now as far as the 4 million, i was unaware it ended up being 15 million. but still...15 million to investigate the biggest "terrorist" attack in our history?
Thats your link to the discovery of Lithium as well as a variety of other minerals in Afghanistan, still dont know what im talking about? See when people make claims like 9/11 was a false flag operation.....Its usually because the amount of Crap that the Government has told us does not make sense, Nor does it add up! I'd rather not be a sheep led to slaughter thank you :XD
Edited by Silverbane81, 17 September 2011 - 09:52 PM.
You want the theories to stop, turn off the internet....that'll stop it pretty damn quick LOL. Nah In all honesty, it will never stop. Hey it's all good, makes for good reading LOL
Tune into www.subspace-radio.net a Star Trek online radio station. Catch my show every Friday night 0300 - 0600 GMT 8pm - 11PM pacific.
DJ JayGatZ Recruitment and Operations of Subspace-radio.net
jaygatz@gamingradio.net
now as far as the 4 million, i was unaware it ended up being 15 million. but still...15 million to investigate the biggest "terrorist" attack in our history?
Thats your link to the discovery of Lithium as well as a variety of other minerals in Afghanistan, still dont know what im talking about? See when people make claims like 9/11 was a false flag operation.....Its usually because the amount of Crap that the Government has told us does not make sense, Nor does it add up! I'd rather not be a sheep led to slaughter thank you :XD
You clearly referred to watergate as the scandal involving President Clinton and his mistress... Go back and read the part that I put in bold, just for you.
Missile Punch, on 18 September 2011 - 12:09 AM, said:
You clearly referred to watergate as the scandal involving President Clinton and his mistress... Go back and read the part that I put in bold, just for you.
ahhh so i made a mistake and instead of saying you mean whitewater? u tell me i have no clue what im talking about! that makes sense
H.H. Holmes, on 17 September 2011 - 04:27 PM, said:
Thanks, very interesting stuff. I would really like to see what other people in the field have to say about this, though. It would really go a long way to substantiate the findings of the report.
As a layperson, I cannot go through all of the technical details and understand the methodology used sufficiently to say whether the analysis was done 100% correct.
I'm going to see if I can find some kind of response from other experts through my search engine of peer-reviewed journals. I'll post my findings, if there are any.
Hi H.H. Holmes, I agree that it is very interesting and worthy of continued analysis. I think that the best rebuttal to this study I've seen was the one offered by Chris Mohr. I talked a bit about this in another thread with the following:
booNyzarC, on 17 September 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:
But thank you for encouraging me to look into that in more depth because I found a potential rebuttal to this nanothermite claim as well...
Mohr points out the problems with the conclusion that thermitic material was found in the dust here.
7 WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE UNIGNITED NANOTHERMITES THEY FOUND IN THE DUST SAMPLES IN THAT EXPERIMENT?
Niels Harritt, Steven Jones and other 9/11 controlled demolition theorists claim to have found nanothermite particles in dust samples from the World Trade Center. They made sure the dust samples were untainted, and used advanced instruments to measure what happened when these tiny red-grey chips were heated up.
Thermites reach temperatures of around 4500° and have their own oxygen supply when they burn, so they can burn underwater. Harritt, Jones, et. al. therefore should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were burning. They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product burning in oxygen. They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nanothermite!
Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal. Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released. A chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn’t find thermitic material.
Do you consider his criticism of the testing conditions employed by Harritt, Jones, et. al. to be valid? If not, why not?
And if they are so confident in their initial conclusions, why not perform the tests under the conditions suggested here by Mohr?
In addition to this I have since had the opportunity to review a longer and more detailed rebuttal in two of Mohr's videos. First part 11a:
And the second part of this in 11b:
I share Mohr's view that the particles are worthy of investigation which can absolutely determine whether it truly is thermitic material. The primary question I have is why the testing performed by Harritt and others was not done in such a way that could determine this without question. They argue that they were trying to mimic the conditions of the 9/11 event itself, which is all well and good, but it isn't the way to test this material if your intention is to truly identify whether it is thermite.
I've raised these questions in the other thread and I haven't seen an explanation for why this testing wasn't done appropriately. Perhaps someone will be able to address these questions here in this thread.
Little Fish, on 16 September 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:
why do official story believers ignore the unreacted nanothermite found in the dust?
why doesn't NIST investigate the dust, the main NIST people are experts in nanothermite. why are NIST so quiet on this?
nanothermite in the dust means the official story is wrong.
