99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by MasterAndrew

Oh and one last thing keep it up Tupac, your thread is EXCELLENT. the deluded come here clutching at straws hoping what they have believed isnt fake or a fraud. Thinking they know all there is to it. some of us see it clearly, some are just here to provoke you. we truthers aren't dangerous, aren't crazy, we know physics and we especially know what BS looks like. We just want the sheeple to wake up and realize it didn't happen like that. Good work. Keep it up.

Thanks dude, it's almost at 50 pages and nobody has even attempted to fully debunk that physics video yet probably 10-15 people have came and gone badmouthing it. Plus only like 1/5th of the OP has been attempted to be debunked also, but everyone loves to criticize Loose Change.

ps. I also notice the amount of people that disappear when facts get too hard or not answer the questions you state. People are selective it's funny. But we see through all that.

Yeah I know what you mean.

reply to post by TupacShakur

To me, that means that you said something with no evidence to back it up. Where are you getting this info from? Where in the document does he say the brand of paint that he uses and what properties it has?

There is a document out there where Jones explains that the comparison sample they used was the same paint that was known to have been used on the WTC according to NIST.

I can't remember offhand where it was but if you REALLY want I can try to dig it up.

reply to post by MarkJS

If you suspect that 9/11 may have been a false-flag op, are you packing your bags and having yard sales to get ready to leave the country? Or is this just an intellectual / theoretical exercise for you, with no real concrete plans to leave, or stay, once a conclusion has been reached? If so, I would suggest that you have way too much time on your hands.

Where exactly would you go to escape the consequences of this?

I can assure you that everyone everywhere in the world is affected on a daily basis by this in one way or another, don't delude yourself, it is not just a theoretical exercise.

This is not about America bashing either, no less the integrity of the scientific edifice itself is at stake here. It is that important. America will wax and wane, no need to drag the whole global civilization with it.

reply to post by TupacShakur


You are just too weird. The alternative to "Jones didn't find paint with similar properties" is "Jones did find paint with similar properties". Are you saying that Jones did find a paint with the same properties as the WTC dust chips? And you want me to prove he didn't?

Go to the previous page and click on the link for an example of paint with the "same chemical composition as thermite". If you are interested in the truth, go find that iron spheres are an additive to some paints yourself. As for assuming that no paint can produce iron rich spheres when burned, asserting it doesn't cut it. It isn't even made apparent that the temperatures you claim are required.

At most, the points that Jones come with are reason for further investigation. To conclude that it is proof of thermite that took down the building is just one hell of an illogical leap of faith. There isn't even a single sensible theory how those chips could have done it, even if it was thermite.

reply to post by -PLB-

You are just too weird. The alternative to "Jones didn't find paint with similar properties" is "Jones did find paint with similar properties". Are you saying that Jones did find a paint with the same properties as the WTC dust chips? And you want me to prove he didn't?

No, he compared the chips to a known sample of the actual paint used on the WTC according to NIST. That's why he could positively exclude paint.

reply to post by Darkwing01


It is nowhere in his paper that he used WTC paint samples. But it does not really matter, as your logic is once again severely flawed:
A is a type of B
C does not have all the same properties as A
C is not a type of B

reply to post by -PLB-

It is nowhere in his paper that he used WTC paint samples. But it does not really matter, as your logic is once again severely flawed: A is a type of B C does not have all the same properties as A C is not a type of B

How is my logic flawed?

If it is A it has properties xyz
If it is B is has properties mno
If it has properties pqr it is A
If it is B then it is not A

X has does not have properties mno, therefore it is not B
X has properties xyz and pqr, therefore X is A

The logic is valid because we can validly deduce A but not (not)A given the facts presented.

