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

    Tha would be your wrong assumption Scott.
    My statements about Hoz have nothing to do with his disagreeing with me.

    Here's two examples.
    The first is something I would expect someone who has studied Highschool chemistry to know.

    I stated repeatedly that Aluminium is a strong reducing agent, and that the Data Sheet for MEK, the solvent used by Harrit, explicitly states that you should not mix MEK with strong reducing agents.

    Hoz comes along, and in amongst his abuse makes the comment that:
    Which is the complete Opposite of what I said.
    In order to behave in the way Hoz describes, the Aluminium would be acting as an Oxidant, not a reductant.
    In high school, we got taught a mnemonic.
    LEO goes GER
    Loss of Electrons, Oxidation.
    Gain of Electrons, Reduction.

    The Oxidant is reduced.
    The reductant is Oxidized.

    So the reaction I was referring to would have the metallic aluminium being oxidized, not reduced by the MEK.

    His criticism of the use of the term 'Aluminoferric thermite' is a second example.
    Again, that's basic nomenclature that you get taught in Highschool.

    Fe(0) is Ferro (eg: http://www.raghavsteel.com/ferro-alloys.html ).
    Fe(II) Is Ferrous.
    Fe(III) is Ferric.

    Finally (for now) there's this beautiful post:
    Post #2276 where we have him saying this:

    Inspite of having previously made this post, post #2279 which included the following table:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The point that you have to understand here is that I'm not saying that he knows nothing about chemistry because i'm trying to be mean to him because he disagrees with me, i'm stating that he knows nothing about chemistry because he keeps getting basic things wrong that get taught at highschool level, like the role of oxidants and reductants in redox reactions, inspite of having implied enough times that you actually take what he has to say seriously from a chemistry perspective.

    Do you understand yet my point?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Not tonight Josephine.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I think it's irrelevant, and not a point i've contested.

    I haven't contested whether or not EDS can be used for Thermite.
    I've only contested whether or not that's what Harrit found.

    I think that at best this represents a strawman fallacy by implying that I've somehow questioned the efficacy of using EDS to test for thermite residue, which I haven't.

    I would even go as far as calling it deliberately dishonest and misleading (not the article though, mind you, the post and the intent behind it).

    I notice that not one conspiracy theorist has yet to produce an EDS spectrum for Aluminium to prove that it looks like Harrit says it does.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Don't think I took high school chemistry. Took high school biology, but I didn't finish it (it wasn't a mandatory credit). Nevertheless, I can be a quick learner when I put my mind to something...

    Which seems to be saying that Hoz misunderstood you, but is indeed correct.

    Yeah, makes sense; but since he thought you were saying the opposite, he thought you were mistaken.

    I didn't see his criticism so don't know where this is going...
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Means nothing to me...

    I never implied that's what you meant...

    I have understood for some time that you've been saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Your point concerning reductants and oxidizers is well taken. I don't think Hoz has ever stated that he's a chemist and while he may have passed a high school chemistry course, I don't think that remembering such things as oxidizers and reductants is the first thing that comes to mind if you're not a chemist. However, I, atleast, believe that I now understand your point concerning oxidizers and reductants.
  9. scott3x Banned Banned


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Alright, tell me this story of Josephine...
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Well, Hoz never said you contested it. Rather, he brought it up as a point; -I'm- the one who wanted to know what you thought about it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Perhaps because few of them are chemists. With time, however, we may be able to produce that EDS spectrum for Aluminium.
  11. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    NORMAL controlled demolitions do not hurl tons of material 600 feet as into the Winter Garden from WTC1. I am not tracking down every video and mention of pyroclastic flow for your benefit. If you can't comprehend it that is too damn bad.

    The distribution of steel and concrete is more important than pyroclastic flow. It is that distribution that makes it impossible for the planes to have destroyed the buildings. Since the buildings were destroyed something else had to have done it. That huge dust cloud is part of the evidence of that something else. If you can't see the difference between the dust cloud on 9/11 and the dust from a NORMAL controlled demolitions that is also your problem.

    I think you just want to play endless rhetoric games. Just like your "TOYS" business.


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

    Which contradicts nothing that I have said.

    Magnesium and Zinc is clearly much higher than the amount of aluminates, and nothing that you say can change this fact. If this was WTC primer paint, then Zinc would be showing a consistent and strong spike, and so would Magnesium given that over 50% of Talc is oxygen which is easy to distinguish on X-EDS. Aluminates would be barely registering in comparison.

    As for Harrit over-estimating then you are wrong: -

    Here is something else that you need to learn: -

    The following is Fig. (7). (from Harrit's paper) XEDS spectra obtained from the red layers from each of the four WTC dust samples, with (a) corresponding to sample 1 and so on

    This was before MEK soaking too: -

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Another cross-sectional area of the red-chip: -

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Notice the consistency of the aluminium peaks and its strong signal. The Zinc is barely above the baseline noise, and thus the idea that this is WTC primer paint is absurd.
  13. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    When I said it cannot reduce aluminium, I made a mistake in the first part of that sentence. However, if you bother to read on you will in the next sentence I said that MEK cannot reduce aluminium oxide. The analysis in Harrit's paper showed that aluminium exceeds oxygen respectively by 3:1, and post-MEK it was also distinctly separate from the silica.

