Trying to resolve 9/11

Ok. I know this is tough.

Deek Jackson of FKN news does present who he thinks is responsible for 9/11. Some may consider his views offensive. I find it very direct and to the point in this complex matter.

a reply to: kwakakev

I know it’s hard for you to except people like Richard Gage push falsehoods. And much of the most dear mythology to the truth movement concerning 9/11 is false.

Care to present Richard Gage’s most credible evidence for WTC CD?

a reply to: neutronflux

In the past the best work by Richard Gauge was 9/11 Blueprint for truth.

His more recent presentation title is 9/11 Truth and Justice.



I have not seen this one yet, will check it out.

a reply to: kwakakev

Like...
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Throwing boxes on boxes?
Like pushing columns cut during cleanup by thermal lance as being cut by thermite.

And his original premise was a lie.....

And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

www.skeptic.com...

What do you not get that Richard Gage is a fraud, and exploits 9/11 for a living.

a reply to: kwakakev

I didn’t ask for a Richard Gage commercial. I asked what was Richard Gage’s strong piece of Evidence the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics.

a reply to: neutronflux

I asked what was Richard Gage’s strong piece of Evidence the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics.

Because he said so.

He has never said how his special explosives survived the impact and fire of the plane.

If you did bother to watch that video you would see the rise of hands in the end. Tides turning boys.

Overall I found his new presentation very similar, a bit shorter and few little things better explained.

originally posted by: kwakakev
If you did bother to watch that video you would see the rise of hands in the end. Tides turning boys.

Overall I found his new presentation very similar, a bit shorter and few little things better explained.

People tired of elite politicians since the French Revolution, yes.

Still no evidence of WTC CD. Every indication Richard Gage is a charlatan. Yes.

a reply to: neutronflux

No.

Are you aware just how lost and confused your arguments appear in this thread? It is good to see you trying though. Hopefully when it counts you will be a bit clearer about things. If you need to get it out its ok, you are not alone in this struggle.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

No.

Are you aware just how lost and confused your arguments appear in this thread? It is good to see you trying though. Hopefully when it counts you will be a bit clearer about things. If you need to get it out its ok, you are not alone in this struggle.

Then state Richard Gage’s strongest piece of evidence the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics.

Or you afraid your last thread holding up the fantasy of WTC CD will be broken?

a reply to: neutronflux

See this is what I mean. I have repeatedly in this one thread alone. The evidence is right in front of you, but all you see is lies. I had a look at your explanations and responded. Basically, crap.

You give me nothing except some extreme level of evidence when I have already seen enough.

In this case I call guilty. The evidence is bad enough to warrant another investigation. It is known that not everyone will agree or want to accept this. The implications.

Yeah there will be a lot of upheaval with it. If we can clean house properly then we can find a stronger, wiser and more responsible big brother to take on the world and outer space. This is about more than me. It is about the Planet and all of us.

a reply to: kwakakev

In this case I call guilty. The evidence is bad enough to warrant another investigation.

But you have not seen the evidence.
All you have seen is youtube videos.
Hardly court worthy.

Yes Gage has said explosives.
But there is no evidence that supports explosives.

a reply to: samkent

I know that is what we have been told for years. I know that is what the orders said. I know in some countries and places free speech is a luxury that can get you killed.

Things have been changing. Hang in there.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: samkent

I know that is what we have been told for years. I know that is what the orders said. I know in some countries and places free speech is a luxury that can get you killed.

Things have been changing. Hang in there.

Been told? You can watch the videos for yourself... from different angles.

a reply to: neutronflux

You hang in too mate. I am not sure how to get you out just yet. People are trying.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

You hang in too mate. I am not sure how to get you out just yet. People are trying.

What? You that will not acknowledge that thermite at the WTC is sham? You who will not acknowledge that Richard Gage is a charlatan.

Let me remind you have no discernment for what is fraudulent and what is not.....

Your points were debunked one by one....

Gage lied in stating the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance.



Let’s revisit the “strong” argument for thermite

You.

I do get it. I so wish the official story was right, I really do.

It’s not about the official narrative. You present a intellectually false argument.

It’s not about any preconceived idea. It’s about having an open mind. About a questing attitude about everything.

Let’s take the thermite study.

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

benthamopen.com...

If you actually read through it, anyone with half an open mind sees it crap. It has nothing to do about the official narrative.

Let’s start with the most basic properties of thermite. Thermite burns in an inert atmosphere. That would be the simplest go / no go test. Take some of the sample and burn it in an inert atmosphere to see if it supports a thermite reaction. Is that part of the study. Nope. The simplest of tests, and it’s not part of the study. That is strange.

The thermite reaction is:
Fe2O3 + 2 Al → 2 Fe + Al2O3

Why, surely Jones tested specifically to ensure his dust had AL2 in it, pure elemental aluminum free to drive a thermite reaction. Nope. AL2 was never verified by analysis, it was assumed to be present. That is strange also.

Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac- count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material.

To assume something is present when you should test to verify it’s present is a glaring example of junk science.

But don’t take my word for it...

post 8 by Oystein

www.internationalskeptics.com...

They claim to have found elemental Aluminium, one key ingredient to thermite, in a fifth chip. However, this fifth chip is of a different material than the four others, as is proven by their own data presented in figures 6 and 14. They did NOT dind free aluminium in any of the material that they igited and claimed to be or contain thermite

Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

aneta.org...

Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano- thermite.

Then you have the samples from Jones tests were open to contamination and not stored for archiving.

Then one would wonder if the paper was peer reviewed.... A bit of research, and you will find then peer review was fraudulent. People consulted during the writing of the paper were used as peer reviewers. The paper bypassed the referee to be published, then the paper was published in a known pay to play publication.

Steven E. Jones
en.m.wikipedia.org...

In April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[47] The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,[48][49] resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.[50][51] According to Pileni, the article was published without her authorization. Subsequently, numerous concerns arose regarding the reliability of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishers. This included the publishing an allegedly peer reviewed article generated by SCIgen [52] (although this program has also successfully submitted papers to IEEE and Springer [53]), the resignation of multiple people at the administrative level,[54][55] and soliciting article submissions from researchers in unrelated fields through spam.[56] With regard to the peer review process of the research conducted by Jones in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, David Griscom identified himself as one of the reviewers.[57] The paper which Jones co-authored referenced Griscom, and multiple scientists studying 9/11, in the acknowledgements for "elucidating discussions and encouragements".[19] Almost four years prior to identifying himself as a reviewer and the welcome he received from Jones for speaking out boldly,[58] Griscom published a letter in defense of evidence-based 9/11 studies;[59] of which Jones was an editor.[60]

Then you do more research. And you find out Jones never completed the discovery process for his paper. The samples and results were never verified by a independent source.

If this was NIST, people would be screaming. But the unethical ways of the truth movement are ignored.....

I have kept an open mind. I found the thermite paper is junk science, fraudulent, and never verified.

For you to criticize like I don’t have an open mind when I have done my due diligence is crap, and intellectually dishonest.

My research shows there is no credible evidence of thermite in the WTC dust. NONE!

Because you have a biased mind you made the statement of :

The case for thermite is strong and does explain many of the abnormalities found.

Which means what?
“The case for thermite is strong”????

What case. You cite no sources. You mean the one thermite paper? “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”. Fraudulently peer reviewed with results no one can confirm. Is that the strong case. Good Gosh!

What “abnormalities found”????
The single nugget of strange compounds found in the toxins soup of burnt plastics, office equipment, batteries, office furniture, carpet, ceiling titles, vinyl flooring, computers that was the WTC pile.

Because I have a questioning attitude, I see the thermite research for the junk pseudoscience it is!

You are so biased, you called a fraudulently peered review paper who’s results cannot be verified after many attempts as the “case for thermite is strong”

I can see you are smart and done a lot of research. Considering the situation you do make a lot of good points. I know things are a mess and there is some thing is not quite right. So how do we fix it?

Perhaps we might just have to wait until the government makes a more clearly defined direction on this?

Lets say for example Trump did drop a big 9/11 truth bomb tomorrow, names, bank accounts, hand well and truly caught in the cookie jar? How would you respond?

originally posted by: kwakakev
I can see you are smart and done a lot of research. Considering the situation you do make a lot of good points. I know things are a mess and there is some thing is not quite right. So how do we fix it?

Perhaps we might just have to wait until the government makes a more clearly defined direction on this?

Lets say for example Trump did drop a big 9/11 truth bomb tomorrow, names, bank accounts, hand well and truly caught in the cookie jar? How would you respond?

What does that have to do with Richard Gage has zero evidence of CD.

a reply to: neutronflux

This has to do with communication. For communication to work properly it requires both talking and listening. I have listened and responded to your questions, i need you to listen and respond to some of my questions if we are to look for some common ground.

What I am trying to do is a conflict resolution technique. Try looking at it from the other side.

So lets just say Trump let it all out tomorrow, names, confessions, video, even all the receipts for all the explosives. The whole lot. How would you feel?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

This has to do with communication. For communication to work properly it requires both talking and listening. I have listened and responded to your questions, i need you to listen and respond to some of my questions if we are to look for some common ground.

What I am trying to do is a conflict resolution technique. Try looking at it from the other side.

So lets just say Trump let it all out tomorrow, names, confessions, video, even all the receipts for all the explosives. The whole lot. How would you feel?

False argument.

If you think the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics, and Richard Gage is credible, I want evidence.

What do you not understand there is no evidence of WTC CD. Or it’s fraudulent pseudoscience like Jone’s thermite “study”.

Or right out falsehoods like Gage’s the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance.