9/11 Thread no. 2

[Stryder]

The other thread has become so long and filled full of argumentative strains that a new thread has been open clearing the floor of all previous discussion. Please look through the other thread before posting and use links to previous arguments to save arguing in circles. Also remember that screaming insults at people doesn't make them any less juvenile or more sane when it comes to logic. A majority of people have already suggested they believe the buildings came down due to the planes being used to attack, however a majority don't necessarily believe the official story in regards to why the attacks took place.

All other arguments are moot, since you can't change the past you can only look to the future and learn not to repeat past mistakes.

 

[scott3x]

The other thread has become so long and filled full of argumentative strains that a new thread has been open clearing the floor of all previous discussion. Please look through the other thread before posting and use links to previous arguments to save arguing in circles. Also remember that screaming insults at people doesn't make them any less juvenile or more sane when it comes to logic. A majority of people have already suggested they believe the buildings came down due to the planes being used to attack, however a majority don't necessarily believe the official story in regards to why the attacks took place.

All other arguments are moot, since you can't change the past you can only look to the future and learn not to repeat past mistakes.

I agree with you that the high level of insults in the past thread was very counterproductive. Hopefully this thread will have less of this.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 2479 in the 9/11 Poll thread.

shaman_, just because -you- think I'm making excuses doesn't mean it's true. The posts are certainly in this thread; if you want to make your case, by all means present an exhibit.

This is the sixth time I have posted this quote.
"In the case of the WTC 7 they actually managed to create a clearly flawed simulation of collapse, but just looking at it with a skeptical eye should make it clear how flawed it was."

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2280800&postcount=1205
Three weeks ago, no insults and I have asked several times since. I want to know what was so obviously flawed with the simulation. Just a few lines. If it was so obvious it shouldn't be hard. Yet no response…just excuses.

Easy; the way the computer model collapsed looked nothing like the way it collapsed in real life.

I also asked you to explain your favourite Madrid Tower page but you won’t.

Jim Hoffman does an excellent job of that already, and I'm sure you're familiar with the link. If not, I can put it up for you.

There was no abuse in those posts but you ignored them.

Again, there are many posts. I do remember seeing the above post, but I guess I never found the time to respond to it.

You realise that Kenny asked for responses on Scott Forbes, WTC7 and others several times before he called you pathetic. You are being a child.

I would expect a child to throw a tantrum, perhaps with some bad language thrown in, when they don't get the adult's attention after trying a few times, because an adult can't find the time to satisfy their every whim. In time, ofcourse, the child learns that there are times when patience and civil persistence are the way to get the things you really want.

 

[scott3x]

This post is for Trippy. Trippy, I recently wrote Kevin Ryan concerning your 11 points. He's gotten back to me. I will include our correspondence up until now (this is through emails, not in a forum, I just put 'posted' because it's easy to get the sciforums code to write that for you).

Hello Kevin Ryan. I'm a big fan of your work. I also know that you're a chemist, which I decidedly am not. Recently, I've been discussing nano-thermite with an official story supporter chemist. He brings up a lot of issues I really can't deal with. In a recent post, he brought up 11 points that he says may persuade him that nano-thermite was truly used. I was hoping you could tell me if any of these issues could be resolved for him. Here are his points, which he made in sciforums.com:

1. Provide an EDS of powdered, or nano aluminium that shows the same features as Harrits aluminium rich areas.
2. Provide an EDS of a sample of paint collected from the WTC steel, or equivalent paint...When I say 'an equivalent paint' I don't mean a fresh sample straight from the can. I mean a sample that's been cured the same way the WTC paint was baked the same way that the WTC paint was baked, and then left to cure in a seaside enviroment for 30+ years, then heated to 600°C-800°C, the temperature that photographic evidence suggests is required to reproduce the patterns of cracking, and degree peeling observed on the WTC steel.
3. Conduct a DSC analysis of a piece of paint from the WTC steel (or equivalent paint), that has adhered to a piece of iron oxide scale and prove that it reacts differently from Harrits samples
4. Use EELS or an equivalent method to demonstrate that the aluminum in the aluminium rich areas is Al(0) rather than AL(III)
5. Demonstrate that nano-aluminium WON'T react with MEK
6. Demonstrate that MEK WILL dissolve paint from WTC, or an equivalent paint
7. Perform a thin slice EDS on Harrits Samples to prove that the indicator elements he says are missing for paint are in fact missing
8. Conduct the DSC analysis in an inert atmosphere
9. Demonstrate that Tnemec has not changed the formula of 99 Red in the 38 years since the twin towers were completed
10. Demonstrate the existence of the temperatures that have been asserted
11. Prove that, at the very least, on the balance of probabilities, synthesizing 10-100 ton quantities was viable prior to 2001.

