• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chemical Engineer speaks of 9/11

creativedreams

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
2,730
Reaction score
232
Location
Timbuktu
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Here is a Chemical Engineer speaking about 9/11...

There are many more coming out which I will post later...

 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
da troof is out dere.
 

505

Mildly Hostile
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
1,212
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So when is this guy going to publish his findings for review rather some post on youtube?
Publish his findings?... lol... why would a scientist publish his findings? Especially when you can just use a science fair to "inform the public".

Mark Basile said:
Yeah, yeah, well I was at a meeting the other night and somebody mentioned the idea of a science fair and that was the type of thing that came to mind for one way to possibly present these results basically to the general public.
Found here:

Chemical Engineer Mark Basile Discusses 9/11 WTC Dust | 911Blogger.com

Haha. So lame.
 

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,059
Reaction score
2,412
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So when is this guy going to publish his findings for review rather some post on youtube?
He can't. There's a conspiracy by Big Paper, in collusion with the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission, to prevent publication.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,896
Reaction score
7,982
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I should quit responding to 9/11 topics. Nothing is new. Just old rehashed clips from youtube.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So when is this guy going to publish his findings for review rather some post on youtube?
A - He's reconfirmed the already published (not now vindicated) paper by Mr Jones.
B - He challenges anyone else to obtain samples for themselves (more specifically if you have the equipment that he did not have access too), and
C - He's doing a video review as a peer for what NIST reports on.

I should quit responding to 9/11 topics. Nothing is new. Just old rehashed clips from youtube.
That's cause you guys say the same thing no matter how many new voices reconfirm and corroborate every detail that was neglected mention in the official version.
(Ex : It's out of context -> Here's the whole chapter -> oh the context is that the person that wrote this doesn't mean what they say, but rather they mean my interpretation)

If there was the capacity for a rational discussion of 9-11 and what happened, rather then the instant demonization or childish attacks, like 'do troof is out dere' (You do realize that YOUR lack of a capacity to spell words or provide a cogent argument isn't an effective attack, unless you're in junior high)... anyway, if there was honest discussion dealing with all the facts, well, there's about a dozen different reasons to ask for a new investigation

The only question remaining is why, if you're so secure of the position would you try so desperately to prevent an atmosphere of demand for such an investigation???
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,896
Reaction score
7,982
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A - He's reconfirmed the already published (not now vindicated) paper by Mr Jones.
B - He challenges anyone else to obtain samples for themselves (more specifically if you have the equipment that he did not have access too), and
C - He's doing a video review as a peer for what NIST reports on.



That's cause you guys say the same thing no matter how many new voices reconfirm and corroborate every detail that was neglected mention in the official version.
(Ex : It's out of context -> Here's the whole chapter -> oh the context is that the person that wrote this doesn't mean what they say, but rather they mean my interpretation)

If there was the capacity for a rational discussion of 9-11 and what happened, rather then the instant demonization or childish attacks, like 'do troof is out dere' (You do realize that YOUR lack of a capacity to spell words or provide a cogent argument isn't an effective attack, unless you're in junior high)... anyway, if there was honest discussion dealing with all the facts, well, there's about a dozen different reasons to ask for a new investigation

The only question remaining is why, if you're so secure of the position would you try so desperately to prevent an atmosphere of demand for such an investigation???
BM , you and I have discussed/debated 9/11. What I will not accept is when I and other present sources, they are said to be govt. fronts or biased. Yet if we question any source supporting "truthers" we get bs answers back. I won't pull up the link to an a site from a scientist from italy (previous posted in another 9/11 thread). It basically debunked the thermite theory. To date I have seen nothing to disprove that research.

the one way I would support a new investigation is for someone to come out with new evidence, show it to the world, have the findings peer reviewed. What we get is theories. I have one Jones was behind 9/11 and is trying to throw off blame. Would you support an investigation. In past post I have linked where others showed truther sites altered images or cropped them to fit their findings.

We are better than that BM, What it amounts to is we will agree to disagree.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BM , you and I have discussed/debated 9/11. What I will not accept is when I and other present sources, they are said to be govt. fronts or biased. Yet if we question any source supporting "truthers" we get bs answers back. I won't pull up the link to an a site from a scientist from italy (previous posted in another 9/11 thread). It basically debunked the thermite theory. To date I have seen nothing to disprove that research.
If it's the one I'm thinking of, where the guy said that it couldn't be thermite because the test he used would have created a reaction to the aluminum proponent?? That I have difficulty with... but the problem is that the test was intended to show that this was not simply paint chips.