Airliners are generally constructed of aluminum, so when an aircraft strikes a steel building where rust oxide reside and does so under high temperatures, you can expect to find thermite dust in all cases under identical conditiions.
You can create thermite in the lab using aluminum and rust oxide and igniting them under high temps.
I might also add that I recently reviewed videos of the collapes and noticed that just before the buildings fell, they buckled, (no explosion) and the rest became history when they fell. They fell as would be expected when damaged support structures were fighting to hold the upper sections of the building before the heat from the fires weakened the structures even further.
Edited by skyeagle409, 18 September 2011 - 09:43 PM.
skyeagle409, on 18 September 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:
Airliners are generally constructed of aluminum, so when an aircraft strikes a steel building where rust oxide reside and does so under high temperatures, you can expect to find thermite dust in all cases under identical conditiions.
So do you agree there was thermite then? Or is this a new type of debunk, where you agree there was thermite but not planted and caused by some phenomenon?
And how high a temperature is needed for this to happen? You don't stipulate, that would suggest that it's at a much high temperature than a hydrocarbon fire.
And please feel free to postulate and expand on how this occured, I'm no expert but I'm all ears.
skyeagle409, on 18 September 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:
You can create thermite in the lab using aluminum and rust oxide and igniting them under high temps.
I didn't know the WTC was a lab??
In other words, I can make cake with butter, flour, eggs and sugar whisked and put in an oven, but I wouldn't expect a cake to magically appear if I just chucked the ingredients directly into the oven.
skyeagle409, on 18 September 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:
I might also add that I recently reviewed videos of the collapes and noticed that just before the buildings fell, they buckled, (no explosion) and the rest became history when they fell.
skyeagle409, on 18 September 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:
They fell as would be expected when damaged support structures were fighting to hold the upper sections of the building before the heat from the fires weakened the structures even further.
So in the case of the WTC1, the fires weakened all 90 odd floors below it, yet somehow the upper portions of 17 odd floor were not weakened by the heat of the fires (even though heat as this habit of rising!) but some how actually become stronger than the 90 odd floors below it.
skyeagle409, on 18 September 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:
Airliners are generally constructed of aluminum, so when an aircraft strikes a steel building where rust oxide reside and does so under high temperatures, you can expect to find thermite dust in all cases under identical conditiions.
You can create thermite in the lab using aluminum and rust oxide and igniting them under high temps.
I might also add that I recently reviewed videos of the collapes and noticed that just before the buildings fell, they buckled, (no explosion) and the rest became history when they fell. They fell as would be expected when damaged support structures were fighting to hold the upper sections of the building before the heat from the fires weakened the structures even further.
It is refreshing to be on the same side of an argument with you skyeagle. I agree with you completely on this.
So in the case of the WTC1, the fires weakened all 90 odd floors below it, yet somehow the upper portions of 17 odd floor were not weakened by the heat of the fires (even though heat as this habit of rising!) but some how actually become stronger than the 90 odd floors below it.
I don't know how you could know that without applying the same amount of weight to the upper floors as was applied to the lower floors! I don't see how you can compare weakness whilst ignoring weight? Or have you already covered that, apologies if so!
"Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science". ~ Edwin Powell Hubble
I would like to congratulate the 1500 architects and engineers who have challenged the government conclusions on 911. I regard these people as heroes. They are risking their careers and even their lives by taking such a stand.
If we look back at the critics of the Warren Commision report on the assassination of President Kennedy, we we see how authors and investigators have been harassed and slandered by the media. There are even evidence some of them have been murdered among the hundreds who died who were connected to the assassination. A recent book about the assassination by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor of Charles Manson, denounces anybody who does not agree that Oswald was the sole assassin to be traitors and communists.
When you are willing the challenge the government there is a price to be paid. Architects could be barred from doing any government work and worse. The fact they represent only a small fraction of the total number of architects in this country does not mean that others feel the same but are not willing to take th risk and join them. It takes a real hero to question the government in this day and age.
The fact they represent only a small fraction of the total number of architects in this country does not mean that others feel the same but are not willing to take th risk and join them.
I have to wholeheartedly agree with this. That fact that .25% of the over 1 million architects and engineers in the world support the Truthers most certainly does not mean that the others feel the same, to say nothing of not being willing to take the risk and join them.
In fact, I would even go so far to say that the vast, vast majority of the remaining 99.75% of the architects and engineers of the world don't even consider the arguments worthy of their time, and among those 99.75%, there may even be a few who actually disagree!
I never thought I would agree with Mike on anything.
