Face to Face with Dr. Niels Harrit: "There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a contr

reply to post by budaruskie


Agreed! You guys should all ignore and block the couple people who are just here to troll. Obviously they get a kick out of it or something. an obviously they didnt even bother to watch the movie, as their questions arent even relevant/making sense when i listen to the video.

Hey guys (hooper, dave, pterd ine), watch the movie, provide us specific points in the movie we can skip right to, that you disagree with. Otherwise you dont care about the movie, which is what this thread is about. And on top of that, you obviously dont care about the truth either.

Eagerly awaiting what specific points of the movie you disagree!

reply to post by GoodOlDave

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that steel rusts, and you know full well why I'm pointing it out- it means that the rust Harrit found was certainly from the building itself and you won't be able to use this bit to peddle your conspiracy stories anymore. It's just that you have such outer space blind devotion to these ridiculous conspiracy stories that you're have to resort to argue over idiotic things out of desperation like whether steel rusts. So, go ahead and show how I'm arguing against science by stating that steel rusts.

Incredible. Just incredible.

I am amused Dave most 10 year old kids know steel rusts, furthermore why don’t you just show everyone here on ATS how I claim to “not understand” such an elementary question? Please Dave this ought to be real interesting, please show how I peddle conspiracy stories where I have been caught saying this nonsense of “rusty steal” causing the WTC collapse? If you cannot answer this question then, I think we all can assume your are making up more fallacies against me personally probably because I dares to question you and your mindless rambles, towards all Truthers.

Dave, when are you going to start backing up your accusations? I asked you some question and you continue to flat out ignore every single one of them. Apparently you believe you have the right to call Truthers out and offensively creating outlandish falsehoods, like me for example, and the proof to all of this Dave, is I asked you to back up your offensive accusation towards me. You have not.

I have already debated where I stand with Jones science and have successfully stood my ground, something you lack the understanding or don’t want to understand for whatever your reasons are.

To prove you lack any understanding to Jones science, I asked you a question about it and you completely ignored it. The question was:

Dave, show us the evidence proving the size of the rust particles that you are talking about, and their heaviest concentrations in PPM.

You could not answer my question, and have no business “bashing” science that you do not understand.

I have to presume that no, Jones can't determine the difference between rust particles and thermite particles becuase he makes no mention of any distinction.

You have to “presume”?
That is completely untrue, and more proof that you never read Jones Journal, much less understand it.

Point out to me where in this report that he conclusively shows the iron oxide he examines is actually pyrotechnic iron oxide rather than iron oxide that came from the buulding itself.

I have never made any claim to you that the iron oxide is pyrotechnic iron oxide. If it is not, what scientific evidence do you have to prove iron oxide “is not” pyrotechnic iron oxide?
Not only do you want me to point this out in Jones Journal, am I to assume you do not believe this is correct, base on what?

Here is a part of Jones Journal where Jones discusses his observation and why he concluded the iron oxide to be “pyrotechnic.”

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World TradeCenter Catastrophe

2. Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature?
Our observations show that the red material contains substantial
amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together
very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed
a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum
away from other elements and determined that elemental
aluminum and iron oxide must be present. In the product
collected after DSC ignition, we found spheres which were
not initially present. Many of these spheres were iron rich
and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris.
Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that the red/gray chips
react vigorously at a temperature below the melting point of
aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation) point of ultrafine
grain (UFG) aluminum in air [18]. These observations
reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; [color=gold]available
papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG
aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to
form pyrotechnics or explosives [19-21]. The thermite reaction
involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical
reaction with iron oxide:
2Al + Fe2O3 􀀃Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), 􀀂H = 􀀁853.5
kJ/mole.

Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary
when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine
grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite”
reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred
to as “super-thermite” [20, 22].