To be balanced here... on the one hand, I can see great difficulties with the thermite theory... most notably, the process of getting as much as would be necessary to be complete and provide the results that were videotaped, BUT since the evidence shows that this was present in the dust, it becomes easier to say that it WAS present, but doesn't say a thing about locations, proportions or purpose.

More importantly, one of the biggest frustrations is explaining 3 dimensional concepts in text form....

the one way I would support a new investigation is for someone to come out with new evidence, show it to the world, have the findings peer reviewed.
Well... I know it's not the 'ideal' publisher of peer-reviewed papers, but the steven Jones article did pass a peer-review, and in the discussions surrounding the paper it actually required several extra tests above and beyond what was performed before they passed it... regardless though... the more people that step up and confirm the test (as was stated) the more corroboration that this is not simple a single persons imaginings...

But then again, to me, I see 6 of the 10 commissioners come out and speak out and or resign from the commission stating that they felt lied to and that there was cover-ups going on.. I see a situation like that and instantly say; well, we cant' trust those findings any longer, we need a new investigation. Or, the police radio where a van bomb goes off and the cuplrits arrested (though never mentioned again anywhere)....never mentioned in any of the official reports...

Then, with the NIST recent data dump due to a FOIA lawsuit... several terabytes worth, there have been at least a dozen videos that come out that either corroborate a persons story that described explosions, discusses explosions, or with the sounds of explosions, etc... that explosives were not fully considered by the official reports, in the face of all this testimony suggesting a strong possibility (and the necessity to cover-up these film clips) that another investigation is in order.

What we get is theories. I have one Jones was behind 9/11 and is trying to throw off blame. Would you support an investigation. In past post I have linked where others showed truther sites altered images or cropped them to fit their findings.
I can't deny in any honesty that there have been altered and cropped images... but there's an intelligence concept of 'controlled opposition'... most often referred to when dealing with 'puppet states', where they influence the dictator while funding the opposition to that dictator that if the dictator starts acting independently they simply increase the oppositions funding drastically and a few weeks later he's removed in a coup.

As for supporting an investigation : if you had evidence that suggested this to be the case, then we could weigh that evidence... a key question I would ask how did he BENEFIT from this perpetration?

We are better than that BM, What it amounts to is we will agree to disagree.
Ya... that's fine... I would rather a system where evidence gets weight put on it's merit... but who has 'peer-reviewed' NIST's findings?
 

creativedreams

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
2,730
Reaction score
232
Location
Timbuktu
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Anyone who so defends a government through wits end and fights so hard against a simple new investigation should be deamed a traitor to the American people.

What type of person would post so hard to sway opinions and cut down so many prominent people in the world to sway thoughts against a new investigation?

Never again will America's government be investigated by its people because of the protection of the situation it's a "conspiracy"....lol conspiracies are countless throughout history but American's somehow are in ignorant bliss where it would never come to them...

America is rapidly increasing in corruption yet the average American has too low of an I.Q. to see what extent this corruption could go in a worldly strategy...

This country is on a clear path to increasing its sneaky and secretive ways because of the many passive and content who have too low of an I.Q. to see what is slowly manifesting....
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Anyone who so defends a government through wits end and fights so hard against a simple new investigation should be deamed a traitor to the American people.
So guess, "agree to disagree" goes out the window?

What type of person would post so hard to sway opinions and cut down so many prominent people in the world to sway thoughts against a new investigation?
I don't know, somebody who thinks that the conspiracy theory about 9/11 is a load of crap?

Never again will America's government be investigated by its people because of the protection of the situation it's a "conspiracy"....lol conspiracies are countless throughout history but American's somehow are in ignorant bliss where it would never come to them...
Yeah any plot by two or more people is a conspiracy, but nothing has been done on this scale with no peer-reviewed evidence to support it.

America is rapidly increasing in corruption yet the average American has too low of an I.Q. to see what extent this corruption could go in a worldly strategy...

This country is on a clear path to increasing its sneaky and secretive ways because of the many passive and content who have too low of an I.Q. to see what is slowly manifesting....
You now Creative, if you want people to take you more seriously, you might want to cut out the passive aggressive bs.
 

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
2,078
Reaction score
444
Location
Bonnie Scotland !!!
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
A - He's reconfirmed the already published (not now vindicated) paper by Mr Jones.
What published work of Jones ???

For surely by now you should have realized that SELF-PUBLICATION in your OWN Journal, reviewed by your OWN cronies is not legitimate "publishing" ... you have grasped this concept surely by now ???

You also realize that publication in an online "pay-to publish" journal with demonstrably poor standards is not entirely credible either ... by now you have realised this I hope !!!

So how is a "reconfirmation" of an UNPUBLISHED work credible in your eyes ???


B - He challenges anyone else to obtain samples for themselves (more specifically if you have the equipment that he did not have access too)
So why haven't you done so ... or any other twoof ???

There are COMMERICAL labs out there you could send samples without further details of origin to !!!

C - He's doing a video review as a peer for what NIST reports on.
And on what planet is some "video" a proper part of a scientific refutation and review ???

The only question remaining is why, if you're so secure of the position would you try so desperately to prevent an atmosphere of demand for such an investigation???
Oh! B'man ... get off your high horse, us posting here does NOTHING to "prevent" you from doing anything ... this is just words on a screen, they can't "stop" you doing anything !!!

The biggest hurdle you have is to prove the science of your claims (as a movement), for the entire crux of 9/11 is that the Towers were brought down in a deliberate act by the US gubmint (or elements thereof) ... the answer to that therefore is in science and engineering.

So why have you still never contacted groups to propose a JOINED effort with POOLED resourses to fund you own properly independant scientific inquiry in a different country ???

WHY have you not done such a simple yet effective thing ???

Nothing any of us say here "prevents" you from being pro-active ... nothing is stopping you from doing real stuff B'man !!!

Whining achieves nothing ... and that seems the entirety of the truth movement ... endless repetition and whining on the internet !!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 505

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
2,078
Reaction score
444
Location
Bonnie Scotland !!!
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
To be balanced here... on the one hand, I can see great difficulties with the thermite theory... most notably, the process of getting as much as would be necessary to be complete and provide the results that were videotaped, BUT since the evidence shows that this was present in the dust, it becomes easier to say that it WAS present, but doesn't say a thing about locations, proportions or purpose.
And so what B'man ... finding thermitic type material in the dust does NOTonly mean incendiary or bomb type usage.

Thermite is a chemical mixture which can be composed from a LARGE list of ingredients from iron oxides, magnesium, calcium, titanium, zinc, and boron ... with oxidizers such as boron oxide, silicon, chromium, manganese copper and lead.

All those ingredients would already be there innocently within the Towers, and considering that iron would be available in huge quantities then it is entirely within reason to find those materials !!!

Don't forget that Jones and Harrit never actually claimed thermite itself, just material with thermitic "properties" ... there is a difference, and don't forget that in the ABSENCE of the by-products of themite proper in their correct SIGNATURE proportions ... then it was not thermite !!!

Add to that their total FAILURE to do the ONE DEFINING test for thermite ... can be taken collectively to show there was NO actual thermite found !!!

Well... I know it's not the 'ideal' publisher of peer-reviewed papers, but the steven Jones article did pass a peer-review,
And how do you reckon so ... do you seriously think "review" by your cronies and supporters NONE of whom were qualified in those fields, in the case of his work in his own Journal is in any way legitimate.

As for Bentham ... the resignation of their Editor-in-Chief, as it was not passed by her first, shows their review standard to be exceptionally low.

So to think Jones work was subjected to any sort of proper review by them shows extremely poor standards !!!

The simple reality is that Jones has NOT had anything approaching review as it is understood and accepted by the greater scientific community ... that it was geared to an untutored lay audience does not count !!!

and in the discussions surrounding the paper it actually required several extra tests above and beyond what was performed before they passed it... regardless though... the more people that step up and confirm the test (as was stated) the more corroboration that this is not simple a single persons imaginings...
Bull crap !!!

You made this one up !!!

What "extra tests" ... Benthams' whole review consists of "Has the check cleared yet" !!!

And your grasping at straws by writing it is "corroboration" ... for NOTHING Jones has done ... nor anyone associated with this meets required standards ... nothing B'man !!!

But then again, to me, I see 6 of the 10 commissioners come out and speak out and or resign from the commission stating that they felt lied to and that there was cover-ups going on.. I see a situation like that and instantly say; well, we cant' trust those findings any longer, we need a new investigation.
"To me" doesn't count in the real world !!!

