Chemical Engineer speaks of 9/11

[usda select]

Ok... fine... I'm a liar...

Thats my point; you're a liar. At least you admit it.

 

[Coronado]

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....

Calling them stupid because they don't see it your way is an excellent way to recruit people to your cause. Only someone with a high IQ could come up with such a winning strategy.

 

[usda select]

Calling them stupid because they don't see it your way is an excellent way to recruit people to your cause. Only someone with a high IQ could come up with such a winning strategy.

Approximately 2 weeks from now, he will cite a poll (as he did about 6 weeks ago) saying 38 percent of Americans agree with him but claims that the "average American has a low IQ".

I think he may be on to something with the 38 percent figure and the low IQ argument.

 

[Coronado]

Approximately 2 weeks from now, he will cite a poll (as he did about 6 weeks ago) saying 38 percent of Americans agree with him but claims that the "average American has a low IQ".

I think he may be on to something with the 38 percent figure and the low IQ argument.

Have you ever looked at that poll? He grossly misrepresents what that poll says.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

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.

For once, I sort of agree with you Bman, at best their were a lot of intelligence failures and institutional problems, especially with information sharing between the CIA and FBI. MAny of the

Commission members have complained about being stonewalled while looking into this.

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.

Yeah, I guess that's why all those building codes changed and I've yet to see a credible source for anything but a collapse.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Thats my point; you're a liar. At least you admit it.

Ok... once again... let's agree that I'm a liar... now, can you look at the evidence, now that your ad hom argument is complete?

I would have figured he was a trooofer, but he has so many books. He must know his stuff.

This is a point I've made numerous times as well, that it's not that the ISSUE of 9-11 is up for debate, it is if you oppose the official version or feel that further / a new investigation is warranted then it doesn't matter because he's a kook and not worthy of legitimate and honest debate. (Others have argued : "I don't want to give legitimacy to the 'conspiracy theories', so I won't debate you on the issues."... Without considering the implications of such statements.)

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?

Yes, you would have to sever the column.

Have you ever tried to sever a column with an explosive?

I've watched what it takes to cut the columns by hand (with proper torches), and I'm novice level understanding of demolition practices... but no.

If not, can you at least fathom how much energy this takes?

Yes... I've seen the size of these columns... and we're talking about 2 inches of steel at the thinnest (for the columns, trusses are thinner), depending on where they are located, basement columns (on my current jobsite) are 4 ft diameter steel columns.

Now, the question is (and I could only speculate as to the answer as it would relate to 9-11 given lack of proper investigation) : would you be using high pressure explosion, OR, a VERY HIGH temperature with lower yield explosion to cut the columns??

But I do get where you're going with this... if we're assuming the former then NO, light guage steel, and 3 layers of drywall (2 layers + core board (1 inch thick)) and insulation... well, there's a fair chance that the drywall would pop right off the wall, if it wasn't completely disintegrated. HOWEVER, the direct pressure wave of an explosion would be dissipated at least somewhat.

Have you ever worked with drywall?

Yes.

Metal siding?

Mostly the plastic crap, but yes.

Granite facing?

Not directly, but I've worked alongside the people that have put the stuff up.

How do these stand up to the blast that we spec'd for severing that column?

If it's a blast of pressure... those granite slabs might fall off / crack / break, but when they are several hundred pounds per slab + the weight limits of the bracing... the granite would stand up better then drywall... but drywall is pretty soft in that scheme.

How much pressure reduction can we expect to see from such a structurally insignificant object?

There's a number of factors that might make differences... but to put a number on it would be nothing more then guessing.

Does your ridiculous question now have an answer?

The real question is in the type of explosives being used... consider the potential thermite + explosive hybrid... the slag of thermite is several thousand degrees, so it wouldn't take as much explosive force to project that slag and it would all but slice through the steel.... I'm not saying that's what it is... but rather the statement is more that there are MANY different types and grades of explosives...

More importantly since we're on the subject; let's look at what the FBI's investigation was looking into initially... and remember that NIST made efforts to cover-up this video so that it might never be released.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-npAbNl2ihY&feature=player_embedded[/quote]

Nothing is stopping you. And you've done a great job so far.

Thanks? However, there is greater opposition to a new 9-11 investigation that can be proven in the context of the forum.

I think everyone NEEDS to stop making snarky remarks at each other. Bman has very good points. And this personal attcking **** MUST stop.

I'm so used to it now that most of the time I don't even get pissed off about it... the thing is that person to person, people are MUCH more receptive to this information.... AND more often then ever I'll get people with that 'aha! Now I get it' moment. I like how Gerald Celente of international forcasters fame , "The American renaissance has begun".

The more information comes out, and the more people that are going to step up and speak out, like the recent australian politician, the person involved in exposing 'able danger' (while not discussing the legitimate classified aspects), etc... eventually people will realize not 'oh those twuffles are kooks'... but rather start asking 'what if they aren't crazy'?

I would say that if there IS thermite in the destruction ruble of the buildings there must be a reason.

Yes.... and I especially like how in the video the man makes no qualms about saying "hey if you have this equipment you should get a sample so you can do testing that I wasn't able to" (to paraphrase). In my experience, I've always found those that say 'don't take my word for it, look for yourself.' to be FAR more trustworthy then those that come out and say 'Trust us, we're experts'.

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?