We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red
chips with known super-thermite composites, along with
comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are
many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison
must wait for a future study. Meanwhile, we compare with
products of commercially available (macro-) thermite. During
ignition of thermite, we have observed that many spheres
and spheroids are formed as part of the molten product of the
reaction is vigorously scattered. These particles tend to become
spherical due to surface tension and, being small, are
rapidly cooled and solidify as they fall through the air, thus
their spherical shape is preserved.

To facilitate comparisons between the products of
red/gray chip ignition and commercial thermite ignition, we
juxtapose the respective images and XEDS spectra.

We observe that the spheroidal residues from ignition of
red chips (Figs. 25, 26) possess a strikingly similar chemical
signature to a typical XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated
by commercial thermite (Fig. 24). This similarity supports
our hypothesis that the red chips are indeed a form of
thermite.

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Dave I have no interest in debating real science with someone who doesn’t understand it, you should save yourself anymore embarrassment and bail out before you have everyone on ATS laughing at your ignorance, as I assume many already do.

This is neither here nor there since I can see you're playing bait and switch. YOU said, and I quote:

"If anyone is making “dishonest claims” it is you, and to prove you are making up garbage is easy, because you are making accusation against science without showing any scientific evidence to back your ridiculous claims, it is that simple."

...and I asked you to whow even one instance where I ever "making accusations against science." Are you going to answer the question or are you going to expose yourself as a damned liar?

Ok, here is an offensive and fraudulent remark you made against Jones and his science.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by impressme

Jones has long been notorious for wanting to believe there was some conspiracy behind the 9/11 attack so it's no surprise he'd invent his own evidence to support it. Whether the evidence he invented has any credibility has yet to be proven.

Do not be fooled by opinions.

I agree, particularly the opinions being passed off as evidence. Jones is the quintessential conspiracy con artist passing off innuendo as fact, specifically in this case- nowhere has he been able to prove this supposed nanothermite he had found played any part in the destruction of the WTC. go ahead and insist it was nanothermite if you so desire, but as far as I'm concerned, all Jones has proved is that some guy might have dumped a bag of thermite into the WTC dust after it had already collapsed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is not an opinion that the towers were gigantic sources of aluminum and rust and it is not an opinion that said alimunum and rust would be found in the debris field. It is fact. You just don't want to acknowledge the fact because you know there's no way you can continue to milk this whole "thermitic material" for your perverse conspiracy mongoring any longer. If you attempt to refuse any of THAT, you will be lying.

More of you outrages fallacies against me personally. I never made any claim to you or anyone else for that matter that Jones did not find aluminum or rust. Dave your outlandish accusation are completely false. Where did you get any such ideas that I do not accept aluminum and rust were not found at the WTC?

The fact is you are the one that has exposed yourself as making up false accusations; against me and Jones science and I demonstrated that perfectly in this post, such as this:

peddle your conspiracy stories anymore.

You should stop making up fallacies against posters who do not agree with you as you have well demonstrated and you should stop trying to weaseling out of all your accusation.


Your answers to your question are in the above quote. And your offensive remarks against Jones science are based on what? Your patriotic belief system?

I'm tired of you making these idiotic comments like a ten year old and then running away giggling when you're expected to back the claim up. It's not going to work this time.

“Run away giggling?” Dave, I back up my claims, most of the times and most ATS readers know it. I don’t need to run away as people who post outrages fallacies as you have demonstrated repeatedly such as this quote below that you continue to post repeatedly about Bones and me.

Your own fellow conspiracy proponents here (I.E. Bonez) have already renounced you for your mindless devotion to every fringe conspriacy claim however absurd it sounds, as it's making them look like crackpots by association. Who should any of us take you seriously when they don't? We see right away how little credibility you have when you're even resorting to bickering over the towers being built out of steel and aluminum.

That is another fallacy Dave, here is what Bones really said to you or are you going to deny this to?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I refuse to be a slave to the demands of the conspiracy theorists that I should mindlessly follow their dogma.

Dave, Dave, Dave. I shake my head in disgust at yet another meaningless rant.

