Buddhists for 9/11 Truth

reply to post by exponent



So if nano thermite is not military grade, does that mean the hijackers purchased it, placed it in the towers, and set it off after they flew their planes into it? Because after all, military grade or not, nano thermite was found in the dust samples. How funny that you focus on my saying 'military' while not denying that it was there. This reminds me of the neocon argument that KSM was not tortured 238 times, but water was dropped on him 238 times, and he was only tortured 5 times. So it seems like you can't even deny that nano thermite was there, now the best thing you can do is to say it wasn't military grade, meaning you could get it on the black market, so did the hijackers do just that?

So since you are dismissing the paper on active nano thermite in the dust as a 'truther' website, can you give me the link debunking this paper? It is peer reviewed after all, so some scientist must have critiqued it.

Dr. Niels Harrit: This stuff has only been prepared under military contracts in the USA and probably in bigger allied countries. This is secret military research. Do your own guess work and read Kevin Ryan's article on this subject. It was not prepared in a cave in Afghanistan.

www.indybay.org...

Oh wait, or is this a truther website? Can you direct me to the acceptable websites?

Originally posted by filosophia
I believe all three buildings came down at free fall or near free fall speed, since you can time the collapse of the towers. As I said, it's so close that it can be said to be free fall speed, the main distinction being that it collapsed like a controlled demolition, with little to no resistance. So if you want to argue the exact science of it, first of all physics is never 100 percent exact, and second of all, having NIST do a report on building 7 for 8 years and then come out with a cover up is not scientific.

Once again, you're just repeating things you've heard on a conspiracy site without checking them out. If you actually investigate this impartially, you'll find that the rates of acceleration are about 0.75g for WTC1 and 0.66g for WTC2. The amount of resistance felt was more energy than hundreds of pounds of TNT.

There you go again, judging websites you don't like as "truther" websites. That's apriori judgment which is prejudiced. And I said military grade because the antrax was military grade,

Anthrax can be military grade, because it has to meet certain criteria to be useful. Nano-thermite does not have a known military application, so it cannot.

and the nano thermite came from the Mossad, so that is also military.

Firstly, I'd like to see any evidence at all that anyone has to implicate Mossad in any nano-thermite plot other than strictly anti-semitism. Secondly, Mossad is a civilian organisation, not military.

You say I'm acting as others are? Well gee, and no one can say that about you, huh? Osama Bin Laden, 19 hijackers, jet fuel?

What about them? If you've read up on the actual facts then I won't be disagreeing with you, but I would put money on you not having done.

PS. I still am more than happy to debate in the formal debating forum if someone wants to challenge me over this, this is hardly the ideal thread for a protracted debate.

reply to post by filosophia


Yes, Neils Harrit is an author of the paper and a truther. Besides you can verify he's wrong easily by downloading the paper I linked.

Originally posted by filosophia
I believe all three buildings came down at free fall or near free fall speed, since you can time the collapse of the towers. As I said, it's so close that it can be said to be free fall speed,

Oh dear. yet another truther lie. You have not even bothered to watch the collapse of WTC 1&2, as if you had watched them collapse you would have seen that the debris that came off the buildings is falling at free fall speed, whilst the collapse of the 2 buildings is much slower than the debris, thus it can be shown that WTC 1&2 did not fall at free fall speed.

Why do truthers continue with this lie?

Originally posted by filosophia
It is peer reviewed after all,

Was it? Please state the names of those who peer reviewed it, if you are unable to show who peer reviewed it, why lie about it being peer reviewed?

Originally posted by filosophia
www.indybay.org...

Oh wait, or is this a truther website?

It is a website where you can easily see the lies by truthers,

" Dr. Niels Harrit: All the bomb sniffing dogs were sent home by the security company two weeks before."

Another truther lie, one of the dogs was killed
www.globalsecurity.org...
Sirius, whose primary duty was checking trucks and unattended bags for bombs at the World Trade Center, died along with 37 members of the Port Authority Police Department when the towers collapsed on the morning of Sept. 11."

Wrong, if there was any resistance at all, the tower would not have collapsed. And once again you provide no links to back up your claims. The towers fell in 10 seconds, you can test that alongside the video. Where are you getting this .75g? And if there was resistance, the towers would not have fallen!

Wrong again: nano thermite has no known military application. Of course there's a military application: it's called demolition

Mossad implications
www.infowars.com...
www.antiwar.com...

But darn, I guess these links don't count since they are "truther" websites

Anti-semitism? No, you are racist for assuming that anyone who criticizes Israel is racist.

Just so I know, do you deny Bin Laden was a CIA operative that worked with the agency up to 9/11 per Sibel Edmonds testimony?

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by filosophia

 

Yes, Neils Harrit is an author of the paper and a truther. Besides you can verify he's wrong easily by downloading the paper I linked.

I was looking through it, other than discussing properties of nano thermite, I missed the part where it said Niels Harrit is wrong.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by filosophia
I believe all three buildings came down at free fall or near free fall speed, since you can time the collapse of the towers. As I said, it's so close that it can be said to be free fall speed,

Oh dear. yet another truther lie. You have not even bothered to watch the collapse of WTC 1&2, as if you had watched them collapse you would have seen that the debris that came off the buildings is falling at free fall speed, whilst the collapse of the 2 buildings is much slower than the debris, thus it can be shown that WTC 1&2 did not fall at free fall speed.

Why do truthers continue with this lie?

Let's see, I probably watched the towers collapse hundreds if not thousands of times. I already addressed why the debris was falling faster, because the explosive charge propelled them, the same explosive charge that sent steel beams hundreds of feet and wedged into other buildings.



