just ignore me. Oh well.

I don't have that ability to just say that everyone that does not agree with me or presents evidence that supports alternate theories to mine are liars. I wish I did. Life would be so much more simple.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by iamcpc

 

.....thermite would be useful to cut steel under conditions of poor accessibility.

That is really one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Does whoever said this have any idea about how fussy thermite is? You can't get it wet, its a powder so it must be contained in order to burn, etc, etc.

I have no idea. you would have to ask her.

There are alot of problems with Jones' tests and conclusions that make them a big grey area for me.

1. The sample he got had not been properly verified, or collected. A member of the public said it was WTC dust. Collected from where? What measures were taken to ensure no contamination?
2. Only one sample was taken. And from what I have read, it wasn't even taken from the WTC rubble proper, but from elsewhere where the dust had settled.

For me to find a test particularly interesting and believable, it would require that someone with proper training collect the samples from different parts of the WTC rubble pile, not from dust that settled elsewhere. It would also have to be taken from different layers/levels. And some pure metal samples would be nice as well.

Also, I have never seen any concrete proof that the molten metal at the WTC site was indeed steel. The only thing I have seen is references to molten metal, or rescue workers who refered to it as molten steel generically.

There are simply too many variables to accept demolition by nano-thermite as gospel. And don't get me started on the "death rays from space" or nukes being used to do the job.

Originally posted by impressme
As far as Steven Jones paper it has been Peer Reviewed as some already have been shown the opinions on some of my other posts in other threads.

There I fixed that for ya.

Now the question I want to see answered is since Jones is such a champion for the truth and truthers seem to take his "peer reviewed" paper as 100% positive proof of nanu-nanu thermite, have his results been reproduced in an independent lab with actual scientists who are neutral on the matter?

We all know uncorrected mistakes and faulty conclusions Jones jumps to in his uhm "work", so to really get to the truth (which is what you guys want, right) it only seems to make sense to reproduce this and see if the results match.

So far I have seen nothing of the sort, and it makes me wonder...

Originally posted by iamcpc
jones: spheres only created at VERY VERY high temperatures.
(thermite was used)
your source: spheres created at 700 degrees
(thermite was not used)
rj lee: spheres from the building materials and fire
(thermite was not used)
dr wood: thermite is not even possible. Even if it was there is no chain of possession to show that someone mixed the dust with thermite AFTER the attacks.
(thermite was not used.

Jones is my source of that. One of the 2 citations above.

RJ Lee was never looking for thermite and only happened to mention the iron micro-spheres as part of a way to recognize the WTC dust as a specific signature.

I haven't looked much at Dr. Wood's work but the pictures and description I posted of Jones' work points to thermitic materials. They have the scientific/chemical aspects of it and the production of iron micro-spheres when heated past 700 degrees, inciting the 1600+ degrees to make the iron spheres.
Plus, Dr. Jones has an amazing record in Physics including graduating magna cum laude, and a PhD from Vanderbilt, and PhD work at Stanford. He basically gave up his career in Physics to work for 9/11 truth and he has the equipment and knowledge to know how to analyze that dust.

Hooper is on my ignore list but just to point out (referring to a quote by him) that according to pictures and descriptions thermite IS NOT a powder and is not fussy. It is a crystalized structure of two different layers that will not explode unless it reaches around 440 degrees F (according to Jones, et al. journal, using calorimeter of a red/grey chip they exploded in their lab)


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


There were actually four samples used in the Jones, et al. study. They were collected by individuals who had access to pure, thick dust. Here's a map of the four locations (below). Each person provided his or her name and address and provided a signed testimony or video. Even if it was slightly contaminated the fact that explosive material is in each sample, but NOT in the normal environment says enough.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


But only one was taken from the WTC itself. The others are gathered from around the city at various locations. Therin lies the problem.

Those who turned in such samples could have very well believed it was WTC dust. But the fact that it was not collected in a purity assured manner, from the actual site itself, raises questions.

Sulfur occurs in alot of things, and in a city like New York, about a thousand things can turn up in a dust sample. Thermite has alot of other applications.