763 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

Missile Punch, on 16 September 2011 - 09:05 PM, said:

So do you personally believe that the government concocted this scheme, and used thermite to collapse those towers?

you would need an investigation to find out the who and the how.
but the presence of thermite in the building falsifies the official explanation.

NIST is ignoring the thermite evidence. If explosive residues are found in the debris of a building, it is negligent to ignore that evidence.

[Missile Punch]

Little Fish, on 16 September 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

you would need an investigation to find out the who and the how.
but the presence of thermite in the building falsifies the official explanation.

NIST is ignoring the thermite evidence. If explosive residues are found in the debris of a building, it is negligent to ignore that evidence.

So then do you think that the US government, or anybody else for that matter, will ever reveal the "actual" story about what happened?

[Marcin]

Will it stop? Doubt it... very much.

- Will Roswell talk ever stop?
Doesn't matter how much material you throw at dismissing and disproving or proving it, it won't stop for many decades to come, only getting even more fantastical with years and imaginations running wild.

- Will JFK murder talk ever stop?
Same as above, doubtful.

- Will WTC talk ever stop?
Heh... but yea, nah. No matter what you throw at it, it's like religion - when you believe something that much - it doesn't matter to you what's thrown at you to prove you otherwise, you ignore it all equally and move along. And best of all, the more attention you give to such conspiracies even if you don't believe in any of them - you're only fueling it up, you're giving it attention which drives it, and the louder you scream against it, the more you're "proving it right"

[Missile Punch]

Marcin, on 16 September 2011 - 11:44 PM, said:

Will it stop? Doubt it... very much.

- Will Roswell talk ever stop?
Doesn't matter how much material you throw at dismissing and disproving or proving it, it won't stop for many decades to come, only getting even more fantastical with years and imaginations running wild.

- Will JFK murder talk ever stop?
Same as above, doubtful.

- Will WTC talk ever stop?
Heh... but yea, nah. No matter what you throw at it, it's like religion - when you believe something that much - it doesn't matter to you what's thrown at you to prove you otherwise, you ignore it all equally and move along. And best of all, the more attention you give to such conspiracies even if you don't believe in any of them - you're only fueling it up, you're giving it attention which drives it, and the louder you scream against it, the more you're "proving it right"

Very well said. I agree. That was a legitimate answer to the OP, and it makes me feel stupid for going off on a "prove me wrong" tangent like a jackass.

[Little Fish]

Marcin, on 16 September 2011 - 11:44 PM, said:

it doesn't matter to you what's thrown at you to prove you otherwise, you ignore it all equally and move along.

Where has it been proven that thermite was not discovered in the dust?

a substance containing elemental aluminium and iron oxide intimately mixed at the nanoscale producing elemental molten iron when ignited is thermite. this substance has been shown by measurement and experiment to have been ubiquitous to the wtc dust.

I have shown the evidence that thermite was found in the dust and NIST has ignored it.

where is this proof you mention that thermite was not in the dust that you claim is is being ignored?

[mrbusdriver]

Little Fish, on 16 September 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

yes, nanothermite was found in the dust

http://www.benthamsc...V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

or watch Niels Harrit at the toronto hearings here:

I question the veracity of this study. They examined exactly 4 samples...out of the countless samples available, the thousands of tons available.

And did they even hypothesize on other possible causes of of their material findings? I would be interested in seeing the feedback/peer review to this investigation.

[Silverbane81]

"The US government did not sacrifice nearly 3,000 innocent Americans in order to go to war for oil. They were crazy, pissed off terrorists doing exactly what terrorists do."--
I disagree. 150,000 men and women died over a lie. it was the gulf of Tonkin which led us into Vietnam and they came out in 2004 and admitted it never happend. It was a false flag. Governments lie all the time to get into wars. It is not just oil interests, its the entire middle east and its resources. They just found a vein of Lithium no to long ago in Afghanistan. Its not a conspiracy, its common sense. as far as the towers go, Building 7 fell in 7 seconds and nothing hit it! They spent a mere 4 million dollars to "investigate" 9/11. they spent 14 million on water gate and all they found out was clinton cheated on his wife. nothing adds up about 9/11. 3,000 victims slain and the families  still have not gotten straight answers.

[Alienated Being]

Perhaps when the government stops fabricating lies, the conspiracy theorists will stop. That will never happen, though. No government can be trusted.

[Missile Punch]

Silverbane81, on 17 September 2011 - 02:46 AM, said:

"The US government did not sacrifice nearly 3,000 innocent Americans in order to go to war for oil. They were crazy, pissed off terrorists doing exactly what terrorists do."--
I disagree. 150,000 men and women died over a lie. it was the gulf of Tonkin which led us into Vietnam and they came out in 2004 and admitted it never happend. It was a false flag. Governments lie all the time to get into wars. It is not just oil interests, its the entire middle east and its resources. They just found a vein of Lithium no to long ago in Afghanistan. Its not a conspiracy, its common sense. as far as the towers go, Building 7 fell in 7 seconds and nothing hit it! They spent a mere 4 million dollars to "investigate" 9/11. they spent 14 million on water gate and all they found out was clinton cheated on his wife. nothing adds up about 9/11. 3,000 victims slain and the families  still have not gotten straight answers.