Ya... now you can bring that up every post I make about 9-11... but you won't look at the information... which is the point. It doesn't matter about me... just be honest with yourself and realize how things aren't adding up.

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.

Wrong. It's not 'components' found sporadically... and while their COULD be aluminum, there COULD NOT be nanoaluminum powder.

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 .

No... what I'm saying is that IF THE EVIDENCE proves that there were explosives in the building... the 'how' it got there can be secondary because the fact that it was found MEANS THAT it was PUT THERE without those people noticing enough wrong to say something. (Let's not forget that in many times renovation work in commercial buildings are performed mainly after hours to not interfere with those working)

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.

That's because you're too busy calling me a liar to notice FOX NEW's recent statement about al-quaida's officers 'accidentally' dine at the pentagon with top brass, among the other points that I'll bring up to you that you'd prefer to ignore.

Gotta give you credit where it's due though, you managed a thought process deeper then your usual one-liners.

Approximately 2 weeks from now, he will cite a poll (as he did about 6 weeks ago) saying 38 percent of Americans agree with him but claims that the "average American has a low IQ".

I think he may be on to something with the 38 percent figure and the low IQ argument.

Well, first, that poll was 38 % that say INSIDE JOB.... the numbers are much higher then that in most polls though... depending on the phrasing of the questions.

For once, I sort of agree with you Bman, at best their were a lot of intelligence failures and institutional problems, especially with information sharing between the CIA and FBI. MAny of the

Exactly... a new investigation does not HAVE to find 'conspiracy' to be warranted. Even if all these people covering a$$es were simply covering up that they had a hooker in their office that day, the fact that there's unanswered questions remaining SHOULD BE enough for an investigation.

Yeah, I guess that's why all those building codes changed and I've yet to see a credible source for anything but a collapse.

Again, my work is in construction, the current project is a multi-billion dollar project that is of comparable designs as the WTC structures (much smaller though, in both area and height)... and I've seen the specific changes to fire-codes... and without getting into the details of the changes, it's not anything drastic.

Though you did answer my question... NIST rests free from the need of peer-review because they stand on their reputation.

 

[usda select]

Ok... once again... let's agree that I'm a liar...

Why?

To engage in a debate with an admitted liar like yourself? I have much more important things to do. Teaching my dog Spanish, reorganizing my sock drawer, etc...

Nobody likes a liar.

You are a liar.

You admit it.

 

[usda select]

Have you ever looked at that poll? He grossly misrepresents what that poll says.

Yes I have. You are right.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Though you did answer my question... NIST rests free from the need of peer-review because they stand on their reputation.

And I pointed out that this hasn't been refuted by a reputable, peer-reviewed source.

 

[creativedreams]

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?

Exactly....you can't even see your own flaw in thinking....(normal sheeple thought process)

Somehow you think it is easier to sever all the columns to provide no resistance with a collapse

Somehow you think it is easier to achieve collapse speeds where the top floor hits the ground almost as fast as if a ball were dropped beside it at the same time....even though the top floor had to crush its way down through all this thick resistance of columns that take so much energy to sever

The bought and paid for debunking propaganda completely avoids the 47 Vertical Core columns (not to mention the steel cage of columns in the perimeter)....that actually hold the buildings up which takes...so much energy to sever...as stated by you...

Instead the bought and paid for debunking propaganda focuses on the possible weakening of the horizontal floor trusses which have no bearing on the VERTICAL support columns that actually hold the buildings up...which take so much energy to sever....


Somehow the many VERTICAL support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor and are fastened and welded from top to bottom virtually making them each one length of steel....which you just stated takes so much energy to sever....somehow removed itself all the way down fast enough for the top floor in each building to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it.

So what energy severed these huge poles to provide virtually no resistance?

Probably the same energy it took to explode virtually everything but the steel into fine dust before it even hit the ground...

 

[BmanMcfly]

Have you ever looked at that poll? He grossly misrepresents what that poll says.

Which poll?? There have been many different polls on the subject.

Also :

Just to show that it's a pretty close split between 'al-quaida' and 'anything else'.

The wiki page SHOULD be relatively unbiased on the subject of polling numbers... I'd recommend looking through and see the numbers, you might be surprised some.
September 11 attacks opinion polls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[usda select]

Which poll?? There have been many different polls on the subject.

Also :

Just to show that it's a pretty close split between 'al-quaida' and 'anything else'.

The wiki page SHOULD be relatively unbiased on the subject of polling numbers... I'd recommend looking through and see the numbers, you might be surprised some.
September 11 attacks opinion polls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More lies?

Too bad you can't be trusted.

 

[BmanMcfly]

More lies?

I know you lack the honesty to look at sources, but I am not the owner of wiki.

Too bad you can't be trusted.

Wikipedia however has been found to be roughly as accurate as encyclopedia britannica. Too bad you're so busy calling me a liar (as though that makes some sort of actual case) that you won't even click a link to see for yourself.

Absolutely PATHETIC. And sad how you lack the capacities to engage in any form of honest debate. And funny how you can go and call ME a liar... and FOX news, AND wikipedia, etc with no REAL evidence. (yes, I know the thread I made, and it turned out to be more of a break then a retirement, but I've known for a while that you take sarcastic remarks put them out of context and call it facts... I wish I could share that delusional mindset)

 

[usda select]

I know you lack the honesty to look at sources, but I am not the owner of wiki.