Or, the police radio where a van bomb goes off and the cuplrits arrested (though never mentioned again anywhere)....never mentioned in any of the official reports...
And does it NEVER occur to you that there was never any further mention of a van bomb because it was a FALSE report ... because it is not like the media/authorities ever gets anything wrong ... is it ???

Then, with the NIST recent data dump due to a FOIA lawsuit...
So which lawsuit would this be then B'man ... for last I heard a FOIA REQUEST does not count as a "lawsuit" ???

But if such a "lawsuit" exists then how come nobody can point to it ... which is kinda funny, because such events are matters of PUBLIC RECORD ???


there have been at least a dozen videos that come out that either corroborate a persons story that described explosions, discusses explosions, or with the sounds of explosions, etc... that explosives were not fully considered by the official reports, in the face of all this testimony suggesting a strong possibility (and the necessity to cover-up these film clips) that another investigation is in order.
Videos of truamatised eyewitness testimony is NOT evidence B'man ... why do you still fail to see this ???

Why do you think unqualified eyewitness reports supercedes the complete LACK of physical evidence of explosive devices ???

Why do you think that the fact that from all the huge number of images and sounds captured on that day there is NOT one single one which shows the necessary SERIES of EXTREMELY LOUD noises associated with explosive devices present ???

Why do you not think that the fact that there were Fire Fighters and survivors from WITHIN the Towers and lobbies whom show ZERO signs of barotrauma ... which is UNIQUE to explosive devices present as evidence of NO such things being there ???

Why is it just videos and nothing else ???

What "cover-up" of these videos are you on about ... for MOST of these were already in the public eye ... they were part of an investigation, how is that a "cover-up" ???

I can't deny in any honesty that there have been altered and cropped images... but there's an intelligence concept of 'controlled opposition'... most often referred to when dealing with 'puppet states', where they influence the dictator while funding the opposition to that dictator that if the dictator starts acting independently they simply increase the oppositions funding drastically and a few weeks later he's removed in a coup.
Jesus B'man, how can you make some convoluted unrelated argument about the complete chicanery of using altered and cropped images to try to negate the seriousness of this ???

Why are you trying to bring in such totally non germane concepts to try to deflect this kind of willful dishonesty here ???

Why are you not angry with those whom used such techniques ???

They are failing YOU and yet you still defend them ... why are your groups NOT better and WHY are you not annoyed and skeptical of them for being so bad ???

... but who has 'peer-reviewed' NIST's findings?
The rest of the world B'man, that's who !!!

Building codes and practises across the planet were changed to reflect them ... this shows consensus of its findings !!!
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Anyone who so defends a government through wits end and fights so hard against a simple new investigation should be deamed a traitor to the American people.
I think that's putting it a little bit too strong... there are some extreme views that some might take where they unwittingly are promoting concepts that go against the founding principle's of the nation or are antagonistic to the concepts of a free society... among a wide-variety of issues (promoting torture, unjust wars, and in a general sense globalization as it's being pushed)...

I can only agree with you in the sense that, given ALL the facts that put doubts on the official version / reports, why some might continue to oppose a new investigation? But to label these individuals as traitors for simply not wanting a new investigation into 9-11, that's pushing it a little far to be stated as a generalization.

What type of person would post so hard to sway opinions and cut down so many prominent people in the world to sway thoughts against a new investigation?
Again, I agree with you on a general sense of; questioning why the 'debunkers' are so easy to cut down the person rather then dealing with the information presented... it gets to a point with some where simply stating the position questioning 9-11 is enough to dismiss the arguments being presented.

Never again will America's government be investigated by its people because of the protection of the situation it's a "conspiracy"....lol conspiracies are countless throughout history but American's somehow are in ignorant bliss where it would never come to them...

America is rapidly increasing in corruption yet the average American has too low of an I.Q. to see what extent this corruption could go in a worldly strategy...
No, it's not so much about IQ... but more like how the brain is like an organic computer, and it can be programmed similarly to how one might program a computer... and like with a computer, garbage in ->garbage out.

People are waking up from this state of apathy and indifference in ever increasing numbers... even if it's not specifically with the issue of 9-11, people ARE beginning to see the consequences of the apathy... meanwhile there are some who are buying into the lies in deeper and deeper ways.

This country is on a clear path to increasing its sneaky and secretive ways because of the many passive and content who have too low of an I.Q. to see what is slowly manifesting....
Again, I don't think it's as much about IQ, but yes... the US is on the path that Germany went in the 30's-40's...

So guess, "agree to disagree" goes out the window?

