WTC Collapses

I don't know- coming out with a one liner isn't exactly amazing lengths

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm still ten pages behind.

You seem confused. I never claimed that I did. The reason it was mentioned was because I claimed Jones had deceptively quote mined. Scott challenged me to provide an example and I have.

Sooo conspiracy right?

A lot of things that were out of the ordinary happened that day.

Actually I have made little mention of that paper and you are making assumptions based on my previous posts.

That’s right they use lots of 'observations' to support their pre-conceived conclusion. Many weak claims supposedly add up to be credible. Freefall, quote mined witness testimony, symmetrical collapse, melted steel, bombs in the basement, WTC7, pentagon, flight 93 wow there are so many that the conspiracy must be true!

Any ridicule is a retaliation or a result of frustration.

However it is an unreasonable conspiracy and the people who think the government would bother demolishing the same building which is going to be smashed into by planes should probably get a thick skin because ridicule is going to happen. Why jeopardize the whole conspiracy by demolishing a building which didn't need to be demolished?

Why fly a missile into the pentagon? Why set off bombs in the basement? Why use methods that armchair youtube experts can supposedly spot in an incident that was always going to be filmed from many angles? Do you have no problem with these questions?

That's pretty funny.

I have this annoying tendency to argue against stupid claims when I see them… I’m going to call it as I see it. You are welcome to keep complaining about this but you should probably get yourself a tissue.

A large % of the US believe in UFO abductions, astrology, young earth ect. Do you think the government is claiming those things as well? Whether people are ill informed, not too bright or just crazy there are always going to be followers of stupid conspiracy theories. You actually use those extreme theories to your advantage. When compared to those unreasonable ones, yours start to sound a little more credible.

You seem very intelligent headspin. Come on do you really believe that?

At this point I’m attacking his methods and his so called evidence. I have ridiculed him many times though. While the chemistry in his latest claims goes above my head I have read his previous work which was certainly understandable to the laymen. His evidence had all the makings of a person with a deep belief who was seeing conspiracy everywhere. You focus on list most recent work as if it is the only thing he has ever produced.

Was it really a mainstream journal? Had you read it before Jones’ article?

Then why did he feel the need to address that claim later on?

He did not even mention it or attempt to rule it out in the early papers. He selected one sentence as proof for his theory and ignored the following one, and he did not even address the possibility that the computers were responsible. This was being discussed because I made the comment that Jones had quote mined and used photos deceptively. He has.

I don’t actually think he is particularly dishonest and I don’t think they are big issues. I am however backing up my statement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Scott those claims make up the vast majority of this thread and the previous one. To challenge me to link to the rebuttals is a stupid game.

Yes you do.

Considering I have numerous times, that sentence is another example of you playing dumb.

So was that done by the thermite that burns, cuts or explodes? Was is nanothermite, superthermite, thermite, thermate, or just bombs?

If steel was found that was twisted and softened and floors were seen bowing due to the heat then what role does thermite play?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Youtube was created in Feb 2005. and the internet in 2001 was not what it is today. Without the internet the mainstream media could have easily controlled information flow to the public.

should I now ridicule you because i feel frustrated at your stupid responses?

should i accuse you of being deceptive by deliberately claiming youtube was around in 2001?

 

None

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

headspin how much thermite is in your underwear?

 

So you did post a claim that Thermite was explosive:

Yes done at a scale so small that it has no practactial use out side anti cancer medical treatments.

Low explosive is low explosive, High explosive is high explosive, Incendiary is Incendiary, Thermite, nano or macro, is a incendiary, it still does it job by, intense exothermic reaction.

No, a thermic reaction is a thermic reaction, it is not due to explosive action, and would leave no thermic residue.

 

Originally Posted by Headspin
nanothermite (MICs) is completely different in its chemical properties and behaviour to macro thermite. you cannot limit the discussion to macro-thermite. the statement is just false - "the only way thermite burn through and cuts anything is in concentrated piles, or by placing Thermite Grenades"

A whole new high tech field has opened up since at least 1995 using nano scale thermite reactants to make lightweight tunable high explosives.
"certain key MIC (Metastable Intermolecular Composites) characteristics are very attractive and quite promising for practical applications. These include energy output that is 2x that of typical high explosives, the ability to tune the reactive power (10 KW/cc to 10 GW/cc), tunable reaction front velocities of 0.1-1500 meters/sec, and reaction zone temperature exceeding 3000K (equivalent to 2700 Celcius or 5000 Fahrenheit)"

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf [/QUOTE]

Your article talks about Nano Thermite for it's "Intense Exothermic Reaction", not that it is a explosive.