Wikipedia however has been found to be roughly as accurate as encyclopedia britannica. Too bad you're so busy calling me a liar (as though that makes some sort of actual case) that you won't even click a link to see for yourself.

Absolutely PATHETIC. And sad how you lack the capacities to engage in any form of honest debate. And funny how you can go and call ME a liar... and FOX news, AND wikipedia, etc with no REAL evidence. (yes, I know the thread I made, and it turned out to be more of a break then a retirement, but I've known for a while that you take sarcastic remarks put them out of context and call it facts... I wish I could share that delusional mindset)

Here is what YOU said:

Ok... once again... let's agree that I'm a liar...

I agreed with you; you're a liar.

Theres little reason for me to waste my time debating with a person known not to tell the truth. By definition, you cannot be trusted. I am not taking any remarks and spinning them . You admit that you're a liar and by definition; you can't be trusted.

Now on a personal theme... Theres little reason to feel you'll suddenly discover a conscience and debate fairly. I have much better things to do with my time than try to show someone so disingenuous and dishonest the errors of their views.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Here is what YOU said:



I agreed with you; you're a liar.

Theres little reason for me to waste my time debating with a person known not to tell the truth. By definition, you cannot be trusted. I am not taking any remarks and spinning them . You admit that you're a liar and by definition; you can't be trusted.

Now on a personal theme... Theres little reason to feel you'll suddenly discover a conscience and debate fairly. I have much better things to do with my time than try to show someone so disingenuous and dishonest the errors of their views.

Ummm... Ya, I said : Let's agree that I'm a liar so that you can look at the information. Get it off your chest, since you can't have a debate without ad hom arguments... So, get it over with and then look at the information, and actually offer some sort of counter-point.

 

[mike2810]

CD: I have come to the conclusion you have no idea how the WTC buildings or any high rise for that matter are/were constructed. Here is a clue. rivits and bolts to make up and tie steel togeather to make columns. Sheer the rivit/bolt and what happens, part of the column gives way. Yet you seem to ignore links to papers/articles on other threads that explained this. So your statement of "Somehow the many VERTICAL support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor and are fastened and welded from top to bottom virtually making them each one length of steel...." is nothing but BS. Many proffessional people who have done studies and showed how the steel columns failed.

It amazes me how you have taken the false assumptions and propaganda from truther sites as facts. Here is some advice, seek proffessional deprograming. (I have decided to stoop to your tactics throwing bs back. It is a shame you don't won't to debate, If someone disagrees with you, then you feel they are nothing but govt. sheep. Look in the mirror, I think you will see a truther sheep looking back.

But hey, keep trying if that what makes you happy.

 

[usda select]

Ummm... Ya, I said : Let's agree that I'm a liar so that you can look at the information. Get it off your chest, since you can't have a debate without ad hom arguments... So, get it over with and then look at the information, and actually offer some sort of counter-point.

So, I'm supposed to engage in a debate with you, a dishonest liar. I have way too many better things to do with my time. I'll respectfully submit that Mike, Gaze and any other person who has debated with you in the past has much more important things to do than waste time with someone like you who admits to having a casual relationship with the truth.

Sooner or later, all truthers hang themselves with their own arguments. The stories are so bizarre it is inevitable.

So please either take your "evidence" and file suit or we'll rightfully assume that it is just like it's presenter; a pack of poorly constructed lies used to cover up some unseen flaw.

How sad.

 

[BmanMcfly]

So, I'm supposed to engage in a debate with you, a dishonest liar.

No, you're supposed to take in a point, then swish it around in your brain for a moment, then perform a critical thought and determine if you agree or disagree and why, and then you use that to make a counter-point.

The point I had brought up was how Anwar Al-Alwaki, while he was viewed as Al-quaida's number 3 in command, next to bin laden, and had been a wanted man, in 2001, only a few months after the attacks he supposedly helped mastermind, was dining with pentagon brass. When a law abiding citizen, like you or I, goes to the pentagon, we'd be lucky to get much further then security, unless there was some special arrangements, like a tour. And this wanted man, for his role in the 9-11 attacks, not only gets INTO the pentagon, he gets the royal treatment so to speak.

THEN, Alwaki is further responsible for :
- The failed New York Times bombing
- The failed underwear bombing
- The fort hood shooter
- and most recently for this politically motivated ink cartridge freakout (with NO evidence of explosives until Obama demanded a second test, and even worse, the Yemen government coming out and saying that there was NOT ONE plane for UPS, DHL, or any other courier plane that left Yemen in the 48 hours surrounding when the plane supposedly left).

I asked you to address that point... which was published by FOX news (we can debate the validity of FOX later), and you're still going on so pleased with yourself that my telling you 'fine call me the liar / the bad man' was like some sort of admission that completely refutes FOX news??

I have way too many better things to do with my time. I'll respectfully submit that Mike, Gaze and any other person who has debated with you in the past has much more important things to do than waste time with someone like you who admits to having a casual relationship with the truth.

Ok, then go somewhere else then, I don't care... no skin off my back, but yet here you are somehow obsessed with me, working SO HARD to find something to try and finally debunk me as a person... you can't say anything about the arguments and points I bring up, so you maintain the lowest common denominator of an attack...

Sooner or later, all truthers hang themselves with their own arguments. The stories are so bizarre it is inevitable.