I don't know, somebody who thinks that the conspiracy theory about 9/11 is a load of crap?
You don't even need to see that there's a 'conspiracy' to see that there was enough in cover-ups and lies to warrant further investigation.

Yeah any plot by two or more people is a conspiracy, but nothing has been done on this scale with no peer-reviewed evidence to support it.
What do you mean by scale? and NIST's report never saw a peer-reviewer either, but I guess they would typically stand on their reputation.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And so what B'man ... finding thermitic type material in the dust does NOTonly mean incendiary or bomb type usage.
Oh, no?? So, what do you propose?? Are you saying they were using it as sprinkles for food flavoring??

Thermite is a chemical mixture which can be composed from a LARGE list of ingredients from iron oxides, magnesium, calcium, titanium, zinc, and boron ... with oxidizers such as boron oxide, silicon, chromium, manganese copper and lead.

All those ingredients would already be there innocently within the Towers, and considering that iron would be available in huge quantities then it is entirely within reason to find those materials !!!
NOT nano-aluminum powders. That does not happen randomly and IS a controlled substance on it's own merit.

Don't forget that Jones and Harrit never actually claimed thermite itself, just material with thermitic "properties" ... there is a difference, and don't forget that in the ABSENCE of the by-products of themite proper in their correct SIGNATURE proportions ... then it was not thermite !!!
But the more recent chemist that similarly tested the materials in the dust DID confirm the nano-aluminum component... but you would ignore this type of corroboration.

Add to that their total FAILURE to do the ONE DEFINING test for thermite ... can be taken collectively to show there was NO actual thermite found !!!

And how do you reckon so ... do you seriously think "review" by your cronies and supporters NONE of whom were qualified in those fields, in the case of his work in his own Journal is in any way legitimate.

As for Bentham ... the resignation of their Editor-in-Chief, as it was not passed by her first, shows their review standard to be exceptionally low.

So to think Jones work was subjected to any sort of proper review by them shows extremely poor standards !!!

The simple reality is that Jones has NOT had anything approaching review as it is understood and accepted by the greater scientific community ... that it was geared to an untutored lay audience does not count !!!
Aww... you're making stuff up again...

Bull crap !!!

You made this one up !!!
Of course you say that... you're so dishonest that you require incessant resourcing of documents so that you can create a strawman 2-3 posts from now.

What "extra tests" ... Benthams' whole review consists of "Has the check cleared yet" !!!
Opinion. Which neglects the fact that it was a published paper... it's not the most prestigious journal, but it was published in a science journal through a legitimate, albeit subsidized review process. To my knowledge Bentham is still publishing scientific papers, and so their reputation hasn't been sullied by the publishing of the paper, and for all I know the editor or whoever got fired was for some unrelated reason...

Don't you find it funny how easily you'll propagate conspiracy theories to oppose any questioning and findings that oppose the official version??

And your grasping at straws by writing it is "corroboration" ... for NOTHING Jones has done ... nor anyone associated with this meets required standards ... nothing B'man !!!
Aww... you're making strawmen again... it wasn't JONES that corroborated his own work, but the other chemical engineer that obtained dust samples and performed similar testing on his own and came to the same conclusions... that was corroboration. He even presented the challenge, get a sample of the dust for yourself and do your own testing... he even specifies which equipment to use that would answer the questions about the stuff that he could not answer with what he had access to.

"To me" doesn't count in the real world !!!
THAT was the word you chose to debunk?!?! Pathetic.

Of course, you love getting lied to and knowing there's cover-ups... we can't fire the corrupt and incompetent.... let alone determine if there was any complicity in the attacks. No, it's good to trust a document that was knowingly based on lies.

What ELSE could this denial mean?? Like I said in the last thread, you really should consider the implications of what you're promoting.

And does it NEVER occur to you that there was never any further mention of a van bomb because it was a FALSE report ...
A) IT WAS POLICE RADIO and unless you also ignore sources, you've heard it before. AND THE VAN EXPLODED!!!

B) No further mention could also be that if they are talking about car bombs going off, then it's really hard to stick with the 20 hijackers story if there are people working on ground level to perpetrate the attacks... and this is further corroborated by the videos that NIST COVERED UP (though I've yet to see a cover-up that you don't love), where the FBI's "running theory" was that truck bombs at the base of the buildings were timed to go off with the planes collision.

because it is not like the media/authorities ever gets anything wrong ... is it ???
Right, but you also defend the obvious false reports that went on the BBC... you love having it both ways, right??

So which lawsuit would this be then B'man ... for last I heard a FOIA REQUEST does not count as a "lawsuit" ???
Aww... the lawsuit never made it in front of a judge... once the papers were filed NIST conceded that they were violating FOIA laws and handed over the documents.

But if such a "lawsuit" exists then how come nobody can point to it ... which is kinda funny, because such events are matters of PUBLIC RECORD ???
Never went to a judge.

Videos of truamatised eyewitness testimony is NOT evidence B'man ... why do you still fail to see this ???
Because you will use the 'traumatized witness testimony' that supports your case... and I DON"T fail to see that... BUT you cannot simply dismiss all the eyewitnesses that don't support the official story, just because they saw stuff that doesn't fit the story.

Why do you think unqualified eyewitness reports supercedes the complete LACK of physical evidence of explosive devices ???
I never said supercedes... and WHY do you still think that NOT looking for 'physical evidence' counts as 'not finding' physical evidence???

Why do you think that the fact that from all the huge number of images and sounds captured on that day there is NOT one single one which shows the necessary SERIES of EXTREMELY LOUD noises associated with explosive devices present ???
I'm going to use one of your debunks here : images don't make sound.

Why do you claim that EVERY loud sound presented cannot be explosive?? You go into ridiculous claims, even creating your own timeline of events to justify some of these loud noises???

Why do you not think that the fact that there were Fire Fighters and survivors from WITHIN the Towers and lobbies whom show ZERO signs of barotrauma ... which is UNIQUE to explosive devices present as evidence of NO such things being there ???
Again, you never answered the question if devices behind walls would dampen an barotrauma... something that happens due to the change of pressure more then the noise.

Why is it just videos and nothing else ???
There are several terabytes worth of files to be gone through.... but WHY WAS IT SO IMPORTANT TO COVER-UP if it's so innocent?

What "cover-up" of these videos are you on about ... for MOST of these were already in the public eye ... they were part of an investigation, how is that a "cover-up" ???
Aww you and your strawmen... it's NOT that it was part of an investigation, and I'm NOT talking about the videos that had been made public previously... the COVER UP is because they weren't following the FOIA requests until the last minute. That means they did not want those unseen videos to become public...

Unless you can offer a legitimate explanation... and no, news clips, and emergency response tapes are considered public domain, though they aren't necessarily published.

Jesus B'man, how can you make some convoluted unrelated argument about the complete chicanery of using altered and cropped images to try to negate the seriousness of this ???
You don't get it... I know. This isn't 'unrelated'... I was saying that it's people pushing the official version disguising themselves as 'truthers' and manipulating photos, etc FOR THE PURPOSE of those strawmen photos to be used as fodder to 'debunk' ALL of 9-11 truth. That's what happens when you think of the world in terms of checkers level strategy.

Why are you trying to bring in such totally non germane concepts to try to deflect this kind of willful dishonesty here ???
First, just because you don't understand the concept doesn't mean it's not relevant...

Second, this is not dishonesty, this is an explanation... which is not necessarily the type of case, but may be a factor... EITHER controlled opposition, or idiots trying to make a case even if it means fabricating evidence... either way is a bad technique. BUT it works, because by focusing on these false reports it disputes any legitimate research... again, who benefits from doing such a thing?

Why are you not angry with those whom used such techniques ???
I am angry, because whether they are operatives or idiots they hurt the cause.... but to simply make the blanket statement of them being idiots is also a speculation.

They are failing YOU and yet you still defend them ... why are your groups NOT better and WHY are you not annoyed and skeptical of them for being so bad ???
I'm not defending them... you've got a funny definition of the word (wrong)... they are NOT my groups, and then a baseless opinion.

I am annoyed by all who lie, that's why I'm having greater difficulties in putting up with your dishonest debating of this issue.

The rest of the world B'man, that's who !!!

Building codes and practises across the planet were changed to reflect them ... this shows consensus of its findings !!!
Yes... but it's just as well to be the 'consensus' of global warming's hoax. The problem is that NIST has a reputation that it's used to promote this fiction... I happen to work construction and the project I'm working on is over a billion dollar steel high-rise.

I've seen the difference in the fire-code in practice. So, enlighten me... what changed?

I'll remind you though, the intention of fire-proofing is different then you're expecting. It's NOT about protecting the structure in any more of a sense then that by protecting the structure allows more people to escape in an emergency.
 

usda select

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
And so what B'man ... finding thermitic type material in the dust does NOTonly mean incendiary or bomb type usage.

Thermite is a chemical mixture which can be composed from a LARGE list of ingredients from iron oxides, magnesium, calcium, titanium, zinc, and boron ... with oxidizers such as boron oxide, silicon, chromium, manganese copper and lead.

All those ingredients would already be there innocently within the Towers, and considering that iron would be available in huge quantities then it is entirely within reason to find those materials !!!

Don't forget that Jones and Harrit never actually claimed thermite itself, just material with thermitic "properties" ... there is a difference, and don't forget that in the ABSENCE of the by-products of themite proper in their correct SIGNATURE proportions ... then it was not thermite !!!

Add to that their total FAILURE to do the ONE DEFINING test for thermite ... can be taken collectively to show there was NO actual thermite found !!!



And how do you reckon so ... do you seriously think "review" by your cronies and supporters NONE of whom were qualified in those fields, in the case of his work in his own Journal is in any way legitimate.

As for Bentham ... the resignation of their Editor-in-Chief, as it was not passed by her first, shows their review standard to be exceptionally low.

So to think Jones work was subjected to any sort of proper review by them shows extremely poor standards !!!

The simple reality is that Jones has NOT had anything approaching review as it is understood and accepted by the greater scientific community ... that it was geared to an untutored lay audience does not count !!!



Bull crap !!!

You made this one up !!!

What "extra tests" ... Benthams' whole review consists of "Has the check cleared yet" !!!

And your grasping at straws by writing it is "corroboration" ... for NOTHING Jones has done ... nor anyone associated with this meets required standards ... nothing B'man !!!



"To me" doesn't count in the real world !!!



And does it NEVER occur to you that there was never any further mention of a van bomb because it was a FALSE report ... because it is not like the media/authorities ever gets anything wrong ... is it ???



So which lawsuit would this be then B'man ... for last I heard a FOIA REQUEST does not count as a "lawsuit" ???

But if such a "lawsuit" exists then how come nobody can point to it ... which is kinda funny, because such events are matters of PUBLIC RECORD ???




Videos of truamatised eyewitness testimony is NOT evidence B'man ... why do you still fail to see this ???

Why do you think unqualified eyewitness reports supercedes the complete LACK of physical evidence of explosive devices ???

Why do you think that the fact that from all the huge number of images and sounds captured on that day there is NOT one single one which shows the necessary SERIES of EXTREMELY LOUD noises associated with explosive devices present ???

Why do you not think that the fact that there were Fire Fighters and survivors from WITHIN the Towers and lobbies whom show ZERO signs of barotrauma ... which is UNIQUE to explosive devices present as evidence of NO such things being there ???

Why is it just videos and nothing else ???

What "cover-up" of these videos are you on about ... for MOST of these were already in the public eye ... they were part of an investigation, how is that a "cover-up" ???



Jesus B'man, how can you make some convoluted unrelated argument about the complete chicanery of using altered and cropped images to try to negate the seriousness of this ???

Why are you trying to bring in such totally non germane concepts to try to deflect this kind of willful dishonesty here ???

Why are you not angry with those whom used such techniques ???

They are failing YOU and yet you still defend them ... why are your groups NOT better and WHY are you not annoyed and skeptical of them for being so bad ???



The rest of the world B'man, that's who !!!

Building codes and practises across the planet were changed to reflect them ... this shows consensus of its findings !!!
So he lied about it being his "final post"? Is anybody surprised that a truther is a liar. Call 60 minutes.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So he lied about it being his "final post"? Is anybody surprised that a truther is a liar. Call 60 minutes.
OH MY GOD!!! It wasn't as final as I first planned... OMG... I can't believe you made the connection that I gave up on the not talking about 9-11 because the 'debunkers' stepped up the nonsensical lies 5 fold once I stopped... and so I was compelled to offer modest corrections and I'm such a liar.

I'm the bad man everybody... now can we reinvestigate 9-11. Usda has proven it, I'm the bad man. It doesn't matter if the number 3 "mastermind behind 9-11" anwar al-awaki dined at the pentagon only a few months after 9-11... I"M THE BAD MAN.

EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11 - FoxNews.com

But no... anyone can get wined and dined at the pentagon if they just walk up and ask nice.