If you "refuse to be a slave of conspiracy theorists", stop posting here! Stop reading these or any other conspiracy forum! Get a life and go outside of your house. Then you won't be near a computer to read conspiracy forums.

You put yourself in the position to post and read these conspiracy forums, then you rant, attack and complain about it. There are adjectives for those kinds of people who put themselves in certain situations and then blame other people for it.

You seriously need to talk to someone about your problems. Attacking "conspiracy theorists" or conspiracy websites because of your issues, is a serious issue......on your part.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers

reply to post by budaruskie


As your buddy Impressme says "that is just your opinion."

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by budaruskie

 

Agreed! You guys should all ignore and block the couple people who are just here to troll. Obviously they get a kick out of it or something. an obviously they didnt even bother to watch the movie, as their questions arent even relevant/making sense when i listen to the video.

Hey guys (hooper, dave, pterd ine), watch the movie, provide us specific points in the movie we can skip right to, that you disagree with. Otherwise you dont care about the movie, which is what this thread is about. And on top of that, you obviously dont care about the truth either.

Eagerly awaiting what specific points of the movie you disagree!

Yes, you should block everyone who disagrees with you because you might be poisoned by reason.

I did watch a portion of the movie but don't have 56 minutes to waste on Harrit's same old song. He likes the idea of super-nano-thermite and talks of its explosive properties. Of course, when you design a super nano thermite to be an explosive, what do you think it does? Hint: It explodes.
Did you hear any timed explosions on the videos? No.
Did the super nano-explosive explode in the DSC oven? No.
Did it even burn completely? No.
This super secret nano thermite explosive is so stealthy it behaves like red paint and won't explode or burn no matter what you do to it. The energetics in Jones paper disprove his assertion that the red chips are thermite. His own data debunks his claims. The photos of partially burned red chips show incomplete combustion. His own photos debunk his claims. Still, true believers embrace this fantasy because they want a CD conspiracy and don't want to let facts get in the way.
Harrit, like Jones, needs attention. People get more attention if they are outrageous than if they are skilled. This is the path that Jones and Harrit took. Many of the posters on these boards behave similarly. They spout the "deny ignorance" mantra as they jump into ignorance with both feet and wallow.

Its ashame, I dont think we will ever really know the whole truth.

reply to post by pteridine

I did watch a portion of the movie but don't have 56 minutes to waste on Harrit's same old song.

Yet the fact is, you will waste your time posting un-provable opinionated nonsense against Harrit's and his science in every thread concerning na-nothermite, or Jones. yet you do not have 56 min to waste.

He likes the idea of super-nano-thermite and talks of its explosive properties.

why do you care?

Of course, when you design a super nano thermite to be an explosive, what do you think it does? Hint: It explodes.
Did you hear any timed explosions on the videos? No.
Did the super nano-explosive explode in the DSC oven? No.
Did it even burn completely? No.

The fact is Harrit' was not testing a man made bomb. You are really getting desperate.

This super secret nano thermite explosive is so stealthy it behaves like red paint

You have desperately resorted to telling fallacies.
I will ask you to now prove from Harrit paper to were did Harrit make that claim?

The energetics in Jones paper disprove his assertion that the red chips are thermite.

More rambling from a debunker who cannot debunk real science, but to make false claims and cannot even back your claims. You have lost all of your credibility, as an armchair scientist. Carry on because, I have no problems pointing out all your flaws to your unproven opinions.

His own data debunks his claims

Not according to real Architect and engineers who have examined this science and so far it has been accept as valid or are you going to deny that as well?

The photos of partially burned red chips show incomplete combustion.

The fact is not only are you cherry picking a piece of Jones findings you are deliberately twisting and misrepresenting Jones science.

Still, true believers embrace this fantasy because they want a CD conspiracy and don't want to let facts get in the way.

Yet you cannot back up that opinion.

Harrit, like Jones, needs attention.