Look, forget the stories for a minute, and look at the facts for what they are... you can't just say 'those facts don't count because I decide that that is too complicated'. Well... you can, but you can't expect that to have any real merit.... but I digress... forget the stories for a minute, and let the facts of the situation speak for themselves.

The problem is, let's use a more simple analogy.. If I tell you that jumping off the cliff will kill you, and it's a 1000 ft drop onto jagged rocks, you can't just say 'I chose not to believe that, so I'm jumping anyway'... well, you CAN say that, but after a thousand foot drop the results are the same.

So please either take your "evidence" and file suit or we'll rightfully assume that it is just like it's presenter; a pack of poorly constructed lies used to cover up some unseen flaw.

Tell you what, you pay the lawyer and it's a deal.

How sad.

You're just angry cause you KNOW that I'm speaking truth at you, just like you KNOW you can't look at the facts because you are scared that I MIGHT not be crazy as you're trying to claim I am.

So, carry on with your childish arguments... it doesn't faze me for a second.

 

[BmanMcfly]

CD: I have come to the conclusion you have no idea how the WTC buildings or any high rise for that matter are/were constructed. Here is a clue. rivits and bolts to make up and tie steel togeather to make columns. Sheer the rivit/bolt and what happens, part of the column gives way. Yet you seem to ignore links to papers/articles on other threads that explained this. So your statement of "Somehow the many VERTICAL support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor and are fastened and welded from top to bottom virtually making them each one length of steel...." is nothing but BS. Many proffessional people who have done studies and showed how the steel columns failed.
.

Umm... maybe I misunderstood this, but the point is that for the floor to pancake as is described it means that the horizontal trusses rivets sheered off / heated till they weakened and failed... THEN the columns are detached from the pancaking floors...

So, once the top floor collides with the lower floor, the weak point would fail, and that is the connections to the hozirontal trusses to the vertical columns, so the next floor breaks free from the column.

And so on... and since the top of the building twisted, then lets' go with the assumption that the top block of floors were no longer aligned with the columns of the lower block... the columns would only really be damaged further in as much as the concrete and truss above damages the column while the column punctures through...

SO, it seems that under this theory, there should be roughly 50+ floors of standing columns.

 

[usda select]

No, you're supposed to take in a point, then swish it around in your brain for a moment, then perform a critical thought and determine if you agree or disagree and why, and then you use that to make a counter-point.

But if the point comes from an admitted liar--LIKE YOU--what is the point in wasting one's time with it?
Lets say you quote someone; given that the "someone" is brought up by and admitted liar--LIKE YOU--what is the point?

You admit you're a liar so you admit that you can't be trusted. Sorry. Your words; not mine.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Oh, no?? So, what do you propose?? Are you saying they were using it as sprinkles for food flavoring??

No B'man, I am saying that in such a complex random rubble pile full of literally MILLLIONS of chemicals and compounds ... then various mixtures of such are bound to happen.

Finding thermitic anything is not evidence of incendiary or explosive usage ... so what is the point of debating or believing its existence or not anyway ???

NOT nano-aluminum powders. That does not happen randomly and IS a controlled substance on it's own merit.

But here is the rub B'man ... what they found was NOT that "nano" !!!

Now what Jones claimed he found, and now supposedly also by Basile, was measured at around 100 µm ... sounds kinda small and sciency doesn't it ???

But here is the rub B'man, even an ordinary human hair can come in smaller than that at around 17–50 µm for fine blond through to 56–181 µm for black hair.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/BrianLey.shtml

Real nano-particles come in at well below the 30 µm range ... as seen in the kind of more proper papers you like to think support your assertion ...

https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

"The corresponding Fe and Si element maps show Fe2O3 and SiO2 components to be mixed on a scale smaller than 5µm"

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf

His "chips" are just not that small in nano-terms !!!

As well as by reduction of size ACTUALLY resulted in lower energy outputs ... just because you make something smaller does NOT mean you can somehow magically "add" energy to it ...

"for iron oxide / aluminum redoxes, miniaturinzing the reactant particle sizes to around 30nm averages resulted in lower heat of reaction values. The measurements they got turned out to be as low as 1.5 kJ/g, significantly less than the 3.9-some kJ/g theoretical maximum."

ScienceDirect - Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids : Nanostructured energetic materials using sol–gel methodologies

But please do explain how aluminium cannot be found in powdered form and is somehow controlled ... for it seems pretty common !!!

London & Scandinavian Metallurgical Co. Limited

MarineStore: West Systems 420 Aluminium Powder 0.1 kg

Clarke 20kg 60-80 Grit Aluminium Oxide Powder - Machine Mart

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.

But B'man, finding ground aluminium in a building FULL of the stuff in various forms is not that unexpected, aluminium shreds easily and do you not think falling hundreds of feet, mixed up with such huge collapse debris is not going to cause just a little FRICTION maybe, a little grinding of materials itself ... and in the complete absence of the by-products of thermite proper in their UNIQUE signature quantities, then it was much more logically likely just fine ground aluminium.

Don't forget it was not that "nano" either !!!

Tell me more about this chemist who seems to think the theoretical maximum energy yield of a reaction can be increased by reducing the particle size, and thinks that a nano-thermite reaction is a different reaction to a thermite reaction ... tell me what you "think" he is saying ???