I guess I just picked a bad time to make that statement earlier because so much has come out in just the past few weeks... but the denial carries on, but USDA can't attack anything but people's character, so let's say he's right... can he demonstrate the honesty to demonstrate the fallacy of my position?? Or is it just the fallacy of my person?
 

usda select

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
OH MY GOD!!! It wasn't as final as I first planned... OMG... I can't believe you made the connection that I gave up on the not talking about 9-11 because the 'debunkers' stepped up the nonsensical lies 5 fold once I stopped... and so I was compelled to offer modest corrections and I'm such a liar.
Nobody who posts here now started posting once you told your lie about no longer debating 9/11. So you just lied yet again. What else is new.

I'm the bad man everybody... now can we reinvestigate 9-11. Usda has proven it, I'm the bad man. It doesn't matter if the number 3 "mastermind behind 9-11" anwar al-awaki dined at the pentagon only a few months after 9-11... I"M THE BAD MAN.
No, you're a liar.

I guess I just picked a bad time to make that statement earlier because so much has come out in just the past few weeks... but the denial carries on, but USDA can't attack anything but people's character, so let's say he's right... can he demonstrate the honesty to demonstrate the fallacy of my position?? Or is it just the fallacy of my person?
You said one thing and you did another.

You are a liar.

I'm telling the truth when I say that. You cannot say the same thing.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nobody who posts here now started posting once you told your lie about no longer debating 9/11. So you just lied yet again. What else is new.
No, not 'new people' the same people stepping up the lies...

No, you're a liar.
Way to avoid the source.

You said one thing and you did another.

You are a liar.

I'm telling the truth when I say that. You cannot say the same thing.
Ok... fine... I'm a liar... that's not saying fox news is lying... so, what about anwar al-alwaki dining with pentagon brass??
 

505

Mildly Hostile
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
1,212
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Anyone who so defends a government through wits end and fights so hard against a simple new investigation should be deamed a traitor to the American people.
The people that are arguing against your point of view are not defending the government. We are mainly pointing out the flaws in your reasoning.


Never again will America's government be investigated

America is rapidly increasing in corruption

This country is on a clear path to increasing its sneaky and secretive ways
Get a grip.
 

cAPSLOCK

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
2,945
Reaction score
973
Location
Dallas Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would have figured he was a trooofer, but he has so many books. He must know his stuff.
 

505

Mildly Hostile
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
1,212
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Again, you never answered the question if devices behind walls would dampen an barotrauma... something that happens due to the change of pressure more then the noise.
Ok. I know that not everyone gets this so I am going to try to take it easy on you.

You want the blast to sever a column, right?
Have you ever tried to sever a column with an explosive?
If not, can you at least fathom how much energy this takes?
Have you ever worked with drywall?
Metal siding?
Granite facing?
How do these stand up to the blast that we spec'd for severing that column?
How much pressure reduction can we expect to see from such a structurally insignificant object?
Does your ridiculous question now have an answer?
 

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,333
Reaction score
2,010
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think everyone NEEDS to stop making snarky remarks at each other. Bman has very good points. And this personal attcking **** MUST stop.
I would say that if there IS thermite in the destruction ruble of the buildings there must be a reason.
 

usda select

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
I think everyone NEEDS to stop making snarky remarks at each other. Bman has very good points. And this personal attcking **** MUST stop.
I would say that if there IS thermite in the destruction ruble of the buildings there must be a reason.
The fact of the matter is that he started a thread saying he would not talk about 9/11 anymore--about 3 weeks ago. Here he is now on 3 threads discussing it. It's not a personal attack; it's an attack on his statement. He thinks it's personal because it is true. Obviously Bill Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair. Is that a personal attack on him?

Additionally, the only thing that was found at Ground zero that gives any credence whatsoever to thermite was some base components of the compound. It is, in fact, like you walking outside after a rainstorm, finding water on the ground, and then concluding it rained Coca Cola because water is a key component of the beverage.

Let me put it another way--about the thermite.

Lets say you live in a neighborhood and in this neighborhood are 26 streets of 10 houses each for 260 houses. What the twoofers--Bman especially--are asking you to believe is that every other house--130 of them--was wired for demolition (130 of the 247 floors were supposedly wired for demolition while 50,000 people worked in the three buildings-minimum) and nobody noticed. Not a security guard making his nightly rounds; not a secretary who works there 10 hours a day; not a single worker who would have obviously noticed the necessary access panels being removed to gain access to the frame of the building. That is what he is asking you to believe .

In absolutely no way does Bman make any good points. There is no ruler in the universe where you can measure his statements and say they are "good" points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 505
Top Bottom