Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Status
Not open for further replies.
RonWieck said:
I assume that the people here fall into the usual two categories: rationalists and twoofers. Twoofers are ineducable know-nothings, for most part indistinguishable from one another. Rationalists come in different sizes and shapes, ranging from bright people who lack technical backgrounds to working scientists and engineers.

Psikeyhackr is making an astounding claim--that he can't find information on the "distribution" of the steel in the twin towers. The twoofers can't comment because, as always, they don't know anything and couldn't begin to evaluate the validity of his claim. Rationalists split sharply. There are some whose critical thinking skills permit them to conclude that his claim is nonsense. Almost eight years have passed since jihadists crashed planes into the towers. Someone might have noticed if we didn't know how the steel in the buildings was"distributed."
Click to expand...
.
@Wieck, "Brain" Ron,

The NCSTAR1 report says there were 12 types of perimeter wall panels. So tell us the weights of the panels and the number of each type used on one of the towers or simply tell us the page number of which NCSTAR1 report has that information. Maybe I missed it in the TWO YEARS that I have had it burned to DVD. All 1.03 Gigabytes of it.

:roflmao:

You talk like a typical JREFer. Everybody is dumb but you. LOL

You don't actually supply any data you just say, "It's there, it's there".

Maybe you should cut down on that ASSuming. You make an ASS of yourself.

psik
 
Last edited:
leopold99 said:
again, why wasn't any of this noticed by the cops and firemen on the scene?
i believe we have been over this at least 5 times already.
Click to expand...
you want to know why the cops and the firemen did not notice small chips of unreacted nanothermite one milimeter in diameter amongst hundreds of thousands of tons of debris spread across many acres?
is that what you are asking?
you cannot be asking that, surely?

if you had read the paper you would not be asking such questions.
have you read it yet?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
 
Headspin said:
This is a oxymoronic statement. In order to react with oxygen in the air, it has to exist in nature, right? It seems you are not grasping the nature of basic matter as much as you are not grapsing the basic matters of nature.

If you believe elemental aluminium cannot exist in nature, then you must believe that thermite cannot exist in nature since it contains elemental aluminium.

Similarly iron will react with the moisture in air to produce surface rust, to then make the claim that iron does not exist in nature would be equally absurd.
Click to expand...
really?
Aluminum occurs naturally only in compounds, never as a pure metal.
http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/A-C/Aluminum.html

comparing aliminum oxide to iron oxide is the oxymoron headspin.
aluminum oxide forms almost immediately on exposure to air where as iron oxide takes quite awhile.
 
Last edited:
Headspin said:
you want to know why the cops and the firemen did not notice small chips of unreacted nanothermite one milimeter in diameter amongst hundreds of thousands of tons of debris spread across many acres?
is that what you are asking?
you cannot be asking that, surely?

if you had read the paper you would not be asking such questions.
have you read it yet?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Click to expand...
then why have you called them chips?
 
Headspin said:
...which means that the elemental aluminium discovered in the nanothermite chips was MANufactured and not naturally occuring.
so, how does this contradict anything in the below paper ?

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Click to expand...
like i've stated before and provided links to sources this stuff is some kind of structural coating.

as to your trolling claim, you have indeed referred to this stuff as chips and even provided a video where the speaker referred to them as chips.

edit:
furthermore your original claim was this stuff was found in two apartments.
now it appears it was found in four.
on top of that the website you posted seems to be an open source type where anyone can edit it.
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

The astounding Wieck, "Brain" Ron swings and misses again.

He comes in here calling me a "conspiracy liar" knowing nothing about me but falls all over himself making stupid accusations. I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report two years ago.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=412992#p412992

I am sure I have not read much more than 200 pages of it but it is mostly not worth reading. I just search on what I regard as important to understanding and solving the REAL PROBLEM. I don't rely on the NIST or the Great Ryan Mackey to tell me what to think about a grade school physics problem.

I have searched the report for lots of things that I know should be important on the basis of my understanding of physics. I have searched it for "center of mass" and "center of gravity" in order to learn about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower. To my amazement it was not there, "center of mass" appears four times in a report about the effect of the impact on suspended ceilings. I don't understand why they did it but I am glad the report is there. They only refer to the "center of mass" of the aircraft. But that report does say:


http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-5D Ceilings.pdf page 74

They only use center of gravity when talking about the creation of the simulated structural components for the SAP2000 program for their computer simulation.

