Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by scott3x, Feb 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    @Wieck, "Brain" Ron,

    The NCSTAR1 report says there were 12 types of perimeter wall panels. So tell us the weights of the panels and the number of each type used on one of the towers or simply tell us the page number of which NCSTAR1 report has that information. Maybe I missed it in the TWO YEARS that I have had it burned to DVD. All 1.03 Gigabytes of it.

    :roflmao:

    You talk like a typical JREFer. Everybody is dumb but you. LOL

    You don't actually supply any data you just say, "It's there, it's there".

    Maybe you should cut down on that ASSuming. You make an ASS of yourself.

    psik
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    you want to know why the cops and the firemen did not notice small chips of unreacted nanothermite one milimeter in diameter amongst hundreds of thousands of tons of debris spread across many acres?
    is that what you are asking?
    you cannot be asking that, surely?

    if you had read the paper you would not be asking such questions.
    have you read it yet?
    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    really?
    Aluminum occurs naturally only in compounds, never as a pure metal.
    http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/A-C/Aluminum.html

    comparing aliminum oxide to iron oxide is the oxymoron headspin.
    aluminum oxide forms almost immediately on exposure to air where as iron oxide takes quite awhile.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    then why have you called them chips?
     
  8. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
  9. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    you are now trolling because you have no valid comment regarding the discovery of unreacted high tech nanothermite in the world trade centre dust.
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    like i've stated before and provided links to sources this stuff is some kind of structural coating.

    as to your trolling claim, you have indeed referred to this stuff as chips and even provided a video where the speaker referred to them as chips.

    edit:
    furthermore your original claim was this stuff was found in two apartments.
    now it appears it was found in four.
    on top of that the website you posted seems to be an open source type where anyone can edit it.
     
  11. RonWieck Registered Member

    Messages:
    43
    Somehow, your assuring us that you have not so much as glanced at either of the reports I mentioned should lead us to conclude that you are familiar with NIST's methods and conclusions. Why don't you stop babbling nonsense and try looking at those two reports? You have created a ridiculous red herring to disguise the glaringly obvious fact that you are clueless.
     
  12. RonWieck Registered Member

    Messages:
    43


    Why are people going on and on about a worthless paper that Jones and other frauds paid to have printed in a vanity journal?
     
  13. RonWieck Registered Member

    Messages:
    43


    Funny, I don't think everybody is dumb. Some people are smarter than I am. You, on the other hand, are quite dumb.

    Can we ASSume that it never occurred to you to look here?

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2009
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    >.<. Your ignorance astounds me leopold. Did you even go to the site or does it seem this way to you based on the quotes of the site you've read here? Anyway, here's an excerpt from what appears to be the bentham's home page for its articles, http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/ (bold emphasis mine):
    The benefits of Bentham Science OPEN are:

    All articles are made freely and permanently accessible online immediately upon publication.

    All articles are, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, deposit in digital repositories and use (with attribution) any way you wish. No permission is required for distribution, copying or commercial use of published articles.

    Fast publication. All submitted articles undergo a fast but rigorous peer-review procedure and submission of an article to publication is done rapidly.

    Authors publishing with Bentham Science Open retain the copyright to their work.

    Authors can publish research, reviews and short communication articles.

    Affordable article processing fees. Article processing fees rank amongst the lowest compared to those of other open access journal publishers.

    Open Access to the broadest audience. Publishing in an open access journal allows anyone with an interest in your work to read it and that translates into increased usage and impact.

    All articles are deposited in at least one major international open digital repository ( such as PubMed Central).

    For complete information on Bentham publications, please visit www.bentham.org
     
  15. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    I agree it appears to be some type of coating. Whether it is a "protective" or "destructive" coating is the issue.