Do I need to remind you that implying that I am a liar is most likely against the rules and decorum? Let's keep it civil.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by filosophia
It is peer reviewed after all,

Was it? Please state the names of those who peer reviewed it, if you are unable to show who peer reviewed it, why lie about it being peer reviewed?

It's on the internet, anyone can 'debunk' it. It's in an open journal. Is it their fault no one wants to touch it? I asked for a link to someone who critiqued it. Interesting how instead of peer reviewing it, you are claiming that since it is not peer reviewed, it must not be peer review-able. Interesting. Well, whenever you are ready to give me a link to someone debunking it, I'll be ready. To be honest I don't have a link to that, can you provide one? Is it their fault no one can debunk it?

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by filosophia
www.indybay.org...

Oh wait, or is this a truther website?

It is a website where you can easily see the lies by truthers,

" Dr. Niels Harrit: All the bomb sniffing dogs were sent home by the security company two weeks before."

Another truther lie, one of the dogs was killed
www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org... :

“Sirius, whose primary duty was checking trucks and unattended bags for bombs at the World Trade Center, died along with 37 members of the Port Authority Police Department when the towers collapsed on the morning of Sept. 11.”"

Sorry, your link does not work. And the facts aren't gonna go away just by calling them lies.

Originally posted by filosophia
Wrong, if there was any resistance at all, the tower would not have collapsed. And once again you provide no links to back up your claims. The towers fell in 10 seconds, you can test that alongside the video. Where are you getting this .75g? And if there was resistance, the towers would not have fallen!

This makes no sense, any acceleration that is lower than g is 'resistance' as it is energy being consumed in destroying the building rather than accelerating the upper block. The figures are derived from point tracking on videos of the WTC carried out by a number of people on the forums I linked you to.

Wrong again: nano thermite has no known military application. Of course there's a military application: it's called demolition

Can you show me an example of the military using nano-thermite for demolition? I've never heard of it, and I can't find anything on google.

Mossad implications
www.infowars.com...
www.antiwar.com...

Where does it say that they provided nano-thermite? You seem to be failing to back up a lot of claims here.

Anti-semitism? No, you are racist for assuming that anyone who criticizes Israel is racist.

This is rather hilarious, I'm afraid you need to re-read what you posted, because it makes no sense at all.

Just so I know, do you deny Bin Laden was a CIA operative that worked with the agency up to 9/11 per Sibel Edmonds testimony?

I wouldn't know for sure, but it seems pretty unlikely. The US has never worked with Bin Laden as far as I am aware.

Originally posted by filosophia
you are claiming that since it is not peer reviewed, it must not be peer review-able.

You really should stop making things up - You claimed the paper was peer reviewed, I simply asked you who peer reviewed it.... a question you seem unable to answer, so how do you know it was peer reviewed?

If there was resistance, the towers would still be standing.

Sure, I can give you an example of military demolition: 9/11 lol. I'm sure that doesn't convince you, but I couldn't resist. No, I have no other examples, however I do know that the anthrax was military grade. So the terrorists were blamed for using anthrax only the military could use, and now there is nano thermite in the dust and all of a sudden this was the terrorists? Which would go against the official story of course.

Well, the Mossad did have access to the security, so I'd say that is a big enough suspicion. Sorry, I can't link you to the Mossad website where they admit they pulled off 9/11, however I can link to a website that has Netanyahu saying 9/11 was good for Israel.

Actually, what I said makes perfect sense, you claim anyone who implicates Mossad/Israel is anti-semitic (meaning racist), which is assuming that anyone who does so is racist, which in itself is racist (Prejudice being the universal equivalent of racist. You are prejudiced against anyone who implicates Israel the way a racist person is prejudiced against a particular race.

Oh, as far as you're aware, so obviously you've never heard of the Sibel Edmonds testimony?



Deny ignorance.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by filosophia
you are claiming that since it is not peer reviewed, it must not be peer review-able.

You really should stop making things up - You claimed the paper was peer reviewed, I simply asked you who peer reviewed it.... a question you seem unable to answer, so how do you know it was peer reviewed?

I already said I have no links to a debunking of the paper. Can you provide one? However it is in an open journal, meaning it is open for peer review. The truth is no one can debunk it though, so instead you are claiming it is not peer reviewable. Ha~

edit: nano thermite paper is reviewed

forum.prisonplanet.com...

there you go, now it has been peer reviewed.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by filosophia
you are claiming that since it is not peer reviewed, it must not be peer review-able.

You really should stop making things up - You claimed the paper was peer reviewed, I simply asked you who peer reviewed it.... a question you seem unable to answer, so how do you know it was peer reviewed?

forum.prisonplanet.com...

There you go, here is a peer review of the paper, a rather good one if you ask me. So now can you stop calling me a liar for claiming the paper is peer reviewed? I think I remember having this conversation with you before. Why not invest your time in peer reviewing it rather than calling me a liar?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by filosophia

Well, the Mossad did have access to the security, so I'd say that is a big enough suspicion. Sorry, I can't link you to the Mossad website where they admit they pulled off 9/11, however I can link to a website that has Netanyahu saying 9/11 was good for Israel.

The Mossad knew about 911 but they were not the primary planners. Actually any of the military contractors would have profited from a middle east terrorist threat. Probably the brains of the operation came from Lockheed Martin or if they were trolling for terrorist communications maybe Lockheed Intercept.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by filosophia
so instead you are claiming it is not peer reviewable.

Again you go telling lies - you claimed it was peer reviewed, so how about telling us who peer reviewed it. Where did I say it is not peer reviewed?

there you go, now it has been peer reviewed.

You are showing your ignorance, you have no clue at all what peer reviewed actually means!

Okay, I'll give, it's not peer reviewed, BECAUSE NO ONE CAN DEBUNK IT.