(X is what we are looking at, A is the known properties of thermite and B is the known properties of paint. Zeroth and first order logic does not specifically include the concept of identity, but it is covered by the fact that identical things have identical properties)

A is a type of B C does not have all the same properties as A C is not a type of B

When I have time I will draw you a Venn diagram to show you where you went wrong, Maybe later tonight, I gtg.

reply to post by Darkwing01


That is not the line of reasoning from your previous post. The logic you present here also doesn't make any sense. You say that If it is A it has properties xyz, where A is the known properties of thermite. So what you are saying is that if it is the known properties of thermite is has the properties of xyz. I seems to me you mean by A just thermite.

We know the chips are not thermite, at most they can contain thermite. We know the chips show the properties of paint. They have to as the theory is that it is paint on thermite. The problem is that Jones fails to show that his chips have any properties that are exclusive to nano-thermite. He also completely fails to demonstrate how these chips could have done any damage to those buildings, even if it does turns out to be supernanothermite painted all over the building by secret agents. The paper and the whole idea behind it is just total crap.

reply to post by -PLB-

That is not the line of reasoning from your previous post. The logic you present here also doesn't make any sense. You say that If it is A it has properties xyz, where A is the known properties of thermite. So what you are saying is that if it is the known properties of thermite is has the properties of xyz. I seems to me you mean by A just thermite.

No, in the above argument A is thermite and xyz are the properties that exclusively defines A. So that if a thing does not have this set of properties it cannot be thermite.

Look, you seem very confused by the concept of identity.

Draw a circle. This represents all the properties that object X has. Included in that circle is the smaller circle of properties that thermite has. Being a particular X naturally has far more properties than the general class of things that are thermite. We want to know whether amongst the properties that X has there are the properties that anything that is thermite has.

By analogy if we want to know if something is a car we list all the properties of the car and we compare it to the list of properties that something needs to have to be a car. Any type-token relationship involves the type's properties being a smaller circle in the Venn diagram of token's properties.

So to be thermite something needs to have properties abc.

But that is not enough, because science never deals with absolutely knowable facts we also need to establish that there are no properties of the stuff that has that a thing MAY NOT have if it is thermite.

__________________________________________________________

Maybe it is simpler if you think of the paint instead. You cannot show paint which a) has the set of properties that minimally qualifies something for being thermite and b) has no properties which exclude whatever you are looking at as paint.

Add the thermite line of reasoning to the paint line of reasoning and there is no other rational conclusion to draw than that this is NOT paint (both because it has properties which paint does not have and has properties which exclude it from being paint), AND that it IS thermite (because it has all the properties which ANY thing that is thermite has and has no properties that NO thing that is thermite has).

Your only hope is to find an actual paint sample which has the required characteristics, but I'm not holding my breath. There is no way around the logic as it stands now.

We know the chips are not thermite, at most they can contain thermite.

No particular can be a general quality, what are you talking about?

Is a car that is a pick up truck a motor vehicle? Of course it is, every particular has more properties than the universal it represents.

We know the chips show the properties of paint.

You share 90% of your genome with a cat, are you a cat?

Sharing properties does not identity indicate.

The problem is that Jones fails to show that his chips have any properties that are exclusive to nano-thermite.

Unless you can find a known paint sample that matches Jones' sample this is just patently false.

What do you think the MEK is for? Thermite would not be expected to dissolve in MEK, paint does. Paint would not be expected to react producing iron sphere's, whatever this is does.

It doesn't get much more conclusive than that.

He also completely fails to demonstrate how these chips could have done any damage to those buildings, even if it does turns out to be supernanothermite painted all over the building by secret agents.

I take it you haven't seen the Cole video then have you? Or are you now just in denial.

The paper and the whole idea behind it is just total crap.

The only thing full of crap year is your grasp of facts and logic of the matter at hand.