    As for your links you posted in post#552 -

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6764969.html
    your first link above is a textile coating of iron oxide and aluminium oxide - these compounds will not react, the aluminium is already bound to oxygen, it is not elemental, so it fails points#1,3,4

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/pk126771832j1j24/ (published in 1973)
    your second link above describes an aluminium coating which consists of aluminium oxide (not elemental aluminium), this coating is NOT intimately mixed with iron oxide, so it fails points#1,3,4 (It also fails point 2 since nanotechnolgy was not around in 1974)

    http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2244&DID=81659&action=detail
    your third link above seems to refer to a reactive nanothermite coating, so would seem to invalidate your position. That it would be used to coat structural steel for "protective" purposes is NOT a reason for its purpose given in your link.

    5 actually - again you would have known this if you had read the paper. The chips have been found by 2 other researchers independent of 911 research who have no contact with Doctor Jones et al, one is based France. The unreacted nanothermite chips are intrinsic to the world trade centre dust, so they will likely be found in all samples. You can listen here for more details:
    http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_drjones0309.mp3

    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
    The website is open access which means it is free to view (unlike the links you provided which are pay per view). open access does not mean "anyone can edit it". the paper has been peer reviewed and published and is available free of charge.
     
  16. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    So who is the obvious LIAR now?

    psik
     
  17. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    :roflmao:
    I already told you that I downloaded the entire NCSTAR1 report long ago and how to search it with Adobe and Evince.

    The usual JREF type bullshit. I ask for 24 numbers that should be on one page if they exist and you throw up a 166 page report that I would bet you haven't looked through.

    So tell us what page has the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels.

    Gregory Urich claims to have read the whole 10,000 pages and he has told me about stuff that I didn't know was there but he admits that what I am talking about ain't there.

    By all means continue to advertise your ignorance and incompetence.

    It is moderately entertaining but on the wane.

    psik

    PS - I searched that report on my DVD just for the hell of it. It mentions wall panels quite often. No information on weights. It does not even point out that there were 12 types of wall panels. I won't be holding my breath until you show that the information is there.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2009
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    headspin,
    i know this much, no evidence of explosives, or whatever it is you people insist on calling it, was found on the pile.
    cops, firemen, structural engineers, demolition experts, magically missed it i guess.
    call it whatever you will headspin.
    great name you go by dude, describes your tactics quite well.

    edit:
    what is the evidence trail of these "samples"
    who submitted them, and who witnessed them being collected?
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2009
  19. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    How would the cops, structural engineers, firemen, demolition experts have spotted milimeter nanothermite fragments without doing chemical lab analysis, and when most of the loose material was being "scooped and dumped" by huge diggers?

    Are you suggesting they would have immediately recognised the use of this new technology at ground zero? obviously you must be referring to lab testing, not the ridiculous notion that these tiny fragments would have been spotted visually at ground zero.

    NIST stated they did not chemically test for thermitic materials:
    12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

    NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.


    your responses are getting farcical.
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    especially when you AND the video you submitted reffered to them as chips.

    the evidence trail please.
     
  21. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    headspin,
    so, no evidence trail right?
    i'll be honest, frankly i do not believe you.
    first you refer to this stuff as chips, even posting a video that refers to them as such.
    now you are calling it dust.
     
  23. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    So do you accept the conclusions of the paper, provided that Dr Steven Jones is not a lying fraud, Professor Niels Harrit is not a liar, Dr Jeffrey Farrer is not a liar, Kevin Ryan is not a liar, Dr Frank Legge is not a liar, Daniel Farnsworth is not a liar, Gregg Roberts is not a liar, James Gourley is not a liar, Bradley Larsen is not a liar, and the five people who have provided samples and depositions are not liars and frauds, and the two other independent scientists who studied the dust and confirmed Doctor Jones findings from samples independent of Doctor Jones samples are also not liars.

    ...so as long as all these people are not all complete unadulterated liars, you accept the papers conclusions?

    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

    edit - the chain of custody is documented, we've been over it on another thread. it is obvious you are now looking for strawmen to avoid addressing the paper and its conclusions.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page