    By the way, Professor Steven Jones would agree with me since I am just paraphrasing his words.
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    First Hoz makes a post that says (or implies) "The vehicle of the Pigment is 41.5% Linseed oil" then when I say "Zinc Oxide reacts with Linseed Oil to form Zinc Soaps" he asks "Where does the Linseed Oil come from?"
  15. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    NIST heated the paint and found that it was NOT thermitic. Harrit et al heated paint and found it was NOT thermitic. They then heated the red-chips and found violent thermitic reactions at ignition temperatures appreciably lower than conventional thermite. Now, the idea that some ignorant cretin like yourself can accuse these professional chemists and physicists of not identifying a thermitic material - is just really hilarious. I am laughing at you right now given that you insist on assuming that it is a primer paint.

    I quote from page 23 of the paper: -

  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Yes it does.
    Post #2404
    As it turns out, apparently I used the same methods as Harrit, so either i've contradicted something you've said, or Harrit's calculations are also 'Irrelevant nonsensical decption'.

    I haven't looked into this.
    What I have done, however, is emailed Tnemec and asked them if the composition of the Tnemec 99 has remained constant, or if it's changed.

    Saftey data sheets are a relatively new thing, I think some companies were using them prior to the UNGHS, but it was only after that that they became standardized.

    I've bolded the part of this that's clearly wrong in light of the information I provided from Tnemec themselves.

    But feel free to email them and tell them that they're wrong, and government shills if you want to.

    And yet they're right there in Fig 17, before soaking in MEK.

    And so I repeat myself.
    EDS, Thin slices, Harrit did the whole chip, peak extinction.
    20kev spectrum, high energy beams supress low energy peaks, EDS, thin slices, peak extinction.
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    You've embarressed yourself, and now you're trying to cover it up.
    I said "Aluminium is a strong reducing agent" not "Aluminium Oxide is a strong reducing agent".
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Speaking of hilarious.

    Right, they heated paint that hadn't already been subjected to fire conditions to see what information the patterns of cracking and peeling in the paint could give them about the fire conditions.

    They didn't reheat steel that had already been in the fire.

    They heated some kind of paint, yes, but was it Tnemec 99? We don't know, they don't tell us.
    Did it have the Iron Oxide (gray) layer attached to it? We don't know, they don't tell us.

    No, they found a narrow exotherm.
    Engine oil generates a narrow exotherm.
    Any substance that goes through a phase transition that release energy (for example a glass to crystalline phase transition) generates a narrow exotherm.

    Says the individual that doesn't know his oxidants from his reductants, and can't even think up his own excuses.
    Says the indvidual who doesn't understand even basic chemical nomenclature.
    Says the individual who fails to understand even his own sources.

    I've hilighted what is possibly the most important word in this passage, and i've already explained that Iron spheres are generated in the ignition of any iron rich hydrocarbons, and can be formed at temperatures as low as 800°C
  19. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    What kind of explosives can hurl tons of material 600 feet and make absolutely no sound?

    In WTC 1993, a bomb which had the evuivalent of 1000 pounds of TNT did NOT turn the concrete into dust and did NOT destroy any columns, let alone throw it 600 feet.

    The energy of the collapse itself was enough to force the perimeter columns outward. The higher the perimeter columns, the farther they're going to travel. There's really no need to use explosives as an explanation, particularly since there would have needed to be an extremely large explosion heard by just about every person and camera in Lower Manhattan.

    You don't have to, I know full well what a volcano looks like. I'm just laughing at you for saying it's relevant to a building collapse.

    Concrete isn't going to account for all of the dust at GZ. The dust samples were mostly insulation and gypsum drywall, not concrete.

    That's the thing, I see absolutely NO difference between the dust cloud on 9/11 and dust from not only normal controlled demolitions, but explosive-free collapses.

    The only difference on 9/11 is that there was much more of it. Which is to be expected since they were 110 story buildings. Not only that but when WTC1 collapsed, the air pressure kicked up dust that was already settled from the collapse of WTC2.

    I'm not playing any rhetoric games here... I am actually taking issue with YOU playing rhetoric games with your meaningless "pyroclastic" bullshit.
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    It's a Biritsh Commonwealth thing I believe (one of those cultural reference things).

    Not tonight Joesphine

    Generally used when you don't feel like doing something immeadiately.
  21. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    Way to quote something I say before you actually post your specific calculation on the magnesium composition which appear to be sound.

    You mean if its now become thermitic? lol

    Oh really? How insightful of you.

    If it has changed, then how is it relevant to the composition used in the WTC primer? Its not.

    I could just make up their response, like you could be doing eh?

    Figure 17 on page 19 of Harrit's paper illustrates exactly my point about the major difference in peaks of Aluminium relative to Oxygen compared to the cross-sectional peaks prior to MEK soaking.

    Sounds like intentional obfuscation and confusing of issues. You really are starting to annoy me.
  22. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    Stop right there.

    You. Are. Hilarious.
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Mm. Well, this is complicated stuff, so perhaps he just forgot about the linseed oil...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page