And tell me about how, despite being touted as some sort of "world-class expert" when he ONLY holds a BSc (the lowest level of expertise), he seems not to know that the greater surface area of the aluminium particles in nano-thermite REDUCES the energy yield ... because there's a greater proportion of surface oxide to unoxidised metal, so that in practice, nano-thermite yields about 40% of the theoretical maximum, rather than the 150% at the top end of Harrit's range.

And if you knew any chemistry B'man, you'd know a nano-thermite reaction doesn't release "more" energy than a normal thermite reaction ... it just releases it faster !!!

Nano-thermite is a fantasy B'man, it is not physically possible to be used to bring down structures the size and weight of the Towers ... it is physically impossible for it to burn sideways and it can NEVER increase in energy by reducing particle size ... EVER !!!

Aww... you're making stuff up again...

How so ...

Are Jones cronies in his pet Journal qualified in the fields of building, engineering and collapse forensics ???

The correct answer is .... NO !!!

Did Benthams' Editor resign over this ???

The correct answer is ... YES ???

With a LATER editor also resigning over the failure of peer-review being exposed ...

Editors quit after fake paper flap - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

So how have I made anything up then ???

But please, do feel free to show how you feel the "water-tester" Ryan is "qualified" to write a "paper" on THERMITE and its properties !!!

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.

My question was in regard to YOUR clear claim that Jones' work was subjected to several "extra" tests pre-publication .... how is asking YOU to prove that my dishonesty and strawman ???

Considering how important you consider this topic then do you not think it prudent to keep all documents purtaining to this close at hand ... I have everything I can on an external drive, filed and catagorized.

Do you not file your information ???

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.

No, it wasn't ... any more than you paying to get the crappy novel you wrote published by a vanity publisher makes you a successful author !!!

Without the legitimacy and credibility of PROPER peer-review and publishing it is not an adequate work ... simple as that B'man.

They totally decided by WILL, to curcumvent PROPER review and publishing to appeal to a lay audience whom do not know any better.

That can never be taken as more than poor standard, besides the fact that they even HAD to pay-to-publish should also give you cause for concern, for if there findings were so valid, they should not have needed to stoop so low as use a VANITY publisher !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

To my knowledge Bentham is still publishing scientific papers, and so their reputation hasn't been sullied by the publishing of the paper,

Bentham is considered a joke in the real scientific world ... credible scientists would not be seen dead in it !!!

Hoax academic articles, media meddling, and problems with 'open access' as it exists. | libcom.org

Peter Suber, Open Access News

Fake paper tests peer review at open-access journal - White Coat Notes - Boston.com

It's reputation is deeply sullied by this and they are not popular ... here try and find their IMPACT rating anywhere ...

Science Gateway - Journal and Academic Rankings

Journal Impact Factors

Impact is seen as a degree of authority, respectibility and validity ... guess what B'man ... Bentham (and Jones' Junkurnal of 9/11 Stundies) has zero impact, LESS than ZERO in fact ... they don't even get a mention !!!

http://abhayjere.com/Documents/Impact factor 2008_PDF.pdf

Like I explained before, in the scientific world if the community finds your work has worth or merit it is CITED in other works ... if it is found to be garbage it is just marginalized and ignored until it no longer exists in the community.

Looks like that has happened for NO-WHERE on any credible, respected list of impact factors do either of these publishers even get as much as a listing !!!

http://ej.iop.org/pdf/pricing/impact_factors.pdf

09.26.2010 - Ten Most Prolific Journals, 2000-2010 - ScienceWatch.com - Thomson Reuters

Journals Ranked by Impact

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/research/ciber/RINejournals.pdf

In real-world scientific circles B'man, indexing services such as Thompson ISI spend half their time working out impact ratings and such like for credible Journals that conform to a given level of quality and integrity.

The fact that they won't even list stuff like Bentham or Jones speaks volumes !!!

It tells you that Jones et al are IGNORED and junked by the greater communities B'man, treated so for they are wrong and below par !!!

and for all I know the editor or whoever got fired was for some unrelated reason...

Jeez, this is why you find yourself ridiculed B'man ... she was not "fired" ... she RESIGNED of her own free will ... several times now this has been gone over with you and show by her OWN words that she RESIGNED over the poor process as well as finding out that the one of the authors PERSONALLY knew two of the supposed "reviewers" ... which is ANOTHER irregularity.

This has been shown several times in her own letter of resignation which has previously been linked

"I can not accept that the issue is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political point of view behind the publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal."

"I was really unsure about them (Bentham) in advance because I had repeatedly asked for information about the magazine without hearing from them. It does not appear in the list of international journals and is a bad sign. Now I see that it is because it is a bad magazine."

"There are no references to The Open Chemical Physics Journal of other articles. I have two colleagues who agreed to publish an article that never has been quoted anywhere. If nobody reads it, it is bad magazine, and there is no need for it"
Marie-Paule Pileni

Screw Loose Change: Bentham Editor Resigns over Steven Jones' Paper

Georgia Tech :: Chemistry & Biochemistry :: Faculty :: Marie-Paule Pileni

http://en.scientificcommons.org/marie-paule_pileni

You SHOULD already know this for it has been demonstrated to you several times now ... is it some sort of memory function problem or something more wilful with you ???

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

No ... because the NIST findings are correct !!!

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.