I watched the entire two hours and nine minutes to be fair to you and accurate in my assessment. Chapters 2 and 4 were interesting. The rest of it is seems repeated allegations without foundation. It is clear Tower 7 came down bottom first which just doesn't make sense no matter what they say. Towers 1 and 2, however, came down top first, floor by floor. There is no way you can demo a collapse like that. If the proffers of this conspiracy would stick to the strong points and not try to make everything that happened on 9/11 look rigged, then I think their cause might be taken more seriously. Also, I would never listen to the suggestion that it was an inside job until a few months ago I came across a video on the plane that struck the south tower. Now that is a real eye opener.

reply to post by Darkwing01


One of thermite's property (and this is true for all forms of thermite/ate/nano/etc) is that it can burn in absence of oxygen. Since this is known, it should have been tested in an inert atmosphere. However, Jones failed to do this basic test.

It is like if you are testing a carbonate rock. You know that it will fizz when you add a dilute acid on it, due to the property of the calcite. If you are testing a rock like dolomite, to know if that is for sure, you test it with a drop of dilute acid . If it fizzes, its dolomite. If not, it probably isnt. That is how you do science and an experiment properly. Jones did not. He failed. His paper is a joke. All he has to do to test the chips in Argon, and he is set. But he hasnt, and isnt. So no. He has no proof its any form of thermite.

Originally posted by Darkwing01No particular can be a general quality, what are you talking about?

Is a car that is a pick up truck a motor vehicle? Of course it is, every particular has more properties than the universal it represents.

Jones chips have properties that thermite does not have. Like a higher energy density and additional elements.

You share 90% of your genome with a cat, are you a cat?

Sharing properties does not identity indicate.

Are you rejecting that the chips were at least some sort of paint? If so, please explain their shape.

Unless you can find a known paint sample that matches Jones' sample this is just patently false.

This really is one major logical fallacy. I have to show that there is a paint type that has the exact same properties as Jones sample, and if I don't, the chips are super-nano-thermite by default.

I take it you haven't seen the Cole video then have you? Or are you now just in denial.

You do realize that the material that Cole is using is thermate, and are not paint like chips do you? Different material, completely differently applied. I can again show you how this is completely failed logic, but figure it out yourself. Did you know that even Jones does not think his chips melted any steel or did any significant damage?

reply to post by -PLB-

Go to the previous page and click on the link for an example of paint with the "same chemical composition as thermite". If you are interested in the truth, go find that iron spheres are an additive to some paints yourself. As for assuming that no paint can produce iron rich spheres when burned, asserting it doesn't cut it.

Ah my bad dude, I must have missed this link when you posted it. So we have a paint with Oxygen, Iron, and Aluminum, which matches the materials within the red chips. Now that you've shown us this, it's time to bring out the big guns and prove that an Iron-Oxide, Aluminum paint was used in the towers. Next, you've either got to find a paint that's hot enough to melt steel when ignited and creates iron microspheres, or find a paint that contains Iron-Oxide, Aluminum, and iron spheres which were added to the paint, and prove that such a paint was used in the construction of the WTCs. Then, you need to find some evidence that such a paint creates a bright orange flash rather than turns to ashes when ignited by a blowtorch. If you do all of those things, I will gladly hop on the "paint chip" bandwagon.

It isn't even made apparent that the temperatures you claim are required.

OK I'll make it apparent, to create iron microspheres, the iron needs to turn molten, so that the surface tension can shape it into a sphere. A way that helps me easily visualize this is in space when astronauts pour some water, it always forms little spherical droplets, in a way that's similar to the surface tension pulling the molten iron into spheres.

At most, the points that Jones come with are reason for further investigation. To conclude that it is proof of thermite that took down the building is just one hell of an illogical leap of faith.

I completely disagree, maybe you didn't read the "conclusions" section? Here's my personal favorite:

8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very hightemperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

I think there are a few conclusions that both of us can agree on. For one, when ignited in that video, the red chips reacted in a highly energetic manner, no? Also, after ignition, iron spheres were found in the residue, no? When a thermite reaction occurs, it is highly energetic and produces iron spheres as a by-product.

There isn't even a single sensible theory how those chips could have done it, even if it was thermite.

His point in writing the paper wasn't to show where explosives were placed in the tower, how many ounces were places on what strucutral supports, what fuses were needed, and what computer program timed the explosives. His point was to simply show us evidence of explosives found in the WTC dust. The evidence for an energetic, explosive material is found in the dust of a building that collapsed in an explosive, energetic manner: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e9629646198b.jpg[/atsimg]

If you want to see how it can be used to cut steel, then I'd be more than happy to show you a video of thermite doing just that:

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Go to the previous page and click on the link for an example of paint with the "same chemical composition as thermite". If you are interested in the truth, go find that iron spheres are an additive to some paints yourself. As for assuming that no paint can produce iron rich spheres when burned, asserting it doesn't cut it.

Ah my bad dude, I must have missed this link when you posted it. So we have a paint with Oxygen, Iron, and Aluminum, which matches the materials within the red chips. Now that you've shown us this, it's time to bring out the big guns and prove that an Iron-Oxide, Aluminum paint was used in the towers. Next, you've either got to find a paint that's hot enough to melt steel when ignited and creates iron microspheres, or find a paint that contains Iron-Oxide, Aluminum, and iron spheres which were added to the paint, and prove that such a paint was used in the construction of the WTCs. Then, you need to find some evidence that such a paint creates a bright orange flash rather than turns to ashes when ignited by a blowtorch. If you do all of those things, I will gladly hop on the "paint chip" bandwagon.

I don't need to prove anything. Jones need to prove that his chips are the explosive material he claims it is.

OK I'll make it apparent, to create iron microspheres, the iron needs to turn molten, so that the surface tension can shape it into a sphere. A way that helps me easily visualize this is in space when astronauts pour some water, it always forms little spherical droplets, in a way that's similar to the surface tension pulling the molten iron into spheres.

There aren't any iron micro spheres, at least not in his paper. They are iron "rich" spheres, and are a mixture of all kind of materials. How do we know elemental iron was not already in the chips?

I completely disagree, maybe you didn't read the "conclusions" section? Here's my personal favorite:

8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very hightemperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

I think there are a few conclusions that both of us can agree on. For one, when ignited in that video, the red chips reacted in a highly energetic manner, no? Also, after ignition, iron spheres were found in the residue, no? When a thermite reaction occurs, it is highly energetic and produces iron spheres as a by-product.

What do you mean by highly energetic? Fact is, his sample didn't even completely react when he put a blowtorch on it. That does not sound like "highly energetic" material to me. When you put a blowtorch on something all kind of things can happen. Even materials that don't burn can explode.

His point in writing the paper wasn't to show where explosives were placed in the tower, how many ounces were places on what strucutral supports, what fuses were needed, and what computer program timed the explosives. His point was to simply show us evidence of explosives found in the WTC dust. The evidence for an energetic, explosive material is found in the dust of a building that collapsed in an explosive, energetic manner:

If you want to see how it can be used to cut steel, then I'd be more than happy to show you a video of thermite doing just that:

He didn't disprove it was paint and he didn't prove it was an explosive. His work is not conclusive. As for that video, that is thermate, and it is not made of chips that only partly react when ignited.

reply to post by -PLB-

I don't need to prove anything. Jones need to prove that his chips are the explosive material he claims it is.

....That's what his paper was all about. You do need to prove what you're saying, otherwise you're just saying things with nothing to back it up. You have consistently done that throughout the thread, made wild assertions with no evidence to back them up. If you're trying to tell us that those chips are paint chips as there are paint chips of those materials, then you need to prove to us that that brand of paint was used in the WTCs. You can't just say that a type of paint exists that has materials similar to thermite, and conclude that since such a paint exists that's what was in the WTC dust, especially if you're not going to prove to us that that paint was in the towers at the time of the collapse. For all I know the towers could have been painted with cotton candy and elmers glue, you have to prove to us that that's the paint which was used.

There aren't any iron micro spheres, at least not in his paper. They are iron "rich" spheres, and are a mixture of all kind of materials.

....Since he doesn't call them exactly what I called them, so they don't exist?

How do we know elemental iron was not already in the chips?