Hi Scott,

It appears that most of the proposed experiments/investigations could be done by just about anyone. So I encourage your "official story supporter" to conduct some of these experiments him/herself, and get the results published.

Thanks. Kevin

Hey Kevin . As to just about anyone.. I don't even know what some of those abbreviations mean. And he doesn't even want to look at Harrit's calculations. I guess I should tell him that if he really wants to look into the matter, he should look at Harrit's calculations. Anyway, thanks for your time .

 

[leopold]

you should have also asked him why "it was a bomb" movement doesn't have any evidence from the pile itself.

please don't ask me any questions about this, ask kevin instead.
ask kevin why i insist on evidence from the pile and see what he tells you, better yet post it so that we all may see it.

 

[shaman_]

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 2479 in the 9/11 Poll thread.


Easy; the way the computer model collapsed looked nothing like the way it collapsed in real life.

Okay five posts to get that…. Could you be more specific? Is there are section you can point to that makes the differences clear?

Jim Hoffman does an excellent job of that already, and I'm sure you're familiar with the link. If not, I can put it up for you.

We’ve been through that several times before Scott, you are dodging again. I asked you (a couple of times) to mention a couple of the most important points. Just a couple of lines….

You randomly post the link to that page as if some important point is made but you never seem to know what it supposedly was…

Again, there are many posts. I do remember seeing the above post, but I guess I never found the time to respond to it.

I would expect a child to throw a tantrum, perhaps with some bad language thrown in, when they don't get the adult's attention after trying a few times, because an adult can't find the time to satisfy their every whim. In time, ofcourse, the child learns that there are times when patience and civil persistence are the way to get the things you really want.

Nope you’re still talking crap. No one was throwing a tantrum they were informing you what you are. The description was appropriate.

Are you now trying to switch your excuse from "you’re too critical of me" to "I was too busy" ?


But once again you did not answer my question. Are you conceding that there were no squibs at WTC7?

 

[MacGyver1968]

Anyone want to take bets on how long this thread takes to get to 20 pages? I'll put 20 bucks on a week.

 

[leopold]

anyone wanna bet it'll be a rehash of the same ol' shit?

 

[MacGyver1968]

anyone wanna bet it'll be a rehash of the same ol' shit?

That's a "no bet"

 

[KennyJC]

I agree with you that the high level of insults in the past thread was very counterproductive. Hopefully this thread will have less of this.

Maybe then you will be man enough to accept defeat on some points instead of the cat getting your tongue.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to Stryder's post 2483 in the 9/11 Poll thread.

I'm closing this thread to start a new 9/11 thread since this one is too large. In all honesty if it was up to me, I would probably shut down all discussion here, the main reason for that is that it's not going anywhere new, however since some of you are paranoid delusionals that would otherwise think it a government conspiracy to silence you (You nutty crackpots!)...

I've got to allow you the opportunity to continue driveling about your conspiracy theories. What I say however is that there is no point arguing points that have already been argued, so if someone wants to argue something thats already been covered, please just link the post from the original thread to save time and effort on your part.

Stryder, on the one hand you say that "screaming insults at people doesn't make them any less juvenile or more sane when it comes to logic."

Admittedly, you're not screaming, but calling people who question or outright disbelieve the official story crackpots isn't exactly what I'd call a civilized approach, nor is calling what we talk about 'drivel'.

As to your idea that some of us will think that you must be in on the conspiracy if you put 9/11 threads on auto lockdown again, perhaps. I personally have never really fancied that idea. It seems more an issue of you believing you're right and since you're a moderator instead of simply a member, that type of belief can and has had greater effects than that if your average user here. In any case, I think it'd be good for me to mention that a friend of the family also doesn't believe it was a conspiracy; I believe it's simply a matter of him never having put in the time to seriously look at all the evidence.

 

[KennyJC]

Stryder, on the one hand you say that "screaming insults at people doesn't make them any less juvenile or more sane when it comes to logic."

Admittedly, you're not screaming, but calling people who question or outright disbelieve the official story crackpots isn't exactly what I'd call a civilized approach, nor is calling what we talk about 'drivel'.

Drivel should be called drivel. Liars should be called liars. Crackpots should be called crackpots.

In any case, I think it'd be good for me to mention that a friend of the family also doesn't believe it was a conspiracy; I believe it's simply a matter of him never having put in the time to seriously look at all the evidence.

I think it's funny how you are trying to make yourself out to be some sort of buff, but the things you say don't stand up to even the most casual scrutiny.

I have never seen you win on any point. You lose, because you only trust sources that come from liars that share the same beliefs as you.

 

[Trippy]

This post is for Trippy. Trippy, I recently wrote Kevin Ryan concerning your 11 points. He's gotten back to me. I will include our correspondence up until now (this is through emails, not in a forum, I just put 'posted' because it's easy to get the sciforums code to write that for you).

I'm sorry, but in all honesty?

Kevin Ryan's response, at best comes across as a lame cop-out.

He's not willing to try and demonstrate his point by providing definitive proof? Gimme a break.

Besides which, I work full time, and have home commitments, I also don't have access to the equipment required, and I'm fairly sure I have neither samples of Harrits dust lying around, nor painted steel from a thirty year old building lying around.

As for not wanting to look into Harrit's calculations, i've already given one reason why they're flawed - he uses the wrong number for the volatile percentage.

 

[scott3x]

This post is for Trippy. Trippy, I recently wrote Kevin Ryan concerning your 11 points. He's gotten back to me. I will include our correspondence up until now (this is through emails, not in a forum, I just put 'posted' because it's easy to get the sciforums code to write that for you).

I'm sorry, but in all honesty?

Kevin Ryan's response, at best comes across as a lame cop-out.

He's not willing to try and demonstrate his point by providing definitive proof? Gimme a break.

I think the bottom line here is, if you want to find something out, you frequently have to find it out yourself. No expert came knocking on Kevin Ryan's door to inform him that 9/11 was an inside job. His involvement in the 9/11 truth movement came about because of the fact that the company that he was working for at the time, Underwriter Laboratories, had made the steel assemblies for the Twin Towers' steel. He came to the conclusion that either the towers were built fairly badly, in which case his company would probably be atleast in part to blame for certifying bad steel assemblies, or something else was going on besides plane crashes and kerosene initiated fires. He was fired for writing an open letter essentially saying just this to Frank Gayle of NIST.

He then went on to write numerous articles and atleast one peer reviewed paper on various aspects of 9/11. As far as I know, he has never gotten paid for doing any of it. So I think it's understandable when he states that if you'd like certain answers, you could probably find them yourself. As I clearly stated to Kevin Ryan, I don't have those capabilities, but I believe that someone like you does. You might wish to start by seriously analyzing Harrit's paper and his calculations.

Besides which, I work full time, and have home commitments, I also don't have access to the equipment required, and I'm fairly sure I have neither samples of Harrits dust lying around, nor painted steel from a thirty year old building lying around.

As for not wanting to look into Harrit's calculations, i've already given one reason why they're flawed - he uses the wrong number for the volatile percentage.

Ok, well perhaps someone who knows enough of such things can get to this. You have disparaged Hoz and I know that he has disparaged you, but at present, he seems to be both someone who seems to know the most concerning chemistry here other than you and who has also put the most time and effort to addressing your points.

 

[scott3x]

Stryder, on the one hand you say that "screaming insults at people doesn't make them any less juvenile or more sane when it comes to logic."

Admittedly, you're not screaming, but calling people who question or outright disbelieve the official story crackpots isn't exactly what I'd call a civilized approach, nor is calling what we talk about 'drivel'.

Drivel should be called drivel. Liars should be called liars. Crackpots should be called crackpots.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if this thread were to die soon. Few if any people like being called by the terms that you, shaman and even Stryder have used against those in the truth movement. However, Stryder being the moderator here, his view packs more punch.

 

[Hoz_Turner]

I'm sorry, but in all honesty?

Kevin Ryan's response, at best comes across as a lame cop-out.

He's not willing to try and demonstrate his point by providing definitive proof? Gimme a break.

Besides which, I work full time, and have home commitments, I also don't have access to the equipment required, and I'm fairly sure I have neither samples of Harrits dust lying around, nor painted steel from a thirty year old building lying around.

As for not wanting to look into Harrit's calculations, i've already given one reason why they're flawed - he uses the wrong number for the volatile percentage.

Trippy, you are a shill who is most likely employed by the criminals to obfuscate the facts and produce deception.

Your previous responses are a load of NONESENSE.

The BSE images clearly showed distinguished areas of aluminium from oxygen, I quote again the text that folllowed the BSE image profiles: -

"XEDS maps were acquired from the swollen red material
at a beam energy of 10 kV, in order to determine the locations
of various elements following the MEK treatment. The
data shown in Fig. (15) illustrate regions where iron, aluminum
and silicon are concentrated. Furthermore, the data indicate
that wherever silicon or iron is concentrated, oxygen
is also concentrated. On the other hand, there also exist regions
where the aluminum is concentrated but where the oxygen may not accompany
it commensurately. To confirm and to quantify these observations, XEDS spectra (subsequent
plots) were acquired from specific regions of high Si, Al and Fe concentrations."