No I am not B'man, for it is you whom has misunderstood what I wrote ... we ARE talking about Basile here ... I clearly said Jones "cronies" ... of whom Basile is one !!!

You also seem not aware that this work of Basiles' is YEARS old ... this is not new, he was acknowledged in Jones original paper.

Does it also not strike you as another bit of an appeal to authority that they class someone with ONLY a Bachelor of Science as a "word-class expert"

Conspiracies R Not Us: "Journal of 9/11 Studies" caught in a few more lies

Why do you have this belief that nano-thermite is somehow better anyway ... because in reality nano-thermite is chemically the SAME as ordinary thermite !!!

Now the theoretical maximum possible for thermite is somewhat around 4.0 KJ/kg, and the real maximum possible for NANO-thermite is even lower, on account of nano-sized particles of Al having a larger surface-to-volume ratio than larger particles, leading to a higher mass proportion of Al-oxides ... lowering the KJ/kg.

And yet the fat contained within a human body has an energy density of above 30 MJ/kg ... that is measure for measure more than THRICE the energy density of thermite !!!

Doesn't matter, like in another reply from you. that there is water ... for water is easily driven off, and therefore the simple horrific reality is that simple human fat would burn better than thermite ...

Cambridge Journals Online - Abstract

Jet fuel has around 43.3 MJ/kg, many plastics are not far behind ... wood and paper have more than thermite.

Energy Density of Aviation Fuel

Do you remember where I showed you the energy densities of various things, including horse-crap which also has a higher energy density than thermite ... dung is used in many places as an efficient and long-burning fuel

Dung, air dry ... 12.0MJ/kg !!!

Chemical Potential Energy - The Physics Hypertextbook

Thermite, whilst pretty impressive looking in reaction, is actually, in the real world, really weak stuff.

All fur coat and no knickers kinda !!!

B'man you seem not to understand the irony of this whole thermite nonsense ... because no matter how often Jones & Co call thermite "highly energetic" ... it simply isn't !!!

Thermite's energy content is much, much lower than that of pretty much all the organic materials found in the Towers ... lower than hair, lower than skin flakes, lower than paper fibers, lower than paint.

"Highly energetic" is a total misrepresentation ... which you fall for because you have not the tutoring to know better !!!

So if Basile really "confirmed" Jones/Harrit, he has in fact also "confirmed" that the red-grey chips are proven to NOT be nano-thermitic nor overtly energetic !!!

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.

Or you could more honestly send your sample to an overseas independent commercial laboratory without information as to where sourced.

That would guarantee no pre-concieved bias in the testing.

Do you not think ???

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Of course, you love getting lied to and knowing there's cover-ups...

Pragmatism is not affection nor love B'man !!!

we can't fire the corrupt and incompetent....

If you have genuine evidence and proof of such you can ... or did trials and imprisonment cases like Enron not happen ???

let alone determine if there was any complicity in the attacks.

Yes we can ... the reports show progressive collapses and that the attacks were the sole preserve of extremest terrorists !!!

No, it's good to trust a document that was knowingly based on lies.

The lies only come from people trying to cover up their failings ... but the information ITSELF was sound.

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

Why I am not "promoting" anything, I accept the reports ... how is that promotion, acceptance of these gains me nothing, for I want nothing ... I hold the reports as proven ... so, it is in fact you whom is "promoting" a conspiracy claim for it is YOU whom is looking for something to happen from it !!!

A) IT WAS POLICE RADIO and unless you also ignore sources, you've heard it before. AND THE VAN EXPLODED!!!

And of course even Police reports can never be wrong.

But do you not find it suspicious that the ONLY claim of this having ever occured seems to be found exclusively on conspiracy sites ???

Do you not think that something as highly VISUAL as an exploded van on such a day would exist in pictorial form somewhere ... the eyes and ears of the entire world and all its media were crawling all over New York that day ... so why does this exist soley in conspiracy blogs and forum words ???

Strange Moving Van Puzzles 911 Investigators

Don't forget that there were reports of "bombs" at the Styvescent High School, the Capitol Building, and other places too ... did these turn out to be so as well ???

Right, but you also defend the obvious false reports that went on the BBC... you love having it both ways, right??

God, you reeeely love to twist things don't you ???

I did NOT defend false reports B'man ... I clearly stated and backed it up with words DIRECTLY from the BBC (you know that virulently ANTI-US British news agency) that they made a MISTAKE.

A MISTAKE B'man !!!

But in the paranoia and lunacy of conspiracy such simple things as mistakes never ever, ever happen ... and you seriously wander why you come in for such castigation ???

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.

They STILL need FILED !!!

They would still exist as a FILED matter of public record ... and that is garbage as NIST had ALREADY responded to PREVIOUS FOIA requests ... so show this "lawsuit" and its file date ... come on ???

Never went to a judge.

See above ...

Because you will use the 'traumatized witness testimony' that supports your case... and I DON"T fail to see that...

Show where B'man, for I always say you need the FULL testimony and further corroboration ???

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.

No B'man, that is YOUR interpretation of what I do ... but the simple fact is that I DO actually listen to what they say, but am also intellectually honest and aware enough to REALISE that in the absence of FURTHER corroboration ... for example the physical traces of explosives by way of brisance, residue, left over equipment and physical trauma consistent with explosives then I am honest enough to take those words as the more logically correct misinterpretation of panicked testimony.