Now that report also says that the original WTC design called for 14 types of perimeter wall panels but the manufacturer had two of them upgraded so only 12 types were actually used on the building. But the NIST does not tell us the number and weights of each of those 12 types. So Gregory Urich does a linear interpolation on the distribution of mass of the perimeter panels and his data is the most detailed that I know of but he is basically admitting it is wrong. However the NIST does say that one airliner had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9.

Now Adobe will search all of the NCSTAR1 files for whatever you want but it will not copy information from it. I have found that the Evince program in Linux will do that but it will only search one file at a time.

So now you can explain to everyone here how I knew all of that without having glanced at the NCSTAR1 report. ROFL

psik
Click to expand...

Somehow, your assuring us that you have not so much as glanced at either of the reports I mentioned should lead us to conclude that you are familiar with NIST's methods and conclusions. Why don't you stop babbling nonsense and try looking at those two reports? You have created a ridiculous red herring to disguise the glaringly obvious fact that you are clueless.
 
leopold99 said:
like i've stated before and provided links to sources this stuff is some kind of structural coating.

as to your trolling claim, you have indeed referred to this stuff as chips and even provided a video where the speaker referred to them as chips.

edit:
furthermore your original claim was this stuff was found in two apartments.
now it appears it was found in four.
on top of that the website you posted seems to be an open source type where anyone can edit it.
Click to expand...



Why are people going on and on about a worthless paper that Jones and other frauds paid to have printed in a vanity journal?
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
@Wieck, "Brain" Ron,

The NCSTAR1 report says there were 12 types of perimeter wall panels. So tell us the weights of the panels and the number of each type used on one of the towers or simply tell us the page number of which NCSTAR1 report has that information. Maybe I missed it in the TWO YEARS that I have had it burned to DVD. All 1.03 Gigabytes of it.

:roflmao:

You talk like a typical JREFer. Everybody is dumb but you. LOL

You don't actually supply any data you just say, "It's there, it's there".

Maybe you should cut down on that ASSuming. You make an ASS of yourself.

psik
Click to expand...



Funny, I don't think everybody is dumb. Some people are smarter than I am. You, on the other hand, are quite dumb.

Can we ASSume that it never occurred to you to look here?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
 
Last edited:
leopold99 said:
on top of that the website you posted seems to be an open source type where anyone can edit it.
Click to expand...

>.<. Your ignorance astounds me leopold. Did you even go to the site or does it seem this way to you based on the quotes of the site you've read here? Anyway, here's an excerpt from what appears to be the bentham's home page for its articles, http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/ (bold emphasis mine):
The benefits of Bentham Science OPEN are:

All articles are made freely and permanently accessible online immediately upon publication.

All articles are, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, deposit in digital repositories and use (with attribution) any way you wish. No permission is required for distribution, copying or commercial use of published articles.

Fast publication. All submitted articles undergo a fast but rigorous peer-review procedure and submission of an article to publication is done rapidly.

Authors publishing with Bentham Science Open retain the copyright to their work.

Authors can publish research, reviews and short communication articles.

Affordable article processing fees. Article processing fees rank amongst the lowest compared to those of other open access journal publishers.

Open Access to the broadest audience. Publishing in an open access journal allows anyone with an interest in your work to read it and that translates into increased usage and impact.

All articles are deposited in at least one major international open digital repository ( such as PubMed Central).

For complete information on Bentham publications, please visit www.bentham.org
​
 
Headspin said:
I could not find any industrial coating that was:

1. Composed of intimately mixed thermitic materials- iron oxide and elemental aluminium.
2. Only resolves at the nanometer scale with an electron microscope.
3. Ignites at 420 Celcius.
4. Generates a reaction temperature of 1,500 Celcius capable of melting steel.

I'm sure you'll agree that such an invention to be used as a steel "protective" coating would be a very stupid idea.
Click to expand...

leopold99 said:
like i've stated before and provided links to sources this stuff is some kind of structural coating.
Click to expand...
I agree it appears to be some type of coating. Whether it is a "protective" or "destructive" coating is the issue.

