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.