Ummm what?? I'm sorry but I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about. At all.

Edited by Missile Punch, 17 September 2011 - 09:26 AM.

[bubs49]

mrbusdriver, on 17 September 2011 - 01:18 AM, said:

I question the veracity of this study.

The best way to do it is to produce your own study and publish it on a scientific journal, having care to have it peer-reviewed.

mrbusdriver, on 17 September 2011 - 01:18 AM, said:

They examined exactly 4 samples...out of the countless samples available, the thousands of tons available.

Exactly. The US government had countless samples and thousands of tons available to examine. Unfortunately they failed to do that. Harrit examined a bunch of samples given by private citizens. Why are you questioning Harrit and not the US government?

[Scott G]

bubs49, on 17 September 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Exactly. The US government had countless samples and thousands of tons available to examine. Unfortunately they failed to do that. Harrit examined a bunch of samples given by private citizens. Why are you questioning Harrit and not the US government?

This is really the question. It's so very rarely asked though; the only time I believe I got an honest response was quite revealing. The official story believer essentially said that it was like asking if his mother had murdered someone. It seems that for many official story believers, the possibility that there might be a malicious arm of the government is generally too traumatic to be considered.

[Little Fish]

mrbusdriver, on 17 September 2011 - 01:18 AM, said:

I question the veracity of this study. They examined exactly 4 samples...out of the countless samples available, the thousands of tons available.

what questions do you have?
Harrit has 30 years experience as a professor of chemistry and published dozens of papers. his work has been replicated by chemical engineer Mark Basile:
"I can confirm these red chips are thermitic, they do produce molten iron...I have also seen it in an independent sample sent to me from a museum in new york, I have seen thermitic activity in two independent samples of the dust"

please watch the 13 minute video to avoid unnecessary discussion.

"...this is a material that is made up of nano particles in a silica based matrix, when you ignite it, the iron droplets that are formed eat through the silica matrix and form droplets and actually create large voids within the residue of the chip which are coated with iron films inside, if you take these chips and section them and look at them before you ignite them there are no iron microspheres, there are no iron particles, there are no iron films contained in these chips, its only after you bring them up to their ignition point and they go through their thermitic reaction that liquid iron is produced and the energy is released. these chips are not naturally occuring, they are not going to form because some materials fall down in a building and touch each other and get compressed together, that's just not what this material is..."

so Basile independently replicates the work and uses a dust sample from an independent source (museum in new york) and confirms the results of Harrit. he even uses a different method of heating to Harrit's DSC and comes to the same conclusion that it is thermite material, the same composition as Harrit describes and produces molten elemental iron when heated to its ignition temperature.

Quote

And did they even hypothesize on other possible causes of their material findings? I would be interested in seeing the feedback/peer review to this investigation.

the paper has been public and widely discussed for 3 years, so it has withstood public review. the paper rules out obvious candidates by measurement and experimentation, no sensible alternatives suggesting an innocuous explanation have even been speculated, but think about it, a material that produces a thermite reaction, ubiquitous to the dust igniting at a very low temperature releasing molten iron and large chemical energy capable of melting steel, such a thing should not be in a building.

bubs49, on 17 September 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

The US government had countless samples and thousands of tons available to examine. Unfortunately they failed to do that. Harrit examined a bunch of samples given by private citizens. Why are you questioning Harrit and not the US government?

first time I've ever done this, but...  

Edited by Little Fish, 17 September 2011 - 12:58 PM.

[H.H. Holmes]

Quote

the paper has been public and widely discussed for 3 years, so it has withstood public review. the paper rules out obvious candidates by measurement and experimentation, no sensible alternatives suggesting an innocuous explanation have even been speculated, but think about it, a material that produces a thermite reaction, ubiquitous to the dust igniting at a very low temperature releasing molten iron and large chemical energy capable of melting steel, such a thing should not be in a building.

Do you have a link to the actual paper as it appears in a peer reviewed journal along with the commentary from peers? If so, it would be really useful in determining the veracity of his findings.

[Little Fish]

H.H. Holmes, on 17 September 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Do you have a link to the actual paper as it appears in a peer reviewed journal along with the commentary from peers? If so, it would be really useful in determining the veracity of his findings.

http://www.benthamsc...0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

http://www.benthamsc...V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

there have been no journal submitted responses from peers.

[H.H. Holmes]

Little Fish, on 17 September 2011 - 04:03 PM, said:

http://www.benthamsc...0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

http://www.benthamsc...V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

there have been no journal submitted responses from peers.

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.