nano Thermite found in all 911 dust samples

ib1yysguy said:
Stupid as shit. You know what thermite is? Iron oxide and zinc. That's right, rust and bicycle frames. Two of the most common metals found in modern life. Trace amounts of rust and car parts is hardly evidence of anything more sinister than 19 highly educated Islamic demagogues with box cutters.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm simply amusing myself while I work.

But if evidence of thermite is as common as you suggest .. which it isn't .. perhaps you can explain why that evidence, which was found by the FEMA investigation, was left out of any subsequent investigation including by NIST .. which had to later amend its report because the ommission was glaring and challenged?

The FEMA-sponsored Building Performance Study of 2002 contains evidence of melted steel caused by sulfidation and oxidation. This is found in the "Limited Metallurgical Examination" written by Professor Jonathan Barnett. The NIST report, however, fails to address the evidence of sulfidation found in the structural steel from the WTC.

Barnett examined two pieces of melted steel, one from the WTC 7, the other from the Twin Towers. About the first piece, Barnett wrote: "The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to the combination of oxidation and sulfidation." This was done by "a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel," he concluded.

Barnett found the same sulfidation in the piece of melted steel from the Twin Towers. "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event," Barnett wrote. "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."

This evidence would be CRUCIAL to any real investigation of the events, but it was ignored.

When Jones first brought this to the attention of the American people he was attacked and mocked, and the claim that there was evidence of thermite or molten steel that should not have been there was ridiculed .. now that it's undeniably proven .. "those are just bicycle parts."

What you demonstrate my good brother is that the power of cognitive dissonance knows no bounds. It is not bound by political party nor ideology. It is not bound by race, class, gender, sexual persuasion, or faith.

It is a POWERFUL mindfuck.

There are about a thousand sane, honest, and intelligent questions that should be asked of 9/11. Because the events as described defies the laws of science, physics, and egineering with anomalies that have never happened before in the history of Man. Like fires melting giant buildings. It has never ever, ever, ever, fucking EVER happened before in the history of Man, buildings, or fire. There is no science, history, or engineering that suggests it is even possible. It cannot be replicated in a lab.

But that amazing anomaly happened THREE TIMES on the same day .. INCLUDING having all THREE buildings FALLING INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT AT FREE FALL SPEED .. which defies the Law of Falling OBjects. There is no science my brother that suggests this is even possible.

There are a THOUSAND fucking questions that you can't answer except with a "bicycle parts" answer.

Surely you know history brother, thus I have a couple of rational question for you.

Are you not aware of the history of the USS Maine?

How about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

How about Pearl Harbor?

How about a "New Pearl Harbor"?

Given all the lies and deceptions that just you know of .. why wouldn't you have questions .. and why would you attack anyone who does?

Cognitive dissonance is POWERFUL .. it even has the power to mute intelligence.
 
Superfreak said:
I agree that there are issues that have not been addressed that I too would like to see the answers (if they are out there somewhere).

That said, Desh likes this particular conspiracy and wont let it go despite the fact that it has been debunked.
Click to expand...

"Debunked" by another Hearst-owned publication, Popular Mechanics .. which is best known for "How to fix your toliet."

Perhaps "yellow journalism" is an unknown term to you brother, but when you look it up you'll find the name Hearst.

Their "debunking" has been debunked.
 
blackascoal said:
"Debunked" by another Hearst-owned publication, Popular Mechanics .. which is best known for "How to fix your toliet."

Perhaps "yellow journalism" is an unknown term to you brother, but when you look it up you'll find the name Hearst.

Their "debunking" has been debunked.
Click to expand...
Go back and read the thermite thread that SF posted then come back and try again.
 
Watermarx said:
Keep saying that and it'll be true BAC. The fact that you can't see WHY I only believe something once there is high quality of evidence is irrelevant. You are gullible, and you are trying to turn around from your position of no evidence and accuse ME of being gullible from my position of plenty of evidence. Well I'm sorry for not believing in everything I run into, alright? Are you going to be ranting on about reptoids and faux moon landings next? There's as much evidence for that as there is for this. It is surreal that people like you exist.
Click to expand...