So do you agree there was thermite then? Or is this a new type of debunk, where you agree there was thermite but not planted and caused by some phenomenon?
And how high a temperature is needed for this to happen? You don't stipulate, that would suggest that it's at a much high temperature than a hydrocarbon fire.
And please feel free to postulate and expand on how this occured, I'm no expert but I'm all ears.
I didn't know the WTC was a lab??
In other words, I can make cake with butter, flour, eggs and sugar whisked and put in an oven, but I wouldn't expect a cake to magically appear if I just chucked the ingredients directly into the oven.
The evidence for actual live thermite is tenuous at this stage Stundie. The samples haven't yet been appropriately tested to confirm the validity of this claim. But I encourage you to suggest that Niels Harritt, Steven Jones and any other interested parties perform the tests which could confirm this. Or at the very least, request that an independent lab perform the testing with some of the samples.
It is quite clear that materials have been found in the dust that would be consistent with thermitic materials, but each of these materials were abundantly present between the towers' construction, materials inside the towers, and the planes which struck the buildings.
There are many possible causes for that squib. You are jumping to the conclusion that it was caused by explosives but there is no reason to make this assumption.
It could have been a partial ceiling or wall collapse for example. We simply don't know what the exact cause of that particular squib is.
But if we are to assume, as you would apparently have us believe, that it is caused by explosives, one might wonder why it is isolated like this. Why weren't there more in the same general area at the same general time? What time exactly is this footage taken from and how long before the tower collapse precisely?
Stundie, on 18 September 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:
So in the case of the WTC1, the fires weakened all 90 odd floors below it, yet somehow the upper portions of 17 odd floor were not weakened by the heat of the fires (even though heat as this habit of rising!) but some how actually become stronger than the 90 odd floors below it.
I didn't see skyeagle mention anything about fires weakening "all 90 odd floors below it." Why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it just that you are building a strawman here so that you can make your rebuttal falsely appear more convincing?
The primary question I have is why the testing performed by Harritt and others was not done in such a way that could determine this without question.
the PXD syncrotron method as suggested by Mohr in his presentation is equivalent to a particle accelerator. it is not reasonable to expect Harrt et al. to have access to such equipment, seems the bar is being raised for Harrit to a height which he cannot possibly jump. I echo a previous poster's comment - why are people asking Harrit to do these tests and not asking the authorities charged with the investigation to do them. The researchers have been lobbying NIST for years to look into this matter, they would easily have the resources, but NIST are not interested in looking at the findings, instead we have a "rebuttal" from Mohr who is not a scientist, and what is clear is that Mohr is just parroting debunker soundbites. his presentation is full of fallacious arguments, inaccuracies and absurdities that he himself probably doesn't even realise, As an obvious example that he has not even read or understood the Harrit paper he gets a critical finding wrong by stating "found that their chips ignited at around 150° C" - where is Mohr getting his information from? it certainly isn't the Harrit paper which states 420° C. I can go over these issues if you would like, but for now I want to stay on topic with the nanothermite, the candles and carnations were a nice touch though.
Quote
They argue that they were trying to mimic the conditions of the 9/11 event itself, which is all well and good, but it isn't the way to test this material if your intention is to truly identify whether it is thermite. I've raised these questions in the other thread and I haven't seen an explanation for why this testing wasn't done appropriately. Perhaps someone will be able to address these questions here in this thread.
I disagree with your assertion that an inert atmosphere test is critical to determine whether a thermite reaction has occurred, you are just proposing a different experiment to show the same thing.
here are findings and results for the red chips found in the dust: ** the pre-ignition material is shown to contain iron-oxide and elemental aluminium, but not contain elemental iron.
++ the post ignition material is shown to contain molten elemental iron.
this is enough to demonstrate the thermite reaction has occurred - the iron oxide has given up its oxygen atoms after ignition, and the energy released was enough to melt steel/iron.
nowhere can I find Mohr talking about the molten elemental iron produced after ignition, not telling the whole truth is still fibbing.
** from the paper "Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not."
++from the paper "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."
EDIT - OOPS my mistake here, I thought he said 150C ignition temperature, it seems he meant 150c lower than.., the full stop after 150C and speed reading confused me.
Edited by Little Fish, 19 September 2011 - 12:30 AM.
My question is this: Instead of testing for thermitic ingredients which can be regularly found in major office fires, why are they not testing for thermitic materials that are only found when live thermite is used?
It would seem to me the most logical step, one which would definitively show the existence of thermite, and refute the argument of alternate sources.
2
Missile Punch, on 17 September 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:
