9/11 Poll

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Feb 7, 2009.


Who was responsible for 9/11?

  1. 1- The official story regarding 9/11 is the sacred truth. Questioning it is blasphemous.

  2. 2- The official story regarding 9/11 is more or less right. No need to investigate further.

  3. 3- The official story regarding 9/11 is questionable in some areas.

  4. 4- EoG (Elements of the Government) let 9/11 happen.

  5. 5- EoG let 9/11 happen. EoG prevented the investigation of certain individuals before 9/11.

  6. 6- EoG, perhaps in the form of a secret society, made 9/11 happen.

  7. 7- Other

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Simple, two words.


    If you don't believe me, put some in a fire place (or something).
    and no, I'm not claiming that paint explodes at less than 500C.

    I am, however, claiming that Harrit misrepresents the significance of the Exotherm.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Burning is not the same thing as exploding.

    That's my point. If the chips exploded at less than 500C, don't you think that would be evidence that it couldn't have been paint?

    How so? You just admitted that paint doesn't explode below 500C. It seems to me that it's you who is misrepresenting its significance.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. MGMkZERO Registered Member

    Then select "Other" If you don't like the choices. Or just not vote. What is presented is presented. And don't be a skeptic of skeptics. It hurts my brain thinking about it and it probably pisses off a lot more skeptics who think so much more faster than they type.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    I did not make up the use of the word in relation to what happened at the WTC.

    I believe I provided a link to a video earlier.


  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Burning is absolutely the same thing as burning.
    Look up the meaning or Brisance, then realize that 'Exploding' is just another way of saying 'Burns really really really fast'.

    Coal dust is the perfect example of this.

    Besides which, where's your proof that it exploded? As I recall, that's not what Harrit said, he said it generated a narro exotherm, which is to be expected in a small burning sample becaus eof the way DSC works.

    No, because I have seen no evidence of the chips exploding.
    Besides which, consider the larger scale structure of the chips. A Carbon rich (red) layer attached to an Oxygen rich (gray) layer.

    I've explained previously how DSC's work, and that Harrit's DSC doesn't say anything about the chip exploding.

    Narrow exotherm does NOT imply explosion.

    Here's a DSC of engine oil that shows a comparably narrow exotherm.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Are you going to insist that this means the Engine oil contained thermite, or exploded?
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Can you show us those calculations?

    I wish all this talk of everyone trying to deceive everyone else could just stop. Let's imagine for a second that both you and Hoz are correct and you are both playing games of deception against each other (which is impossible, but never mind that for one second). How does it help someone like me figure things out? I can't make heads or tails of some of the stuff you guys say so at the end I can say, ok, fine, perhaps both of you are just super chemists or what not, but unless you actually get us mere mortals to your level, only you guys will 'know' what a deceiver the other is. With this in mind, I ask that there be less talk of what big deceivers the other is and just explain why the other is mistaken. I'm going to respond to everything, even the stuff I have no real clue about, just so you can both see where I and probably many more lose you guys...

    Again, can you show us your calculations?

    And I've lost you...

    It confirms nothing whatsoever for me, though ;-).

    Ah yes, peak extinction, how could I have forgotten? I'm joking by the way, I have no clue what that means ;-).

    I'm sure he meant something by it, but I've been lost a while now and this pre-MEK soaking certainly isn't bringing me back ;-).

    Ah yes, ofcourse, can't forget those trace elements (yes, I'm still lost ;-)).

    Finally something I understand. How could you find this finding anything but very significant?

    And I'm lost again

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    He doesn't trust NIST, but that doesn't mean that all that many of them are bent on covering up the truth. I believe it was in David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" that I heard of a NIST whistleblower, in fact. The top positions in the NIST investigation were fairly suspect and Kevin Ryan made a very good case for that, but coverups this massive are bound to have a few things get past them.

    Is this something that you believe is missing from Harrit's article?
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2009
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Alright, but I think it's fairly established here that paint burns nowhere near the speed of nano thermite.

    I was relying on Hoz here. Perhaps he'll comment.

    Out of my depth- I'll have to wait for Hoz.

    And if you did? Would that persuade you that perhaps there really is something to this demolition theory?

    Is that natural in paint?

    Again, out of my depth.

    Out of my depth

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Although I do think that gasoline does kind of 'explode'... though not at the speed of an explosive.
  11. Hoz_Turner Registered Member


    Neils Harrit's calculations are detailed here, and yes they are based from official sources too: -


    It is clear that there is much much more Zinc and Magnesium than there is aluminium and thus if this was WTC primer paint, then the two former elements would be showing strong noticable peaks in all of the samples. They clearly don't. BSE images also show no dominant or significant presence of the aforementioned elements. This is a big problem for the "debunkers".

    "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 spectrum 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."

    I quote from this semiconductor manufacturing resource: -

    "The higher a peak in a spectrum, the more concentrated the element is in the specimen."


    The point that you are avoiding is exactly what I showed to you in my post, i.e. the clearly different peaks in elements from the pre-MEK cross-sectional X-EDS analysis and the post MEK soaking (which allowed some separation of material from the matrix). I also quoted the explanation of how the matrix structure influenced the pre-MEK peaks. How oxygen shows up within a general medium of a sample, the location and strength of the electron beam, degree of surface contaminants, etc are inter-related factors to take into account.

    "The region may have been bigegr than the particles, nbut it was smaller than the body of the chip, which causes peak extinction."

    Way to misrepresent what Harrit says, congratulations.

    "Which generally aren't significantly different in terms of relative peak heights from the spectra before soaking"

    Oh really? Are you blind?

    "What I have questioned, however, is the significance of this finding and Harrits spin on it"

    Its not spin. The reaction was even more thermitic than conventional thermite, with reactions at an appreciably lower temperature with molten iron produced.

    "Even Harrit doesn't state that they're samples of Tnemec 99."

    In the link I quoted we have a quote from tests performed by NIST and they release the methodology of how they heated the primer paint to various temperatures and show the respective pictures. However, NIST did not release the methodology of their tower-collapse computer model or their data set and this is the very problematic aspect of their report. Nobody has said that EVERY bit of information coming from the reports is false: -

    Last edited: Jul 8, 2009
  12. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    X-EDS is an important method to identify thermite, and it has been used by forensics at crime scenes: -

    Last edited: Jul 8, 2009
  13. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Yes, I'm fully aware that Sofia Shafquat tried to compare the dust clouds to that of a volcano.. but I want to know why YOU are using the term "pyroclastic clouds".

    Are you trying to say that if a building collapses without explosives that it wouldn't give off a large dust cloud?

    I have never understood troofers trying to say that the dust cloud is evidence for explosives. Even in controlled demolitions, the large dust clouds are not a result of the explosives, but due to gravity smashing the building apart, which also happens when a building collapses like on 9/11.
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    You fill your car up with WD40 instead of Unleaded 91 then?

    Engine oil has very different properties from gasoline.
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Here's one example.

    Talc has the composition \(Mg_3Si_4O_{10}(OH)_2\)
    This can be written as \(3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O\)
    \(M_{Mg}=24.305 gmol^{-1}\)
    \(M_{Si}=28.0855 gmol^{-1}\)
    \(M_O=15.9994 gmol^{-1}\)
    \(M_H=1.00794 gmol^{-1}\)
    So, \(M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}\)=(24.305*3)+(28.0855*4)+(15.9994*12)+(1.00794*2)

    \(M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}\)= 72.915+112.342+191.9928+2.01588
    \(M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}\)= 379.26568

    The percentage of Magnesium in Talc can be calculated by \(\frac{M_{Mg}*3}{M_{3MgO.4SiO_2.H_2O}}*100\)
    Which is 19.23% by weight Magnesium in Talc.

    According to Hoz Post #2279
    Talc constitutes 21%-30% of the Tnemec Proprietary Pigment.
    And the Tnemec Proprietary Pigment constitutes 33.7% of the Pigment.

    Talc is 19.23% Magnesium by weight, and the pigment is 21%-30% Talc by weight, therefore the Pigment must be (19.23%*21%) - (19.23%*30%) Magnesium by weight, or 4.04% - 5.77% Magnesium, by weight.

    The Pigment component of the Primer used on the WTC steel is 33.7% by weight (or at least that's what Harrit assumes) Tnemec Proprietary Pigment, so the Pigment component of the primer must be (4.04%*33.7%) - (5.77%*33.7%) or 1.4% - 1.9% by weight Magnesium.

    And that's as far as I'm willing to take it at this point, as I have yet to come across any information as to the ratio of Pigment:Vehicle (remember, the above is for the pigment only).

    Incidentally, I seem to recall in one of Hoz's posts, him saying that Harrit in his response estimates that the paint contained up to 40% volatiles, but according to this information, it's more likely to be in the range of 24%-29% volatiles, meaning Harrit over estimates his compositions in the dired paint.

    Yes, i've already outlined several points in this thread that detail what I consider to be failings of basic good science in Harrits paper. Personally, If I wa sin the editors position, I probably would have resigned as well.
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    The same ones that I have yet to have the time to waste going through in any detail?

    Assuming Harrit's calculations are accurate.

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

    Contradicts nothing i've said, and certainly doesn't contradict what you're replying to.

    I'm talking about the relative heights of the Oxygen and ALuminium peaks in any EDS spectra of Aluminium Oxide, you're talking about the absolute height of the aluminium peak.

    Figure 7 is the EDS from the red side of the chip.
    Figure 17 is the EDS from the aluminium rich platelets.
    Learn the difference, you're grasping at straws.
    If you're trying to assert that the Oxygen showing up in the spectra is simply a coincidence, and background contamination from the carbon rich matrix, and that it's just a big coincidence (or an apologist lie) that the Al

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    peak ratios so closely match that of any form of Aluminium Oxide... That's just laughably desperate at best, and NOT the explanation that Harrit offers (Not one he even considers).

    I'm not misrepresenting anything, the spectrum I was refering to is Figure 17 from Harrits paper. Read your own sources, Harrit is talking about the platelets, not the chip as a whole.

    Well, obviously you can't read, so....

    It's precisely Spin.
    Hydrocarbons are more enmergetic.
    And molten Iron can be produced at temperatures as low as 800°C.

    "Even Harrit doesn't state that they're samples of Tnemec 99."

    Right, but you were talking about Harrit, not NIST.
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Hoz clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.
    He can't even keep track of what a Reducing agent does.
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Ah right.
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Thanks. Hopefully Hoz can make use of it, again, out of my depth

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Are you implying that an editor resigned because of Neils' paper? Anyway, you have indeed said many things. My real problem with much of this stuff is that I still can't follow a lot of it.
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Trippy, I think you've fallen into the same trap as Hoz; you both think that it's so obvious that the other is wrong; I will grant that maybe it's obvious for you and Hoz (or atleast you both know enough to find ways to believe this), but from where I stand, and I don't think I'm alone here, it's definitely not. I frequently can't make heads or tails of what you guys are saying. I made that crystal clear when I responded to one of your large posts.
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    No, I'm not implying it.
    I'm outright stating it, and it's the reason that the editor herself gave, i'm fairly sure i've linked to a couple of articles about this previously.
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Could you relink to such an article? I may have heard this story before (an editor resigning sounds familiar), but just wanted to double check.
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Good to know. What do you think of this Trippy?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page