He says multiple times throughout the paper that iron rich spheres appeared AFTER the ignition and reaction of the sample. I provided quotes earlier in the thread, but I'll dig them up again just for you big guy.

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.

In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed.....The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest in this study; none were observed in these particular chips prior to DSC-heating.

What do you mean by highly energetic? Fact is, his sample didn't even completely react when he put a blowtorch on it.

When something the size of a crumb creates a bright orange flash compared to the paint samples turning to ash, I think it's safe to call that energetic. What would you call that? A material reacting, producing a bright orange flash (meaning it's very hot ), and creating iron rich spheres is NOT highly energetic?

That does not sound like "highly energetic" material to me.

Obviously not, it was a visible reaction, not an auditory one. Here is the DSC trace of the dust chip compared to the pure commercial thermite: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f2bf8883126f.jpg[/atsimg] Figure 29, the blue is the dust chip and the red is the commercial thermite. Would you agree that the steepness of the peak of the dust chip compared to the commercial thermite concludes that the dust chip is more energetic than the commercial thermite?

When you put a blowtorch on something all kind of things can happen.

....Yes.....you're right....."things can happen".....valid argument . Just like when he put the blowtorch to the paint samples, they turned to ash, and when he put the blowtorch to the dust chips, they reacted by not turning to ash but instead producing a bright orange flash (which, just to reiterate, means it's VERY hot) and iron rich spheres.

He didn't disprove it was paint and he didn't prove it was an explosive.

Yes he did, using several different methods that all reached the same conclusion, you are wrong dude.

The post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres in which the iron exceeds the oxygen content, implying that at least some of the iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction. If a paint were devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use.

Proof that the dust chips are not paint:
--First he soaked the dust chips and paint chips in an MEK solvent, and they both reacted in a completely different manner. Would you agree that the conclusion of this experiment is that the dust chips reacted differently than the paint chips after being exposed to the solvent?

--Next, he put a blowtorch to the dust chips and the paint chips. The dust chips reacted by creating a bright orange flash and producing iron rich spheres, while the paint chips turned to ash. Would you agree that the conclusion of this experiment is that the dust chips reacted differently than the paint chips after being ignited by the blowtorch?

--After that, he measured the specific resistivity of the dust chips, and found a value of 10 ohm-m, compared to 10 to the TENTH ohm-m for paint coats. The ratio of resistivity between the dust chips and paint is 1:1,000,000,000, one to one billion. Would you agree that the conclusion of this calculation is that the dust chip has an astronomically smaller resistivity than the paint?

Proof that the dust chips are explosive:
--When he held a blow torch to the dust chip, it ignited in an energetic, not quite explosive, but an energetic manner and also created iron rich spheres as a byproduct of the reaction. Thermite reacts in an energetic manner and iron rich spheres are a by-product of it's reaction. Would you agree that the reaction of the dust chips in this way supports the assertion that the dust chips are thermitic in nature?

--After carefully measuring the chemical composition of the dust chips using X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy, Jones found that the chips contained the same materials that thermite contains. Would you agree that the chemical composition of the dust chips being similiar to that of thermite supports the assertion that the dust chips are thermite based?

--The results of the DSC trace found it to be more energetic than commercial thermite.

His work is not conclusive.

The "conclusions" section begs to differ.

As for that video, that is thermate, and it is not made of chips that only partly react when ignited

Yes, they didn't spend time using tweezers and a microscope collecting chips from the dust to compile a few grams. The point of that video is to show that thermate can cut steel, because National Geographic (who I thought to be credible until that flawed experiment) had their own tests using hundreds of pounds of thermate and claimed to not be able to cut steel. This dude on the other hand used a tiny fraction of that and cut steel in various ways.

reply to post by -PLB-

Jones chips have properties that thermite does not have. Like a higher energy density and additional elements.

You are confusing types and tokens.

The thermite you have in your hand has a set of of properties xyz, but it is a particular rather than a universal.

The universal has a minimal set of properties both negative and positive which must be satisfied for it to belong to that set or class.



For example:

The number 1 as a universal concept has the property of being the number we count after zero. That particular instance of 1 also has the property of looking like a straight line on a computer screen.

But one, ein, een, une, yksi, yeden, en, yedan... are all instances of that universal concept referring to that number we count after zero, but none of them have the property of looking like a straight line on a computer screen.

If I hold up a cup and say: "THIS IS ONE THING", does that exclude an elephant from also being one thing?

One of thermite's property (and this is true for all forms of thermite/ate/nano/etc) is that it can burn in absence of oxygen.

There is an element of truth in what you say, but only insofar as all good science invites further avenues for research.

However the fact remains that even if this stuff did NOT burn in an anoxic environment it would STILL not be any kind of paint you could identify, and the fact that this particular test was not performed in no way excludes it from being thermite.

The test is irrelevant anyway, because the criteria for determining whether this was an aluminothermic reaction was not the reaction, but the fact that the reaction produced iron sphere's, which effectively eliminates any possibility that what you are looking at is an oxygen fueled reaction. The further test at that point would be somewhat of an irrelevance.

If you want to check if an Ox has a four and only four legs, do you have to perform a separate test to determine that it does not have six legs also?

TupacShakur and
Darkwing01:

Thank you for helping me understand where you are coming from. It's appreciated.

reply to post by MarkJS


My pleasure.

Once the OS'ers can come up with a sensible theory I would be more than happy to hear it, but what annoys the living **** out of me is when they pretend they already have one simply because the lunatic raving they believe (and which I once believed) reinforces their political prejudice.

Because they don't.

reply to post by Darkwing01


You are not making any sense to me. Jones chips have properties that thermite can not possibly have. We know for sure it was not thermite, but a mixture of a bunch of elements. The three elements that make up thermite were also present. Your logic is a bit like saying brass is copper. Sure it has some different properties not found in copper but it is still copper. or:

A contains B
Therefore A is B

A rational person would say brass contains copper.

reply to post by -PLB-

You are not making any sense to me. Jones chips have properties that thermite can not possibly have. We know for sure it was not thermite, but a mixture of a bunch of elements. The three elements that make up thermite were also present. Your logic is a bit like saying brass is copper. Sure it has some different properties not found in copper but it is still copper. or: A contains B Therefore A is B A rational person would say brass contains copper.

You are still confused about universals and particulars. A universal does not CONTAIN its instances or vice versa. They are two wholly different conceptual entities.

There is the universal entity BRASS. This has the property of being an alloy (containing) copper and zinc in a certain range of ratios. Any particular thing that IS BRASS contains copper and zinc in that range of ratios and if it does not contain copper and zinc in that range of ratios then it is not BRASS.

There is the universal entity COPPER. This has the property of being composed of mostly Cu atoms. Any particular of which we can truly say THIS IS COPPER is composed mostly of Cu atoms and no thing that is not composed of mostly Cu atoms is COPPER (at least not in this sense).

There is a particular entity, say a copper coin, that has the property of being composed of mostly copper. It is true to say that this copper coin IS COPPER.

There is another coin which HAS COPPER IN ITS COMPOSITION but also has Zn in such a ratio that we can say that it is BRASS.

Now it is entirely conceivable that there be a situation where the definitions overlap, that one of the range of ratios for BRONZE has sufficiently little Zn that it also satisfies the conditions for being COPPER.

There is no contradiction here.

SOOOOOO.....

All you need to do is find that paint that satisfies that property of thermite which defines something as thermitic: Forming iron microsphere's in the reaction.

Such a material could well be both thermite and paint, completely possible. But note that that doesn't mean it isn't thermite, because our definitions now are not mutually exclusive. Even if you could find a paint with this property all you will have shown is that some paints are thermite.

Would certainly be interesting to see, but not impossible.

Now you need to go and and find such paint though, all you have right now is a hunch, and a highly implausible one at that.