More evidence that the mindfuck of cognitive dissonance knows no bounds.

You don't have a clue what you're talkking about, you haven't taken the time to study the issue, you're simply parroting what CG tells you to say.

Simple question: What brought down WTC7?

If you want to play .. step the fuck up.
 
blackascoal said:
I don't have to go read what SF wrote. Whatever evidence you have, post it here.

Simple question to you .. what brought down WTC7?
Click to expand...
He posted the fricking link.

It calculates the amount of thermite it would take, it simply isn't what caused this. And rusted iron and aluminum? Seriously? You pretend like this is stuff that can't be found in a city?

Thermite produces a distinctive yellow smoke that would be obvious, especially with the tons of the stuff it would take to cause what they say it caused. It's seriously ridiculous to believe that Thermite did this.
 
Damocles said:
He posted the fricking link.

It calculates the amount of thermite it would take, it simply isn't what caused this. And rusted iron and aluminum? Seriously? You pretend like this is stuff that can't be found in a city?

Thermite produces a distinctive yellow smoke that would be obvious, especially with the tons of the stuff it would take to cause what they say it caused. It's seriously ridiculous to believe that Thermite did this.
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed this part.

WHAT BROUGHT DOWN WTC7?
 
blackascoal said:
Maybe you missed this part.

WHAT BROUGHT DOWN WTC7?
Click to expand...
Again, you and I already spoke on what caused the fall of WTC7. If you don't remember use the search function. Talking to you on this subject is like talking to a rock and I am not the patron saint of lost causes. You refuse to see even scientific evidence if it contradicts what you believe on the subject. You can hash that out with somebody else or have a good conversation with that ultimate of engineers, Rosie O'Donnel.
 
Damocles said:
Again, you and I already spoke on what caused the fall of WTC7. If you don't remember use the search function. Talking to you on this subject is like talking to a rock and I am not the patron saint of lost causes. You refuse to see even scientific evidence if it contradicts what you believe on the subject. You can hash that out with somebody else or have a good conversation with that ultimate of engineers, Rosie O'Donnel.
Click to expand...

When you run out of intelligent thought, reach for Rosie O'Donnel. :)

Actually I reach for Lt. Col. Robert Bowman .. ex-Director of Star Wars. You can call him loony.

What you're talking about brother is stupid .. it's absolutely moronic.

No steel frame buildings have ever collapsed from fire EVER .. and you've got the nerve to be talking about "scientific evidence." Incredibly stupid.

Naw, you and I don't need to go down this road my brother.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teDA6PcARI8"]YouTube - Jah Roots - The Truth w/ LYRICS **Watch Zeitgeist**[/ame]
 
blackascoal said:
When you run out of intelligent thought, reach for Rosie O'Donnel. :)

Actually I reach for Lt. Col. Robert Bowman .. ex-Director of Star Wars. You can call him loony.

What you're talking about brother is stupid .. it's absolutely moronic.

No steel frame buildings have ever collapsed from fire EVER .. and you've got the nerve to be talking about "scientific evidence." Incredibly stupid.

Naw, you and I don't need to go down this road my brother.
Click to expand...
Yup. All those engineers, architects, pilots and other experts all have to be wrong and you right because "no other building ever collapsed because"... Scientists telling you what thermite is made of and how common such things are in a city, they can't be right, Rosie must be.

It's like talking to Dixie about "Intelligent Design Theory" it doesn't matter how much you point out stuff, he isn't going to listen.
 
Damocles said:
Yup. All those engineers, architects, pilots and other experts all have to be wrong and you right because "no other building ever collapsed because"... Scientists telling you what thermite is made of and how common such things are in a city, they can't be right, Rosie must be.

It's like talking to Dixie about "Intelligent Design Theory" it doesn't matter how much you point out stuff, he isn't going to listen.
Click to expand...

Focus .. my name ain't Dixie and we aren't talking about intelligent design.

You keep diving into diversions because your argument is idiotic.