Looks to me, you are the one that wants attention, spending 24/7 crying about Jones science.

People get more attention if they are outrageous than if they are skilled.

Dont you think your being a little outrageous right now?

Many of the posters on these boards behave similarly. They spout the "deny ignorance" mantra as they jump into ignorance with both feet and wallow.

Yes, some of the armchair debunkers who support the OS fairytale, and thank you for describing the very few so eloquently.

Cheers

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by budaruskie

 

As your buddy Impressme says "that is just your opinion."

No, I'm sorry but that is just a cold, hard, FACT. You have not, and never do PROVE anything at all.

reply to post by budaruskie


I see you are just as confused and desperate as Impressme. You have no facts to support your position and have resorted to promoting Jones' equally groundless claims. Both of you say "science" supports you but have no idea about the science that is lacking from Jones' paper.

reply to post by pteridine


Right, just keep telling yourself that. I am the desperate one here, right. What am I so desperate about? You say I claim this and I claim that, but in all the only "claim" I make is that science and common sense do not support the OS. One doesn't need to be a scientist to understand this. If every time a building caught fire, it collapsed in what looked like a CD, but was proven not to be a CD by scientists who ACTUALLY LOOKED FOR EXPLOSIVES in order to rule out a CD, then I could accept it. This is where the whole, common sense thing comes in. If you don't check for something, how can you say it isn't there?

Over and over and over again I have only challenged YOU personally to PROVE what you say. I honestly cannot say with any authority whether or not Dr. Jones's science is accurate or not, he could be dead wrong. BUT, I recognize that he has far more expertise than myself and has conducted experiments that no other scientist I've ever heard of disagreed with, so I have no choice but to say that it must be true. IF someone with true expertise were to do the necessary experiments, publish findings that proved Dr. Jones wrong, and their peers agreed with them then myself and all other "truthers" would have no choice but to accept it as truth. That has not happened. You claim to be able to do it, but won't. That means to me that you are lying in some capacity.

reply to post by budaruskie


Of course you must resort to the old faithful of calling people liars. You say you don't understand the science but you are sure I am lying and that Jones is unimpeachable. Have you considered that Jones is lying to get some attention from even the limited world of the CTer's?
I raised the issue of the self-extinguishing super thermite so that anyone, scientist or not, could see the fallacy of Jones' claims. In other threads, I have explained the errors in Jones' thermodynamics but many didn't understand that aspect. I have also explained the failure of Jones t run the DSC under inert gas because he cannot discriminate between combustion and thermite reaction when he did it in air. This means taht all of hs conclusions are not justified.

Originally posted by budaruskie
Wow, this thread has really deteriorated. Its laughable that Impressme would be chastised for not answering certain questions by certain members. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, pa-lease! Dave, you avoid pointed questions like oil avoids water! I don't have to show you, all anyone has to do is look at any thread you've ever been in, and bob's your uncle. Also, we all know there are two threads dedicated to pteridine purposefully and conspicuously avoiding Turbofan's questions like the plague in a "debate" (of- sorts) that he chose to start. This is the height of irony!

However, in the end you guys still have accomplished nothing. The bottom line is that science and common sense do not support the OS, and as time goes on more and more people are getting the courage to say so. The strategy has always been and will continue to be to drag them through the mud and try your best to humiliate and discredit them, but as always STAY AWAY FROM THE SCIENCE! You know as well as I do that more scientists aren't speaking out about the BS, oops I mean OS, precisely because of what happened to Dr. Jones. They have jobs they like and don't want to lose them for no reason as well as be ridiculed by arrogant "internet scientists" who lack the balls to actually PROVE anything. I can't say I blame them for that.

Originally posted by impressme

I am amused Dave most 10 year old kids know steel rusts, furthermore why don’t you just show everyone here on ATS how I claim to “not understand” such an elementary question? Please Dave this ought to be real interesting, please show how I peddle conspiracy stories where I have been caught saying this nonsense of “rusty steal” causing the WTC collapse?