Just because someone "thought" is was a bomb cannot in all intellectual and factual honesty be taken as absolute proof of such ... there are ample examples of people misinterpreting cars backfiring and other sudden, frightening loud noises as bombs to clearly see that it is not wholly reliable ... that the usage of hyperbole and metaphorical language has to be taken into consideration.

You are the one being dishonest over this B'man ... and even more so in that by believing they are talking bombs that you do so WITHOUT double-checking with these exact people.

What are these guys talking about ... for you see by truther criteria it is something "explosive" ...

"Sounded like a bomb" –Keith Murphy
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"I heard a loud explosion type noise." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito

I have given their names so it should be easy to see what it is that they are describing ... can you do some research to see whether or not their full testimony supports these cherry-picked portions ???

I never said supercedes...

You didn't need to !!!

I'm going to use one of your debunks here : images don't make sound.

So nobody had cameras and video equipment capable of picking up audio !!!

and WHY do you still think that NOT looking for 'physical evidence' counts as 'not finding' physical evidence???

So that's why for months afterwards ALL debris was subjected to a minute fingertip examination and sniffed over by a plethora of sniffer dogs ... whoda thunk it !!!

Why do you claim that EVERY loud sound presented cannot be explosive?? You go into ridiculous claims,

I don't B'man ... that is again you putting words in my mouth.

I have ALWAYS clearly and unequivovably said that sound ALONE is not proof of explosives ... I have even several times given you lists and evidence of other loud noises (described by eyewitness as "like" bombs) that turn out not to be explosive ... ie Mount St. Helen testimony.

Knowing that there are things that can go boom WITHOUT being explosive is my stance, and for these other instances to be eliminated firstly, always has been ... for you to say different is entirely your level of dishonesty showing.

And despite these eyewitness reports NOT one of them show noises consistent in timing, loudness and brisance with man-made demolition.

There is nothing on the sound track of ANY recorded media consistant with explosive decibel level and sequence ... something which could not fail in being recorded on every damm camera, video, mobile phone being used.

Nothing like that was EVER heard on 9/11 ... FACT B'man !!!

even creating your own timeline of events to justify some of these loud noises???

Where ???

But I take it you are talking about the impact sound through the frame here B'man ... but here is a wee hint ... it is not my creation of a time-line about this ... but a KNOWN and valid scientific FACT that sound travels faster through steel than air.

Than you need manipulate demonstrable science to make it seem "my" invention says a LOT about your desperation and dishonesty !!!

That you NEED twist my words so to even make your point look valid says a lot !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

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.

I am sure I did answer ... but if I didn't then I do apologize (too easy to miss a question between different threads ... and that I was debating this on another forum also, so may simply have thought I already had answered ... mistakes happen)

Political Forum - View Single Post - Building 7 - for anyone who doubts 9/11 was a inside job

But in answer, the answer is NO ... by being behind walls it would not "dampen" the effect ... in fact it would EXACERBATE it !!!

Two equal amounts of explosives inside and out would result in different over-pressurisation.

Outside ... with nothing to impede the over-pressure it reduces with distance.

Inside ... it is MAGNIFIED by being reverbrating off surfaces !!!

"When the incident pressure wave impinges on a structure that is not parallel to the direction of the direction of the waves travel, it is reflected and reinforced, producing what is known as relected pressure. The reflected pressure is always greater than the incident pressure at the same distance from the explosion"

http://www.cedengineering.com/upload/FEMA 426 Chapters 4 & 5.pdf

"The confines of the location of the explosion, namely open-air vs, enclosed spaces, are also and important prognostic factor since explosions in enclosed spaces cause higher mortality and increase the wounding potential(Table 2)"

http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar03ap-1.pdf

"The geometry of surrounding sturctues may deflect the blast wave, or it may focus the wave, particularly inside partially open enclosures where the blast loading can be significantly higher than it would have been in a free field"

http://www.issiraq.org/Chapter_in_the_Year_Book.pdf

"When explosions occur indoors, standing waves and enhanced differences in pressure occur because of the additive effects of reflections or reverberations from walls and rigid objects. As outward energy dissipates, a reversal of wind back toward the blast and underpressurization occur. The resulting pressure effect damages organs, particularly at airfluid interfaces, and the wind propels fragments and people, causing penetrating or blunt injuries"

Blast Injuries--

So if anything those inside would undoubtably have suffered blast-induced barotrauma.

It is truly this simple B'man ...

NO BAROTRAUMA .... NO EXPLOSIVES !!!

There are several terabytes worth of files to be gone through....

Wrong, the entire set is around 924 Gb compressed into a more easily downloadable pack of 86 Gb ... which is way less than one terabyte ... one terabyte being 1000 gigabytes !!!

but WHY WAS IT SO IMPORTANT TO COVER-UP if it's so innocent?

What "cover-up" ... why do you keep banging on about this ???

All those videos were part of an ongoing investigation, there was a request to release afterwards ... that has been done ... how is that a cover-up ???

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...

So when were those FOIA requests made and when did NIST start releasing them B'man ???

AE911Truth.INFO » Another Quick One

Shouldn't the better question be why have the truthers whom got these in June of LAST YEAR only putting them up now, their request was placed in January 2009, released them in the June, six months later ... which is not too long considering NIST need garnish permission to release from all the original owners first... so since this web-page "Centre" has kept them themselves SINCE June to re-release near 16 MONTHS later, isn't the better question what took them so long ???

You don't get it... I know.

Yes, I do get it B'man ... you would rather go into convoluted psycho-babble than get annoyed with your conspiribuddies for using blatent trickery and lies.

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.

God! how inept are you ... now you are trying (flaccidly I might add) to defend that lying by claiming it is people "disguised" as truthers doing this ... jeeezus B'man !!!

Way to go to convince yourself ... for the GREATEST feat of image manipulation was by your great God Jones himself ... whom used a MANIPULATED photograph in his OWN presentation ... you even accepted it first time I showed you ...

Was it a doppelganger then ???

What psychological imperetive drives you to think that any wrong-doing can only be from people "pretending" to be truthers ... some sort of disinfo "agent" ... this is not a movie B'man

Come on B'man ... have the stones to admit your little friends got caught out lying and stop trying to deflect blame by this nonsensical guff !!!

First, just because you don't understand the concept doesn't mean it's not relevant...

No B'man, it is your "justification" for not having the balls to admit your movement itself is deeply flawed !!!

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?

See ... psychobabble ... anything but admit they were in the wrong !!!

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.

"Operatives" ... you jest !!! :roll:

Does everything have to sound like some plot or character out of a sinister spy type B-movie to you ???

They are idiots B'man ... for they use DEEPLY flawed non-science and methods to fool the non-scientific !!!

If there arguments were so good then how come they ONLY have support from rank amateurs and teenagers on the internet .... for that is truly where they solely exist ???

How come if their science is so good they have not presented it to real scientific scrutiny ... why B'man ???

Unless they already know it is wrong !!!

They ARE idiots ... that is why they are reviled and ignored within science fields ... that is why they cannot get legitimate peer-review or publication and it is YOUR gullibility, brought about by resentment for the nefarious "them", conformational bias, cognitive dissonance and untutored automatic belief that leads you to fall for it.

Ask yourself why they are NOT more known and acknowledged outside conspiracy sites !!!

Maybe it is just as simple as that they are WRONG !!!

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.

Yes, they are YOUR groups, for it is where you get your information from, not one single claim you have made has not come from them B'man.

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.

And yet you cannot point to one single lie I have supposedly made ... despite numerous requests !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

The problem is that NIST has a reputation that it's used to promote this fiction...

No B'man, the problem is you fail to understand that reputation is not just relied upon but continually earned.

If you are a hotel whom has worked very hard to earn a five-star rating ... do you then just stop working as hard ... NO ... for you HAVE to maintain that rating !!!

You cannot just rest on previous good reputation ... you NEED to re-affirm it by constantly being shown to have validity and good practise.

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

Eurocodes were changed ... the Beijing Tower was built to new post NIST standards ... and if you have seen changes then you must know where they came from too ???

In Australia ...

"The following are the 23 model building and fire code changes consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations now required by the I-Codes (changes displayed in italics are ones that were approved at previous ICC hearings and incorporated at the Minneapolis hearing into the 2009 I-Codes):"

Australian Building Codes Board: World Trade Centre Collapse

http://www.civag.unimelb.edu.au/ejse/Archives/Fulltext/2006/200601.pdf

In Europe ...

"A review of the impact of the NIST recomendations arising from the World Trade Cenre investigations has been reported seperately to ISO/TMB in the ISO/TAG 8 report "Recomendations from USI.TAG 8 building to the ISO Technical Management Board in response to the final report of the ISO Advisory Group on Security, with specific reference to the NIST report of the World Trade Centre disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1) to which reference should be made for associated recomendations. It is envisaged that further recommendations - for example relating to accessibility - will be forthcoming as a result of future reviews"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/Oct_24-25mtgsummary.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/CTBUHwtc7comments.pdf

International Code changes ...

"In September 2008--seven years after the collapse of the World Trade Center--the International Code Council (ICCICC) approved 23 wide-ranging building and fire code changes that will impact the way tall structures are planned, designed, and built. The code changes reflect the recommendations from the National Institute of Standards and TechnologyNational Institute of Standards and Technology, governmental agency within the U.S. Dept. of Commerce with the mission of "working with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements, and standards" in the national interest."

"The changes will be incorporated into the 2009 edition of the ICC's I-Codes (the International Building Code, or IBCIBC International Building Code and the International Fire Code"

"Nine code change proposals based on the NIST WTC recommendations were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes, but will most likely be revisited for adoption in the future. Two in particular have significant impact on building security: designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse, and requiring risk assessments for buildings with substantial hazard, which includes buildings taller than 420 feet with more than 5,000 occupants."

High-Rise Intl. Building Code Changes Reflect Lessons Learned from 9/11

NIST WTC recommendations finally adopted in the model building codes

City Reshaping Building Codes To U.S. Model - New York Times

Even here is Scotland our Parliament building (bloody ugly, uber-expensive and useless white elephant it is) was changed to reflect 9/11 ...

"Subsequently, the events of 9/11 led to further design changes, especially with regard to security, which again resulted in rising costs."

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-03357.pdf

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.

I know exactly what fire-proofing is all about B'man ... and yet you have always been the one claiming that steel could not melt as the fire-proofing made it impervious.

Back-peddling does not wash here ....