I've posted the comments of engineers, architects, combat pilots (lot's of them), experts on national defense, and a host of other experts .. which you've ignored .. so climb down off the fake-ass wooden hign horse that you rely on experts and I don't.

How about you and I don't even have this discussion because I have no desire to ridicule your arguments, but I will .. so let's you and I talk about something else?
 
blackascoal said:
I don't have to go read what SF wrote. Whatever evidence you have, post it here.

Simple question to you .. what brought down WTC7?
Click to expand...

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
 
blackascoal said:
Focus .. my name ain't Dixie and we aren't talking about intelligent design.

You keep diving into diversions because your argument is idiotic.

I've posted the comments of engineers, architects, combat pilots (lot's of them), experts on national defense, and a host of other experts .. which you've ignored .. so climb down off the fake-ass wooden hign horse that you rely on experts and I don't.

How about you and I don't even have this discussion because I have no desire to ridicule your arguments, but I will .. so let's you and I talk about something else?
Click to expand...
And again, I posted the arguments of the same from the other side which you dismiss. And evidence that showed that many of the engineers from your side don't even specialize in the area they are commenting on while the engineers that I post from do.

Seriously. It isn't like I trust the "government" to tell me about things. When you posted that "no pilot with that level of experience could ever do that", the first thing I did was go talk to a pilot who informed me that you were full of it.

Do you know me to be honest? Do try to "trick" you on things like this? Seriously. I spoke to a pilot, I went to my friends from college who are structural engineers (when you major in math many of the people in your classes are in the engineering program). What I spoke of with you, that I will not rehash here because it goes against your orthodox beliefs on this subject, I researched far more directly than posting silly links. Or believing somebody who just says they are an engineer on the internet. I went to people I trust, that I know, that will tell me what they know.

In every case I found information that you and I spoke about, that you dismissed because some guy on the internet says he's a pilot. Seriously. You really are like Dixie on this subject. You want so desperately to believe something it doesn't matter who tells you anything, you are going to believe it.
 
blackascoal said:
When you run out of intelligent thought, reach for Rosie O'Donnel. :)

Actually I reach for Lt. Col. Robert Bowman .. ex-Director of Star Wars. You can call him loony.

What you're talking about brother is stupid .. it's absolutely moronic.

No steel frame buildings have ever collapsed from fire EVER .. and you've got the nerve to be talking about "scientific evidence." Incredibly stupid.

Naw, you and I don't need to go down this road my brother.
Click to expand...

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition. "

More at link
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition. "

More at link
Click to expand...
My engineer friend said that if the building fell any other way then it would be a conspiracy. It was designed to fall the way it did so that if it failed damage would be limited to a smaller area.
 
Damocles said:
And again, I posted the arguments of the same from the other side which you dismiss. And evidence that showed that many of the engineers from your side don't even specialize in the area they are commenting on while the engineers that I post from do.

Seriously. It isn't like I trust the "government" to tell me about things. When you posted that "no pilot with that level of experience could ever do that", the first thing I did was go talk to a pilot who informed me that you were full of it.

Do you know me to be honest? Do try to "trick" you on things like this? Seriously. I spoke to a pilot, I went to my friends from college who are structural engineers (when you major in math many of the people in your classes are in the engineering program). What I spoke of with you, that I will not rehash here because it goes against your orthodox beliefs on this subject, I researched far more directly than posting silly links. Or believing somebody who just says they are an engineer on the internet. I went to people I trust, that I know, that will tell me what they know.
Click to expand...

That's bullshit .. total disingenuous bullshit.

Seasoned and decorated combat pilots don't know about flight and manuevers? What the fuck are you talking about?

Bowman, doesn't know about national security, airplanes and their aerodynamic structure? What the fuck are you talking about?

Hundreds of engineers, scientists, and acadamians don't know what they're talking about?

Have you any idea how many gag orders have been issued since 9/11 about 9/11?

Seriously dude, I'd rather NOT have this conversation with you because your arguments are silly .. and dishonest. It's the argument of a stooge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top