"The reason that Fe2O3 is chosen
is because its thermite reaction with UFG aluminum is very
exothermic (with only CuO and MoO3 yielding greater energy
of reaction"

Thermobaric Weapons, not thermite Weapons, improve the function of the weapons, as a add on to the weapon.

Still in the R&D, nothing fielded, at that time, the report you cite is from:

The Attack on the WTC Center took place on Sep. 11, 2001.

The technology wasn't out side the Lab.

Weapon war heads, not demolition charges.

 

Video did exist however as did the internet.

You are ignoring the actual the point of my comment just to return fire. Whether youtube was used is irrelevant. People shared videos before 2005. You are trying to make a point but it just appears petty.

If you had tried to have a debate with scott then perhaps you would get frustrated too.

 

you are nit-picking and obfuscating, the data is available with regard to reaction speeds of various explosive forms of thermite compunds. saying "thermite is not explosive" is too general a statement to be of any use. people think of "thermite" as a thermite grenade or a flowerpot engine block experiment, nowhere have I claimed that is explosive.

where do you get your information from? what made you think nanothermite can only be used at the nanoscale such as targetting drugs into cells? was it the "nano" part of "nanothermite" that convinced you? what about the documents i have shown you that describe a process by which silica aerogels can be made dried from a solution to hold nano-sized thermite reactants (aluminium, iron oxide and oxidizers such as potassium permanganate) to make nanothermite at the macro level (big chunks of nanothermite that could be molded into shaped charges). why do you deny this? if you simply handwave it away dismissively and stick to your false statement that it is only useful for molecular level applications then it is pointless continuing any discussion with you, since you will simply ignore anything that you want not to be true.

How do you know it was mis-reported? you don't want it to be true so it must be a lie, right? you do not get to create reality, you only get to acknowledge it or deny it. this is a perfect example of what i was saying above.

life is a breeze when you decide what is real and what you can ignore. the truth is sometimes more difficult to accept, like a wife who denies her husband is abusing the children. nanothermite welding in the towers construction? are you being serious?

garbled nonsense which doesn't even support your position, steel does not have 10% aluminum or 14% silicon.

all those old farm boys, why bother with metallurgy, bubba will sort it out for a bottle of moonshine.

and this disproves my position in what way? :shrug:

 

lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Never mind me, carry on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

ahhh, so things that explode, not things that explode, I getcha.

 

So why aren't the people claiming to know physics demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers?

How do you solve a physics problem without accurate data?

psik

 

psikey, 9/11 research never got back to me concerning Jerry Russell's calculation that it was 90,000 tons of concrete per tower. As some here may know, Jerry Russell has a master's degree in engineering. I have just submitted a comment to Jerry's blog; it's currently awaiting moderation. Not sure if he'll get to it soon though because the blog in question hasn't been updated in a year :-/. Assuming it was actually 90,000 tons of concrete, what would your calcuations say?

Update: Jerry has now responded to my blog question regarding his calculations

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...
http://crookedshepherds.wordpress.c...tagon-overflight-concept-vindicated/#comments

 

Do you know Jerry Russel Ph.D?

 

Personally? No. I only know him through some of the work he's done concerning 9/11.

 

So you know nothing about this person?

There are more errors on the second link on the second to last post you made that it is almost pointless to discuss it.

 

Gregori Urich, Part 5

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:

9/11 Research says this concerning the North Tower/WTC 1 in its article Symmetry:

It would seem that 9/11 research and Urich can't both be right. Headspin, you have a take on this?

As to the South Tower/WTC 2, 9/11 research says this:

Gregory continues:

Headspin, your help would be appreciated on this point. Don't know what PE means for starters

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Professional Engineer (P.E.)

Of which i happen to be.

 

I invite you to re-read what you're responding to

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You couldn't have just linked to the link you had in mind? In any case, are you referring to this link?

 

Really :bugeye

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The way you've acted in the past, I'm quite surprised

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. In any case, if what you say is true in this context, it would mean Gregory wrote:

I don't think this is what he had in mind

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!