All right then, please explain to me just what it is I am supposedly posting that goes against science, because the only thing I'm posting is that the buildings were enormous sources of aluminum and steel and that steel rusts. This is the second time I asked just what it is I'm posting that goes against scinece and you're going out of your way to not answer. I'm going by YOUR posts, impressme, not mine.

Dave, when are you going to start backing up your accusations? I asked you some question and you continue to flat out ignore every single one of them.

Sorry, but I'm immune to children's games. You know as well as I do why I'm not answering it- because I *can't* answer it. Noone can. You're intentionally asking questions you know can never be answered, namely:

"Dave, show us the evidence proving the size of the rust particles that you are talking about, and their heaviest concentrations in PPM."

There is no way, shape, or form that I, you, Jones, or the Easter bunny can document just how the rust within the towers was redistributed throughout the debris field when the towers collapsed. For one, it isn't anything anyone, not even your own conspiracy theorists, cared enough to measure when they were picking the place up, and for another, if you're so outer space hard core conspiracy zealot that you even have to resont to demanding a chemical compound distribution map of ground zero, this isn't research- it's a mark of extreme desperation out of not having even a microbe of proof to back up your claims.

So go ahead, tell me that the lack of documentation of how the rust was distributed throughout ground zero is proof of a master conspiracy. I double dog dare you.

I have never made any claim to you that the iron oxide is pyrotechnic iron oxide. If it is not, what scientific evidence do you have to prove iron oxide “is not” pyrotechnic iron oxide?
Not only do you want me to point this out in Jones Journal, am I to assume you do not believe this is correct, base on what?

Based upon your false assertion that this report is relevent to how the towers collapsed. You and I know the only reason why you care so zealously about this report is so you can use it to foist your "controlled demolitions" agenda onto others. If this report documented how much broken glass was found in the debris field you wouldn't have cared about Jones' report in the least.

If this is NOT the reason why you're defending the report with such an emotional attachment, then please enlighten me.

Here is a part of Jones Journal where Jones discusses his observation and why he concluded the iron oxide to be “pyrotechnic.”

Chery picking other people's quotes again? Your own exerpt specifically says:

These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to form pyrotechnics or explosives

He's not saying what he found is pyrotechnical iron oxide nor is he saying what he found was even thermite. He's saying his results reminds him of what he read in some other paper that discussed thermite, which is completely meaningless since that other paper discussed actual thermite while he was discussing the dust someone mailed to him claiming it came from ground zero. As rust is in fact iron oxide and iron oxide is in fact a component of thermite it necessarily means what he found had the same properties of thermite. He never says this was the cause of the collape nor does he document how the material got there. Everything else is a product of your own embellishment.

Ok, here is an offensive and fraudulent remark you made against Jones and his science.

I agree, particularly the opinions being passed off as evidence. Jones is the quintessential conspiracy con artist passing off innuendo as fact, specifically in this case- nowhere has he been able to prove this supposed nanothermite he had found played any part in the destruction of the WTC. go ahead and insist it was nanothermite if you so desire, but as far as I'm concerned, all Jones has proved is that some guy might have dumped a bag of thermite into the WTC dust after it had already collapsed.

This is correct and I stand by my word. Jones IS passing off opinions as evidence. Nowhere does he show this is actual thermite rather than materials that came from the structure itself and nowhere does he show this mateiral he found played any part of the collapse of the towers. If you are claiming he did then you are lying.

I do concur I was in error about the "he proved someone might have dumped a bag of Thermite onto the ground", as it's a logical fallacy to state someone can prove something *might* have occurred. If it's proven, then it did occur, rather than "might" have occurred, and if it's something that might have occurred then it isn't proven. I therefore retract it...but just how does this supposedly show I'm "making accusations against science"? THAT is what you accused me of, not whether Jones is misidentifying what he found.