As for your links you posted in post#552 -

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6764969.html
your first link above is a textile coating of iron oxide and aluminium oxide - these compounds will not react, the aluminium is already bound to oxygen, it is not elemental, so it fails points#1,3,4

http://www.springerlink.com/content/pk126771832j1j24/ (published in 1973)
your second link above describes an aluminium coating which consists of aluminium oxide (not elemental aluminium), this coating is NOT intimately mixed with iron oxide, so it fails points#1,3,4 (It also fails point 2 since nanotechnolgy was not around in 1974)

http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2244&DID=81659&action=detail
your third link above seems to refer to a reactive nanothermite coating, so would seem to invalidate your position. That it would be used to coat structural steel for "protective" purposes is NOT a reason for its purpose given in your link.

furthermore your original claim was this stuff was found in two apartments. now it appears it was found in four.
Click to expand...
5 actually - again you would have known this if you had read the paper. The chips have been found by 2 other researchers independent of 911 research who have no contact with Doctor Jones et al, one is based France. The unreacted nanothermite chips are intrinsic to the world trade centre dust, so they will likely be found in all samples. You can listen here for more details:
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_drjones0309.mp3

on top of that the website you posted seems to be an open source type where anyone can edit it.
Click to expand...

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
The website is open access which means it is free to view (unlike the links you provided which are pay per view). open access does not mean "anyone can edit it". the paper has been peer reviewed and published and is available free of charge.
 
RonWieck said:
Somehow, your assuring us that you have not so much as glanced at either of the reports I mentioned should lead us to conclude that you are familiar with NIST's methods and conclusions. Why don't you stop babbling nonsense and try looking at those two reports? You have created a ridiculous red herring to disguise the glaringly obvious fact that you are clueless.
Click to expand...
.
So who is the obvious LIAR now?

psik
 
RonWieck said:
Funny, I don't think everybody is dumb. Some people are smarter than I am. You, on the other hand, are quite dumb.

Can we ASSume that it never occurred to you to look here?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
Click to expand...
.
:roflmao:
I already told you that I downloaded the entire NCSTAR1 report long ago and how to search it with Adobe and Evince.

The usual JREF type bullshit. I ask for 24 numbers that should be on one page if they exist and you throw up a 166 page report that I would bet you haven't looked through.

So tell us what page has the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels.

Gregory Urich claims to have read the whole 10,000 pages and he has told me about stuff that I didn't know was there but he admits that what I am talking about ain't there.

By all means continue to advertise your ignorance and incompetence.

It is moderately entertaining but on the wane.

psik

PS - I searched that report on my DVD just for the hell of it. It mentions wall panels quite often. No information on weights. It does not even point out that there were 12 types of wall panels. I won't be holding my breath until you show that the information is there.
 
Last edited:
headspin,
i know this much, no evidence of explosives, or whatever it is you people insist on calling it, was found on the pile.
cops, firemen, structural engineers, demolition experts, magically missed it i guess.
call it whatever you will headspin.
great name you go by dude, describes your tactics quite well.

edit:
what is the evidence trail of these "samples"
who submitted them, and who witnessed them being collected?
 
Last edited:
leopold99 said:
no evidence of explosives, or whatever it is you people insist on calling it, was found on the pile.
cops, firemen, structural engineers, demolition experts, magically missed it i guess.
Click to expand...

How would the cops, structural engineers, firemen, demolition experts have spotted milimeter nanothermite fragments without doing chemical lab analysis, and when most of the loose material was being "scooped and dumped" by huge diggers?

Are you suggesting they would have immediately recognised the use of this new technology at ground zero? obviously you must be referring to lab testing, not the ridiculous notion that these tiny fragments would have been spotted visually at ground zero.

NIST stated they did not chemically test for thermitic materials:
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

your responses are getting farcical.
 
headspin,
so, no evidence trail right?
i'll be honest, frankly i do not believe you.
first you refer to this stuff as chips, even posting a video that refers to them as such.
now you are calling it dust.
 
leopold99 said:
the evidence trail please.
Click to expand...
So do you accept the conclusions of the paper, provided that Dr Steven Jones is not a lying fraud, Professor Niels Harrit is not a liar, Dr Jeffrey Farrer is not a liar, Kevin Ryan is not a liar, Dr Frank Legge is not a liar, Daniel Farnsworth is not a liar, Gregg Roberts is not a liar, James Gourley is not a liar, Bradley Larsen is not a liar, and the five people who have provided samples and depositions are not liars and frauds, and the two other independent scientists who studied the dust and confirmed Doctor Jones findings from samples independent of Doctor Jones samples are also not liars.

...so as long as all these people are not all complete unadulterated liars, you accept the papers conclusions?

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

edit - the chain of custody is documented, we've been over it on another thread. it is obvious you are now looking for strawmen to avoid addressing the paper and its conclusions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top