9/11 Poll

[scott3x]

So you say; but the only person who I've seen stick up for you insulting me the way you do is Kenny

What are you talking about? No one is sticking up for anyone. We haven’t done anything that requires one to defend the other.

I disagree, but I don't want to be bothered with digging up the evidence just now, if ever.

Don’t pretend that the only people to insult your arguments are Kenny and I.

I'm doing no such thing. The problem is that you 2 do it so often that I've decided to put responses to stop responding to back posts from you and Kenny indefinitely.

, someone who is known to have a penchant for doing the same. Most importantly, when it comes to what I will respond to, I'm sorry but it's not a democracy; and I'm just tired of the insults of you and Kenny.

Scott, you are still responding to my posts. You will happily respond to these ones because they do not contain any challenges to your 9/11 claims.

I'm responding to these ones because you're not being insulting. Perhaps there are some uninsulting ones I've missed, but I'm not going to rifle through your back posts to determine which ones aren't insulting.

Perhaps you're right; I just can't stomach all your insults anymore. Sorry.

If you can’t handle criticism of your posts you should probably head to a conspiracy theorist forum where your foolish comments won’t be challenged.

Criticism I can handle. It's the constant stream of insults that get to be too much; Trippy himself has previously said that he has considered curtailing his involvement here due to the same thing, and I have taken measures to try to ensure that my side of the debate is more civil with him, atleast.

If they start insulting me as you and Kenny do, they'll lose me as well. There was a point where Trippy had managed to do this, but after some dialogue, we worked things out.

Aww that’s nice.

I think so

As a general rule, Trippy isn't very insulting, especially if you don't insult him much in turn.

Trippy is the best contributor to this thread.

He has not addressed hundreds of posts to you like I have. Several hundred in fact.

I've done the same with you. It's just that, like I said, I've gotten tired of the insults now.

Scott you are going to find that if you continue such behavior, the more people will debate with you the less they will respect you and the more abusive their responses will become over time.

Continue what behaviour? Not reply to insulting posts? I've found that the reverse has been happening actually.

It looks like you didn't read that post I linked to in my last response to you; your loss.

I read that ridiculous post days ago and even posted a reply to you regarding one of the sentences.

So you did. But you didn't comment on the most important paragraph. Here it is:

Scott this goes way back before I became frustrated with you. All you do is post truther talking points without responding to the ones you don't know how to defend.

Let's imagine for a moment that this is true. I certainly believe that official story believers avoid many points that they don't know how to respond to. So you (and apparently Trippy) get real hot under the collar because of it? Amateurs. Think of this like chess. You attack; your opponent, instead of putting up a proper defense, essentially ignores it. Do you blow your top because he's ignoring your attack? Ofcourse not... any decent strategist will realize that they've got their opponent where they want them; now all they have to do is keep on using the same attack, over and over and over again, until the opponent finally has to acknowledge that he or she has no defense against it.​

Define "everyone".

Scott you are more transparent than you realise.

Care to elaborate on that sentence?

So are you going to concede on the WTC7 squibs?

What gave you that impression?

 

[shaman_]

I disagree, but I don't want to be bothered with digging up the evidence just now, if ever.

Oh I feel so lucky that you didn’t.

Your comment was ridiculous. We have not stuck up for each other.

I'm doing no such thing. The problem is that you 2 do it so often

Which is complete crap. If we were insulting you regularly you would report us.

that I've decided to put responses to stop responding to back posts from you and Kenny indefinitely.

Yes you will respond to this post and any post where you don't have to defend any of your silly claims.

What those claims were gets lost after enough obfuscation and distraction. That's the plan I assume.

I'm responding to these ones because you're not being insulting..

No you are responding to this because it is a time wasting post in which you don’t actually have to elaborate, in your own words, on claims like "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."

Criticism I can handle. It's the constant stream of insults that get to be too much;

Constant stream of insults? That is going beyond exaggeration into lying.

Trippy himself has previously said that he has considered curtailing his involvement here due to the same thing, and I have taken measures to try to ensure that my side of the debate is more civil with him, atleast.

Trippy has backed up every claim he has made. You run away and make excuses.

I think so




I've done the same with you. It's just that, like I said, I've gotten tired of the insults now.

Somehow you managed to avoid comprehending the point. You keep complimenting the people who have only responded to a few of your posts. The ones who have responded to a significant number know how dodgy and dishonest you are.

Continue what behaviour? Not reply to insulting posts?

Not replying to any attack on your half-baked claims.

So you did. But you didn't comment on the most important paragraph. Here it is:

Let's imagine for a moment that this is true. I certainly believe that official story believers avoid many points that they don't know how to respond to.

Yes but you are making arrogant claims about subjects it appears you know nothing about and cannot defend. Can you not understand this?

So you (and apparently Trippy) get real hot under the collar because of it? Amateurs.

lol Yes you are the professional and we're all amateurs.

Think of this like chess. You attack; your opponent, instead of putting up a proper defense, essentially ignores it. Do you blow your top because he's ignoring your attack? Ofcourse not... any decent strategist will realize that they've got their opponent where they want them; now all they have to do is keep on using the same attack, over and over and over again, until the opponent finally has to acknowledge that he or she has no defense against it.

So you are acknowledging that Kenny has you exactly where he wants you and you have no defence? That’s exactly what you are describing.

Care to elaborate on that sentence?

Ugh. It is clear you are avoiding defending your posts.

What gave you that impression?

1. Your refusal to respond to Kenny.
2. Apparently Gage has.

 

[scott3x]

I'm going to skip over some tiresome innuendo...

The problem is that you 2 do it so often

Which is complete crap.

There you go again.

If we were insulting you regularly you would report us.

I used to do that, but I got tired of it; Stryder is not exactly all that strict here and he's made that clear. I've found that it's easier to just skip over what you and Kenny say a lot of the time.

that I've decided to put responses to stop responding to back posts from you and Kenny indefinitely.

Yes you will respond to this post and any post where you don't have to defend any of your silly claims.

Actually, I'm defending claims even here. They have to do with how to hold a civilized discussion and they apply equally well for 9/11 as they do for any other contentious subject.

What those claims were gets lost after enough obfuscation and distraction. That's the plan I assume.

Whatever shaman.

I'm responding to these ones because you're not being insulting..

No you are responding to this because it is a time wasting post in which you don’t actually have to elaborate, in your own words, on claims like "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."

You want to believe that, go right ahead.

Criticism I can handle. It's the constant stream of insults that get to be too much;

Constant stream of insults? That is going beyond exaggeration into lying.

Again, you want to believe that, be my guest. Your insults have simply gotten me to the point where I don't care all that much what you believe.

Trippy himself has previously said that he has considered curtailing his involvement here due to the same thing, and I have taken measures to try to ensure that my side of the debate is more civil with him, atleast.

Trippy has backed up every claim he has made. You run away and make excuses.

Whatever shaman.

I've done the same with you. It's just that, like I said, I've gotten tired of the insults now.

Somehow you managed to avoid comprehending the point. You keep complimenting the people who have only responded to a few of your posts. The ones who have responded to a significant number know how dodgy and dishonest you are.

Or maybe people like you and Kenny just have a hard time being civilized and I've gotten tired of it.

Continue what behaviour? Not reply to insulting posts?

Not replying to any attack on your half-baked claims.

Using my own insults against me nice, laugh ;-). I would be hypocritical if I didn't accept insults I have used against others, so this one gets through. Anyway, I disagree with your assertion that my claims are in any way half-baked .

So you did. But you didn't comment on the most important paragraph. Here it is:

Let's imagine for a moment that this is true. I certainly believe that official story believers avoid many points that they don't know how to respond to.

Yes but you are making arrogant claims about subjects it appears you know nothing about and cannot defend. Can you not understand this?

Do I understand that you think I'm making arrogant claims about subjects that you believe I know nothing about? Yes, I do. The issue, however, is not what you believe, but what is true. I have clearly stated that Trippy knows more than me about chemistry. But I also contend that there are many times when you -think- I don't understand things when in fact it's you who doesn't understand.

So you (and apparently Trippy) get real hot under the collar because of it? Amateurs.

lol Yes you are the professional and we're all amateurs.

When it comes to manners, yes, I think I'm quite professional.

Think of this like chess. You attack; your opponent, instead of putting up a proper defense, essentially ignores it. Do you blow your top because he's ignoring your attack? Ofcourse not... any decent strategist will realize that they've got their opponent where they want them; now all they have to do is keep on using the same attack, over and over and over again, until the opponent finally has to acknowledge that he or she has no defense against it.

So you are acknowledging that Kenny has you exactly where he wants you and you have no defence? That’s exactly what you are describing.

You've apparently forgotten the beginning of that paragraph. It was: "Let's imagine...".

Scott you are more transparent than you realise.

Care to elaborate on that sentence?

Ugh. It is clear you are avoiding defending your posts.

Why wouldn't I? What I write reflects what I believe to be true. It's also clear that you're defending yours and I certainly don't hold -that- against you, just the form in which you go about doing it. No idea how that relates to your comment that I'm more transparent than I realize.

So are you going to concede on the WTC7 squibs?

What gave you that impression?

1. Your refusal to respond to Kenny.

Already explained why I've stopped responding to Kenny, but if you want to go on about my wanting to avoid points instead of insults, I can't stop you.

2. Apparently Gage has.

Source?

 

[Hoz_Turner]

Not much, aside from what a load of Carp.


According to my calculations (I need to re-check some figures when I get home), the Pigment was >25% Fe, >25% O, <10% Zn, <10% Si, <5% Cr, <2% Mg, (by weight) so your assertions about Zinc being dominant uber alles is both wrong and absurd (at best).

No amount of protestation will change the fact that Harrit produced at least one spectrum that contained measurable amounts of Zinc.

Irrelevant.

To me, this sentence almost seems randomly generated, perhaps you should clarify what you mean.

If you're saying what I think you're syaing, it would seem to be nullified by this XEDS for Corundum which also illustrates my point:

Right, an unknown quantification routine, which he fails to name in his paper, and has refused to name in subsequent correspondence that I have seen elsewhere (part of the obfuscation and handwaving I keep referring to).

No they haven't, doing so would require EELS or something similar. Clearly Harrit's spectrum is identical to reference spectra for Aluminium Oxide. I have now provided you with two seperate reference spectra that say that Harrit's interpretation is wrong, and you have yet to provide one singal reference spectrum that says your right.

And?
Have I ever questioned this?
Here's a hint, the answer is no.

I'll go into more detail when I get home, and have the time to sit down and take a better look at the maths (maybe, I have better things to do than being accused of deception I mean seriously, why I'm bothering to respond at all ATM is beyond me).

Your calculations are irrelevant and a nonesense. It is clear that you are playing a game of deception. You contradict even the official data here. Zinc and magnesium are dominant over aluminium and silicates in the WTC paint, and this is a fact. Stop spreading lies and disinfo.

As for X-EDS, it is clear that you have already taken spectra out of context and you are doing so again here with an irrelevant example. You need to realise that X-EDS is used in different ways, as well as the fact that it wasn't the only testing mechanism used by Harrit et al.

Some quotes from the paper regarding application of XEDS pre-MEK material separation: -

"In order to learn more from these findings, a focused
electron beam was placed directly onto the different particles,
and the XEDS data were collected."
P.6

"Both spectra display significant carbon and oxygen, which may be
partially due to the beam spreading and receiving an overlapping
X-ray signal from the matrix material as well as particles
below the surface. The beam energy (20 keV) is such
that the volume of material from which the X-ray signal is
generated is larger than the particles. Hence, some Al and Si
are seen in Fig. (11b) which may not be inherent in the faceted
grains, and some Fe is seen in Fig. (11a), which may
not be inherent in the plate-like particles."
P.9

The carbon-matrix had a factor on this pre-MEK soaking.

Post-MEK showed separation of the aluminium plates and iron oxide from the carbon matrix, and allowed
the direct electron beam to be focussed on particular areas rich in certain elements. Thus, the X-EDS spectra
results for determining aluminium\oxygen present for given particles could be more accurately produced and the
spectra generated were very different.

Its funny how you also continue to deny that Harrit et al tested the red-chips and they reacted violently at less than 500C and produced molten iron. They tested red-chips and they did not produce the steep characteristic thermal spike of thermite. NIST also tested the red primer paint of the WTC and also found the paint to be stable at much higher temperatures and hardly thermitic.

Again, your argument has no legs to stand on except for confusing matters and obfuscating the facts for newcomers. You are a grade A shill.

 

[KennyJC]

Already explained why I've stopped responding to Kenny

Because you had no answers. You copped out. You are a moronic liar that has nowhere to turn in defence of your lies.

Despite claiming that you stopped responding to me, you attempted to respond to my linear thermite cutting with a pathetic "nanothermite did it", so basically, you only respond to criticms when you have a "go to" response. Otherwise when you are stumped, you cry about people calling you a liar.

What you clearly don't understand is that instead of crying about it, if you showed you weren't a liar, then I would stand corrected.

You aren't fooling anyone here. You want respect? Earn it.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Do you have any proof of their being more? Or are you referring to the alleged core concrete that truthers think was present on the lower floors?

.
More than what?

How many times have I said we don't have trustworthy information on how much there was? The NIST report doesn't even specify a total. You got the thickness of the floor slabs wrong so WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT PROOF OF ANYTHING?

You didn't know the impact to collapse time either so you are in no position to criticize anybody.

psik

 

[leopold]

Again, your argument has no legs to stand on except for confusing matters and obfuscating the facts for newcomers. You are a grade A shill.

i've asked you at least 4 times already to provide the evidence that this stuff was found on the pile.
when can we expect an answer?

 

[psikeyhackr]

My point being however that the volume of concrete is known, and calculable.

I agree with that concerning the concrete.

.
Are you agreeing with 425,000 cubic yards? That comes of a minimum of 300,000 tons per tower and that is assuming only 110 lb per cubic foot which we know was not the case. There had to be a lot of concrete in the foundation and basements but I have never seen a specification of how much.

I am somewhat inclined to trust the 425,000 cu. yd number since it appears to come from long before 9/11 but I haven't seen a good explanation of how it was all distributed. I still give a higher reliability to the 200,000 tons of steel than the concrete though.

I just consider it to be totally ridiculous that information this simple can't be gotten in nearly 8 years. And yet so many EXPERTS behave as though it is perfectly alright that we don't know the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels.

psik

 

[scott3x]

My point being however that the volume of concrete is known, and calculable.

I agree with that concerning the concrete.

Are you agreeing with 425,000 cubic yards? That comes of a minimum of 300,000 tons per tower and that is assuming only 110 lb per cubic foot which we know was not the case.

Whoa. There are 2 possibilities- one, Jerry Russell was massively off with his estimate of 90,000 tons for -both- towers, or 2, the 300,000 tons per tower is the one that's massively off. His initial estimate was around 300,000 tons per tower (650,000 tons for both), but he did some more calculations and came up with the 90,000 tons. I wrote to him, and he explained why he lowered his estimate on the weight of the concrete so much. Here's a link to his explanation:
http://crookedshepherds.wordpress.c...on-overflight-concept-vindicated/#comment-624

I still give a higher reliability to the 200,000 tons of steel than the concrete though.

I'd definitely be suspecting the weight of the concrete, seeing as how the estimate you have is so radically different from Jerry Russell's updated estimate.

I just consider it to be totally ridiculous that information this simple can't be gotten in nearly 8 years.

psikey, I don't think this is a matter of capability, but rather of interest.

And yet so many EXPERTS behave as though it is perfectly alright that we don't know the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels.

What I believe Tony has said before is that there is plenty of other evidence that can prove that the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. I believe your point was that this was the simplest method; I'm really not in a position to answer whether that's true or not. Perhaps Tony could though...

 

[scott3x]

Your calculations are irrelevant and a nonesense. It is clear that you are playing a game of deception.

Perhaps it is clear for you Hoz, but it certainly isn't clear for me. I am concerned about the possibility that you are jumping to conclusions regarding Trippy's intent.

Its funny how you also continue to deny that Harrit et al tested the red-chips and they reacted violently at less than 500C and produced molten iron. They tested red-chips and they did not produce the steep characteristic thermal spike of thermite. NIST also tested the red primer paint of the WTC and also found the paint to be stable at much higher temperatures and hardly thermitic.

This, I believe, is a point that even someone who doesn't know all that much concerning chemistry can easily understand. Unless Trippy is claiming that paint explodes at less than 500C, I think you've got something that even a layman can understand. I am definitely interested to see how Trippy responds to this bit.

 

[scott3x]

i've asked you at least 4 times already to provide the evidence that this stuff was found on the pile.
when can we expect an answer?

>.<. Not the pile thing again.

 

[scott3x]

Already explained why I've stopped responding to Kenny

Because you had no answers. You copped out. You are a moronic liar ...

That's quite enough. I've reported you.. again. For all the good it will do.

 

[leopold]

might be a good time for the thread to commit suicide.
stryder?

delete me.

 

[KennyJC]

That's quite enough. I've reported you.. again. For all the good it will do.

You've been given ample opportunity to prove why I am wrong in calling you a moron and a liar.

Rather typical of the troofer movement.

 

[KennyJC]

might be a good time for the thread to commit suicide.
stryder?

delete me.

Seconded.

How many pages before troofers give something of substance?

 

[psikeyhackr]

I'd definitely be suspecting the weight of the concrete, seeing as how the estimate you have is so radically different from Jerry Russell's updated estimate.

.
I am not making an estimate. I am simply reporting what is on a lot of websites. As far as I have been able to determine that is the number which the New York Port Authority was using in the pamphlet that was given to tourists visiting the WTC for years before 9/11.

I am assuming that includes what was in the basements and foundation while I also assume that material did not become part of the pyroclastic cloud since it was below ground. But I have not seen anyone distinguish above vs below ground level quantities of steel and concrete.

The lack of precision in the numbers that people throw around is just absurd but then they expect to PROVE things with calculus. Math equations don't mean squat if you can't put the correct numbers in for the variables.

psik

 

[KennyJC]

.
I am not making an estimate. I am simply reporting what is on a lot of websites. As far as I have been able to determine that is the number which the New York Port Authority was using in the pamphlet that was given to tourists visiting the WTC for years before 9/11.

I am assuming that includes what was in the basements and foundation while I also assume that material did not become part of the pyroclastic cloud since it was below ground. But I have not seen anyone distinguish above vs below ground level quantities of steel and concrete.

The lack of precision in the numbers that people throw around is just absurd but then they expect to PROVE things with calculus. Math equations don't mean squat if you can't put the correct numbers in for the variables.

psik

I asked you this several pages ago and you didn't respond.

What do you mean by "pyroclastic cloud"?

 

[scott3x]

I'd definitely be suspecting the weight of the concrete, seeing as how the estimate you have is so radically different from Jerry Russell's updated estimate.

I am not making an estimate.

I never said you did. I said "the estimate you have", not "have made".

I am simply reporting what is on a lot of websites. As far as I have been able to determine that is the number which the New York Port Authority was using in the pamphlet that was given to tourists visiting the WTC for years before 9/11.

I can easily imagine why it was mistaken then- I'm sure tourists don't really care how much the actual towers weighed, especially before 9/11, laugh ;-).

I am assuming that includes what was in the basements and foundation

That was Jerry Russell's assessment in any case. I think now may be the time to quote Jerry Russell's post to me:

Hi Scott,

The 90,000 ton estimate came out of a discussion I had with Jim Hoffman of 911-research. Here was my analysis which was posted at http://www.911-strike.com/demolition_explosive.htm :

Hoffman’s first draft of his paper relied on my estimates of the volume of concrete in the towers. In my “powder analysis” I estimated that the mass of concrete in the towers was 650,000 tons. This was based on reports of the total amount of concrete poured for the WTC, which probably included plazas, roads, subways and so forth, in addition to the towers themselves. This was probably a serious over-estimate (although it would have no effect on the conclusion of the “powder analysis” since the gravitational energy per kg of concrete would be essentially unchanged.)

From the FEMA report, for the floors of each WTC tower, we have ~40,000 sq ft of floor area (including the core) * 117 floors * 4″ thick of “lightweight” concrete (5″ in the core), which works out to about 58,000 cubic yards.

“Normal” concrete ways about 2 tons per cubic yard, but “light weight” concrete can be anywhere from about 600 to 3000 pounds per cubic yard. If we take a figure towards the high end of the range, we would estimate about 90,000 tons of concrete, but the correct figure could be much lower.

Additionally, all of the exterior columns (and presumably core columns and spandrel plates as well) were coated with several inches of a fireproofing plaster containing either asbestos or “inorganic fibers” which presumably might include fiberglass. From the Guardian, the exterior columns were about 13″ square (240 columns) and the core columns were about 14″x36″ (48 columns) so the surface area of all the columns would be 17280 square feet per floor, or 2 million square feet for the entire building. Covering with a 3″ layer of fireproof plaster would require 19,000 cubic yards, which could easily amount to another 10,000 or 20,000 tons of fiberglass-rich material.

Overall, the mass of concrete and fibrous material in each WTC tower is probably not more than 110,000 tons. This revised estimate was used in Hoffman’s later revisions of his paper.​

As you can see, this was nothing more than a very rough estimate. So if there’s some calculation where it’s important to know an exact number, I can’t claim to have that information.

Also, I noticed that my very early article “Proof of controlled demolition at the WTC” was linked in the thread at sciforums. I agree with the posters who said that this article contained some serious errors. My retraction is posted at http://www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm .​

 

[scott3x]

I also assume that material did not become part of the pyroclastic cloud since it was below ground. But I have not seen anyone distinguish above vs below ground level quantities of steel and concrete.

Neither have I. Perhaps even the mainstream truth movement doesn't seem to think this is that important? I'd certainly like Tony's input here.

The lack of precision in the numbers that people throw around is just absurd but then they expect to PROVE things with calculus. Math equations don't mean squat if you can't put the correct numbers in for the variables.

That's definitely true. My understanding is that the mainstream truth movement simply used different numbers in order to show that the buildings could only have come down via controlled demolition. Again, I refer this to Tony who certainly belongs to that group.

 

[Trippy]

Your calculations are irrelevant and a nonesense.

How would you know when I haven't posted them.

It is clear that you are playing a game of deception.

That would be you - who can't even back up his own assertions with sources independent of conspiracy theorists.

You contradict even the official data here. Zinc and magnesium are dominant over aluminium and silicates in the WTC paint, and this is a fact. Stop spreading lies and disinfo.

Are you so sure of that?
My calculations are based on the official sources.

As for X-EDS, it is clear that you have already taken spectra out of context and you are doing so again here with an irrelevant example. You need to realise that X-EDS is used in different ways, as well as the fact that it wasn't the only testing mechanism used by Harrit et al.

So comparing the spectrum of an unknown to the spectra of samples of Aluminium Oxide is irrelevant now?

The point you have clearly missed is that the psectrum of aluminium oxide is the same irrespective of the size of teh particles involved - something which i've demonstrated by showing that the relative peak heights in a sample of corundum are the same as teh relative peak hieghts of alumina nanotubes.

Some quotes from the paper regarding application of XEDS pre-MEK material separation: -

"In order to learn more from these findings, a focused
electron beam was placed directly onto the different particles,
and the XEDS data were collected."
P.6

And? This refutes nothing I've said, in fact it confirms it.

"Both spectra display significant carbon and oxygen, which may be
partially due to the beam spreading and receiving an overlapping
X-ray signal from the matrix material as well as particles
below the surface. The beam energy (20 keV) is such
that the volume of material from which the X-ray signal is
generated is larger than the particles. Hence, some Al and Si
are seen in Fig. (11b) which may not be inherent in the faceted
grains, and some Fe is seen in Fig. (11a), which may
not be inherent in the plate-like particles."
P.9

Again, this contradicts nothing I said.
The region may have been bigegr than the particles, nbut it was smaller than the body of the chip, which causes peak extinction.

The carbon-matrix had a factor on this pre-MEK soaking.

Another randomly generated sentence perhaps?

Post-MEK showed separation of the aluminium plates and iron oxide from the carbon matrix, and allowed
the direct electron beam to be focussed on particular areas rich in certain elements. Thus, the X-EDS spectra
results for determining aluminium\oxygen present for given particles could be more accurately produced and the
spectra generated were very different.

Which generally aren't significantly different in terms of relative peak heights from the spectra before soaking, the difference is in the trace elements present and their detecability.

Its funny how you also continue to deny that Harrit et al tested the red-chips and they reacted violently at less than 500C and produced molten iron.

I've denied no such thing.
What I have questioned, however, is the significance of this finding and Harrits spin on it. Do you understand the difference?

They tested red-chips and they did not produce the steep characteristic thermal spike of thermite.

Right. Chips of an unspecified paint. :/ Even Harrit doesn't state that they're samples of Tnemec 99.

Onto the next fallacy.

NIST also tested the red primer paint of the WTC and also found the paint to be stable at much higher temperatures and hardly thermitic.

But wait a minute, I thought you were busy saying NIST were part of the coverup.

You don't trust NIST's findings, so why are you citing them again? :/

Again, your argument has no legs to stand on except for confusing matters and obfuscating the facts for newcomers. You are a grade A shill.

So in summary, from you, again, we have a post completely devoid of meaningful content, laden with insults, and concluded with an accusation of participation in illegal activities.

Care to back that accusation up?

No, of course not, because you can't.

Got that reference spectrum for aluminium yet?