You really have no credibility, Impressme. Answer the question already.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by budaruskie

 

Of course you must resort to the old faithful of calling people liars. You say you don't understand the science but you are sure I am lying and that Jones is unimpeachable. Have you considered that Jones is lying to get some attention from even the limited world of the CTer's?
I raised the issue of the self-extinguishing super thermite so that anyone, scientist or not, could see the fallacy of Jones' claims. In other threads, I have explained the errors in Jones' thermodynamics but many didn't understand that aspect. I have also explained the failure of Jones t run the DSC under inert gas because he cannot discriminate between combustion and thermite reaction when he did it in air. This means taht all of hs conclusions are not justified.

I have not once said that any of your conclusions were wrong, I have merely said that you refuse to officially disprove Dr. Jones's analysis. In the above quote you say "I have explained the errors in Jones' thermodynamics but many didn't understand that aspect." That is obviously because many of us are not scientists, and have lack the necessary understanding of thermodynamics to either argue with or agree with you. My point to you all along has been that you are telling jokes to dogs in this forum, we don't know what you're saying well enough to converse. If you have the apptitude you claim to have, and the confidence in your own conclusions that you also claim to have, THEN OFFICIALLY THROUGH A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, REFUTE HIS SCIENCE!!! Christ, I cannot make it any more plain than that. Your inability to understand such a fundamental flaw in your own choice of media to flaunt your own infallable science, really makes me wonder if you have the ability to understand intricate details regarding thermodynamics! That is what compells me to say I think you are lying. A real scientist would understand you don't go to a friggin' DAMN FOOL CONSPIRACY SITE to scientifically prove to the world that another scientist is wrong or a con. YOU DO WHAT JONES DID AND PUBLISH IT OPENLY TO BE CHALLENGED BY OTHER SCIENTISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by budaruskie

I have not once said that any of your conclusions were wrong, I have merely said that you refuse to officially disprove Dr. Jones's analysis. In the above quote you say "I have explained the errors in Jones' thermodynamics but many didn't understand that aspect." That is obviously because many of us are not scientists, and have lack the necessary understanding of thermodynamics to either argue with or agree with you. My point to you all along has been that you are telling jokes to dogs in this forum, we don't know what you're saying well enough to converse. If you have the apptitude you claim to have, and the confidence in your own conclusions that you also claim to have, THEN OFFICIALLY THROUGH A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, REFUTE HIS SCIENCE!!! Christ, I cannot make it any more plain than that. Your inability to understand such a fundamental flaw in your own choice of media to flaunt your own infallable science, really makes me wonder if you have the ability to understand intricate details regarding thermodynamics! That is what compells me to say I think you are lying. A real scientist would understand you don't go to a friggin' DAMN FOOL CONSPIRACY SITE to scientifically prove to the world that another scientist is wrong or a con. YOU DO WHAT JONES DID AND PUBLISH IT OPENLY TO BE CHALLENGED BY OTHER SCIENTISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for all the exclamations and caps. Let's review some of my earlier posts on this and other threads.
1. Jones did not publish in a peer reviewed primary journal. His publication is essentially invisible to real scientists. Until Jones does a better job so he can publish in a primary journal, his paper might as well be in the National Enquirer.
2. No one would bother to refute something that is as flawed as his paper. This is a non-starter.
3. The samples are questionable and may no longer be available.
4. I don't have samples or budget to run the proper analyses but, if Jones provides data that show what he is claiming has any basis, I will try to get samples.
5. I reviewed Jones' paper on this site because I do not like charlatans posing as scientists.

You guys really get heated over the details.

We can all agree on one thing at least.

"There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a controlled demolition..."
vimeo.com...

It is clear you guys all know this.

reply to post by Jezus


I don't think I can agree that the buildings were taken down by CD. There is no evidence for such.

reply to post by pteridine


Don't be silly, you've discussed the evidence for years now.


You really do know there is

no doubt

they were taken down in a controlled demolition....