"The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a
region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using
a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the
aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately
a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account
for all of the aluminum;"

(pages 11-12)


As for your ideas about paint not subjected to fire; what is your point? It was tested by NIST to 800C and remained stable after peeling and cracking and producing blackened scale between paint and steel at temps over 650C. Your idea that paint can become locally THERMITIC under fire conditions on steel is nonsense.

Harrit et al tested this material and it has strong links to the nano-thermitic material that exists in the reference literature that is in the paper. I also ask you to be aware that I also posted a link from professional fire investigation forensics that used X-EDS to identify thermitic material.

Another quote: -

"In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 °C. The reaction must produce temperatures no less than ca. 1500 °C, since the residues of molten iron are clearly seen in the optical microscope (Figure 9)."
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

Now don't go obfuscating the molten iron issue either, since your "800C" claim about it existing in the molten state requires very specific conditions.

 

[KennyJC]

I think the bottom line here is, if you want to find something out, you frequently have to find it out yourself. No expert came knocking on Kevin Ryan's door to inform him that 9/11 was an inside job.

Kevin Ryan is a quote miner. He takes excerpts from NIST and leaves out important context, normally the following sentence. There is a word for people like Kevin Ryan...Asshole, prick, fucker, dickhead. but I wouldn't want to be insulting now, would I?

His involvement in the 9/11 truth movement came about because of the fact that the company that he was working for at the time, Underwriter Laboratories, had made the steel assemblies for the Twin Towers' steel. He came to the conclusion that either the towers were built fairly badly, in which case his company would probably be atleast in part to blame for certifying bad steel assemblies, or something else was going on besides plane crashes and kerosene initiated fires. He was fired for writing an open letter essentially saying just this to Frank Gayle of NIST.

And they did test the floor assembly against fire, but the floor assemblies were in perfect working condition. ie. no damage, SFRM in place. Even so, the floor trusses DID sag.

He then went on to write numerous articles and atleast one peer reviewed paper on various aspects of 9/11.

There is no such thing as a peer-reviewed troofer publication. They got published in an open journal which accepts even papers with text generated by a computer. So long as you pay the $$$, they will publish anything.

As I clearly stated to Kevin Ryan, I don't have those capabilities, but I believe that someone like you does. You might wish to start by seriously analyzing Harrit's paper and his calculations.

More useful would be if Harrit or Jones would distribute their samples to independant experts to see if they can be verified as "nanothermite" by experts without bias.

They don't do this because they KNOW it's not thermite. They KNOW it's only possible to say it's nanothermite if you lie through your teeth. There is no respected lab anywhere that would concur with Jones or Harrit.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I'm closing this thread to start a new 9/11 thread since this one is too large. In all honesty if it was up to me, I would probably shut down all discussion here, the main reason for that is that it's not going anywhere new, however since some of you are paranoid delusionals that would otherwise think it a government conspiracy to silence you (You nutty crackpots!)...

I've got to allow you the opportunity to continue driveling about your conspiracy theories. What I say however is that there is no point arguing points that have already been argued, so if someone wants to argue something thats already been covered, please just link the post from the original thread to save time and effort on your part.

.
People that refuse to ask about the distribution of steel and concrete in a skyscraper accuse people of being paranoid when they cannot explain how a normal airliner could destroy the building in less than 2 hours.

Sanity is whatever the majority BELIEVES. Physics is irrelevant!

psik

 

[Trippy]

Ok, well perhaps someone who knows enough of such things can get to this. You have disparaged Hoz and I know that he has disparaged you, but at present, he seems to be both someone who seems to know the most concerning chemistry here other than you and who has also put the most time and effort to addressing your points.

You keep saying this, and yet he keeps getting basic things wrong - the reductant/oxidant thing, for example.

I have seen Hoz offer nothing that doesn't involve him parroting what Neils Harrit has already said.

In all honesty, I have seen no evidence what so ever that Hoz has any more of a background in chemistry than you do, the only difference I see between the pair of you is that you at lest appear to be honest enough to admit when you're over your head.

 

[Trippy]

Ok, well perhaps someone who knows enough of such things can get to this. You have disparaged Hoz and I know that he has disparaged you, but at present, he seems to be both someone who seems to know the most concerning chemistry here other than you and who has also put the most time and effort to addressing your points.

Case in point:

Trippy, you are a shill who is most likely employed by the criminals to obfuscate the facts and produce deception.