These guys that constantly come to 911 threads to troll and pretend to have the science to back up the official story, they KNOW that two planes didn't destroy the entire complex.
They know explosives were used. They have to know.
The only people that DON'T know haven't paid any attention at all to 911 truth. Since, they have paid attention, they KNOW.
Simple.
So, the question is, why do they constantly fluoridate 911 threads?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Sorry, but I'm immune to children's games.

So go ahead, tell me that the lack of documentation of how the rust was distributed throughout ground zero is proof of a master conspiracy. I double dog dare you.

I double dog dare you? looks like your not immune to children’s games the fact is you are still playing them.

"Dave, show us the evidence proving the size of the rust particles that you are talking about, and their heaviest concentrations in PPM."

There is no way, shape, or form that I, you, Jones, or the Easter bunny can document just how the rust within the towers was redistributed throughout the debris field when the towers collapsed.

Good, then you and pteridine need to stop asking the same kinds of questions that the Easter bunny cannot answer. You and pteridine make false claims that Jones science is flawed and the questions you all asked, most have never been tested by the scientific community and you both know it. See this is the silly games you both are playing.

Based upon your false assertion that this report is relevent to how the towers collapsed.

No, that is your false assertion.

You and I know the only reason why you care so zealously about this report is so you can use it to foist your "controlled demolitions" agenda onto others.

Why do you care?

If this is NOT the reason why you're defending the report with such an emotional attachment, then please enlighten me.

The fact is if anyone has demonstrated any emotional attachment it is you.

He's not saying what he found is pyrotechnical iron oxide nor is he saying what he found was even thermite. He's saying his results reminds him of what he read in some other paper that discussed thermite, which is completely meaningless since that other paper discussed actual thermite while he was discussing the dust someone mailed to him claiming it came from ground zero. As rust is in fact iron oxide and iron oxide is in fact a component of thermite it necessarily means what he found had the same properties of thermite. He never says this was the cause of the collape nor does he document how the material got there. Everything else is a product of your own embellishment.

That is your false interpretations.

This is correct and I stand by my word. Jones IS passing off opinions as evidence. Nowhere does he show this is actual thermite rather than materials that came from the structure itself and nowhere does he show this mateiral he found played any part of the collapse of the towers. If you are claiming he did then you are lying.

He did and I have proved it on ATS repeatedly, you choose to deny what you read perhaps it might help if you take off your blinders and stop wallowing in ignorance and now you have resorted to making up stories.

I do concur I was in error about the "he proved someone might have dumped a bag of Thermite onto the ground", as it's a logical fallacy to state someone can prove something *might* have occurred. If it's proven, then it did occur, rather than "might" have occurred, and if it's something that might have occurred then it isn't proven. I therefore retract it...

Any ten year old could tell you were lying by the ludicrous assumptions you were caught spreading. That is why you are retracting your statement and yet, you want everyone to believe you are credible.

but just how does this supposedly show I'm "making accusations against science"? THAT is what you accused me of, not whether Jones is misidentifying what he found.

I said Jones and his science, stop spinning said questions. This is the nonsense that you play because you cannot debunk given science. I have already proved in the above post where you have made unconstructive false accusation toward Jones personally and his science.

The fact is you cannot debunk Jones science so instead you attack the messengers.

You really have no credibility, Impressme. Answer the question already.

I don’t care what you think of me, it is completely irrelevant. You do not speak for the rest of the ATS readers. Your questions have been answer repeatedly, I can’t help it, if you choose not to see the answers you should take off your blinders and get some help.

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by budaruskie


I see you are just as confused and desperate as Impressme. You have no facts to support your position and have resorted to promoting Jones' equally groundless claims.

Confuse? No pteridine you have demonstrated yourself as been confused by not knowing the different between science and your ridiculous un-proven opinions, by ranting negative fallacies against all Truthers. You have no facts to support your unproven claims against Jones, and his science and most people have pointed that out to you repeatedly in most 911 threads.