Humor me. I love conspiracy theories.

[BamaFanNKy]

This guy always seems to have them. He ties the Polish President dying to H1N1/EU/NWO conspiracy.
YouTube - Was the Polish President Lech Kaczynski, killed by New World Order? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prcudjp7oJ8&playnext_from=TL&videos=hafMHKeSJUg&feature=sub)

[tpreitzel]

Honestly, who knows?

Here's something for consideration. The movie, Matrix, was released just two years prior to 9/11 and has not so subtle references to 9/11 in the screenplay. Now, Hillary and Obama are promoting the idea that "terrorists" will be soon be going nuclear. If the next false-flag (9/11 obviously was completed with "inside" help as the nano-thermite is undeniable proof) terrorist attack occurs within a similar span of time from promotion, then we're looking at two years, i.e. just before the general election of 2012.

http://www.infowars.com/unthinkable-propaganda-for-false-flag-nuclear-terrorism-and-torture/

[dannno]

nano-thermite is undeniable proof

Ya know it still amazes me that we now have absolute physical proof and still....nothin..

[Anti Federalist]

Ya know it still amazes me that we now have absolute physical proof and still....nothin..

Silly man, that was like, ten years ago dood.

Ferget it man, move on.

:rolleyes::mad:

[Mini-Me]

Ya know it still amazes me that we now have absolute physical proof and still....nothin..

It's like Anti Federalist said: Nobody's listening anymore...like, at all. Heck, I'm sympathetic to the truther movement, but I don't even bother to listen anymore!

A lot of it has to do with marketing. Years ago, truthers as a group tended to evangelize heavily - obnoxiously - and it was also difficult to separate the rational truthers from the irrational ones. Obviously, the media deliberately made that harder by coming up with smears and rebuttal campaigns that only addressed the weakest truther claims, etc. From what I remember, Popular Mechanics literally pulled some claims right out of their asses (such as "pull it" referring to apparently nonexistent firefighters in WTC7, and WTC7 having fuel lines that would explain the collapse...but in reality, I recall they were empty anyway or something?), but for most people, the Popular Mechanics deal was the end of the truther issue for them. As far as the twin towers go, some scientists made claims about thermite and/or thermate, others rebutted them, and I guess there were probably strings of counter-rebuttals and such, but I never heard any mention of a consensus or an uncontested "final word" that would conclusively prove the presence of explosives. Anyway, I think most people eventually just tired of all the back and forth bullshit and went back to sleep, because the whole issue had become too cloudy for the average person with limited time to make any sense out of.

Personally, I know I gave up on trying to keep track of all of it. I ended up deciding that it's almost beside the point, given my view that the government's reaction was unjustified no matter what actually happened. For the record, even though I have no strong opinion on how it was carried out, all of the strange coincidences involved make me lean strongly towards the notion that Cheney and a few other well-placed agents had advance knowledge and at least deliberately let it happen. (If I had to speculate about the "how" in a MIHOP scenario, my best guess would include real-live terrorists that were deliberately radicalized by intelligence agents.)

So, has the truther movement finally come to some sort of consensus about the various issues? Obviously nobody's going to be able to provide a comprehensive narrative or anything, but for instance, is there a single, easily accessible document with an iron-clad case about nano-thermite that addresses all previous rebuttals and has survived for a long time without its own plausible rebuttal? Is there a single up-to-date, impeccable document presenting that case and others (WTC7, Pentagon, etc.) in an easily accessible format, which addresses previous rebuttals and which nobody has been able to plausibly contest a single word of? Importantly, is it all self-consistent? If so, then maybe it would be wise for the truther movement to use their "one last chance" with all of the people still willing to listen. I would definitely like to take a look, because I've been waiting forever for a single modern source of truther information where I won't have to reconcile contradictory claims and/or cross-reference every sentence with other references to determine what claims are outdated/disproven/etc. ;)

[Zippyjuan]

Yep- we got proof that the World Trade Center is still not there. I guess David Copperfield forgot the part about making it reappear.

One guy says he found nanothermite and another took a look at what he had and said paint chips. Both were "experts". Absolute physical proof?

[tpreitzel]

Yep- we got proof that the World Trade Center is still not there. I guess David Copperfield forgot the part about making it reappear.

A most clownish and callous thing to say in light of the evidence, but your silly response is similar to your ridiculously false assertion that the US has never experienced a hyper-inflation, either. Choice ...:mad:

[dannno]

So, has the truther movement finally come to some sort of consensus about the various issues? Obviously nobody's going to be able to provide a comprehensive narrative or anything, but for instance, is there a single, easily accessible document with an iron-clad case about thermite that addresses all previous rebuttals and has survived for a long time without its own rebuttal? Is there a single up-to-date, impeccable document presenting that case and others (WTC7, etc.) in an easily accessible format, which nobody has been able to plausibly contest a single word of? Importantly, is it all self-consistent? If so, then maybe it would be wise for the truther movement to use their "one last chance" with all of the people still willing to listen. I would definitely like to take a look, because I've been waiting forever for a single modern source of truther information where I won't have to reconcile contradictory claims and/or cross-reference every sentence with other references to determine what claims are outdated/disproven/etc. ;)

There is an entire section on nano-thermite contained in the film Loose Change: An American Coup that summarizes pretty well

There is also a 12 part up to date series on youtube that details all of Jones' work.


Part 1
YouTube - Steven E. Jones on Nanothermite - Part 1 of 12 - Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDVWlUy0BWo)


He has been able to verify that what he is looking at is indeed nano-thermite from independent third party laboratories.

What is interesting, that they mention in the Loose Change footage, is that the nano-thermite samples from the wtc were actually slightly more explosive than the nano-thermite samples from the military.

I've heard people try and say that there is the same ingredients in paint and BS like that, but that is the same trick they use in the PM article, because whenever I've heard somebody use that they always leave out chemicals and don't discuss the precise measurements from the spectrometers that Jones is able to detail.

[Zippyjuan]

A most clownish and callous thing to say in light of the evidence, but your silly response is similar to your ridiculously false assertion that the US has never experienced a hyper-inflation, either. Choice ...


Do you even know what hyperinflation is?
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Hyperinflation.html

Inflation is a sustained increase in the aggregate price level. Hyperinflation is very high inflation. Although the threshold is arbitrary, economists generally reserve the term “hyperinflation” to describe episodes when the monthly inflation rate is greater than 50 percent. At a monthly rate of 50 percent, an item that cost $1 on January 1 would cost $130 on January 1 of the following year.

Perhaps you can direct me to a time when the US had inflation of over 50% a month?

According to this Wiki chart, we have never been above 40% a year- let alone a month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg

I welcome any proof which would show hyperinflation in the US. Prove that my "false assertion" is wrong. Please.

If you would like to discuss some of the 9/11 theories that is fine too. I choose not to go into them with Danno because we have done that several times already. But for starters the "peer reviewed" publication which released the article accepts articles as long as you are willing to pay their fees. In the wake of the nano-thermite article, two editors of the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal resigned. One was the Editor in Chief Professor Marie-Paule Pileni. She says that the article was published without her knowledge and that she would not have published it if she had had the chance to read it before hand. The second editor who resigned was none other than a superior to Harrit at the University of Copenhagen, Nils O. Anderson. Coincidence or conspiracy that he was on the board which published the article? Is that an unbiased source? Is it a reliable source? Would you accept any government source with such connections?

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html

DANE WITHDREW FROM THE JOURNAL
Niels Harrit’s superior at the University of Copenhagen, Nils O. Andersen has himself participated in the pool of researchers who could be selected as editor, on an article which should be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. He has recently chosen to resign from the journals Editorial Advisory Board.


Disagree with me, fine, but support your position if you can.

[dannno]

another took a look at what he had and said paint chips.

Ya but he didn't prove it with a third party independent laboratory, he just shoveled a bunch of BS that he knew people like you would buy. Steven Jones did in fact prove it using third party independent laboratories.

[Mini-Me]

There is an entire section on nano-thermite contained in the film Loose Change: An American Coup that summarizes pretty well

There is also a 12 part up to date series on youtube that details all of Jones' work.


Part 1
YouTube - Steven E. Jones on Nanothermite - Part 1 of 12 - Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDVWlUy0BWo)


He has been able to verify that what he is looking at is indeed nano-thermite from independent third party laboratories.

What is interesting, that they mention in the Loose Change footage, is that the nano-thermite samples from the wtc were actually slightly more explosive than the nano-thermite samples from the military.

I've heard people try and say that there is the same ingredients in paint and BS like that, but that is the same trick they use in the PM article, because whenever I've heard somebody use that they always leave out chemicals and don't discuss the precise measurements from the spectrometers that Jones is able to detail.

Unfortunately, the name "Loose Change" is kind of tainted goods now. It's probably somewhat unhelpful that the same "discredited" scientist (Jones, excommunicated from Brigham-Young, tried as a witch, and burned at the stake...I'm joking here, but you know what I mean) has been carrying the torch this whole time. Before viewing the above video series, can you tell me if it directly addresses the claims of paint chips and convincingly explains why the spectrometer readings actually rule them out (if that's actually the case)?

I don't know whether ZippyJuan's claims are correct or not, but if so, the lack of genuine peer review, etc. doesn't help the latest nano-thermite case either. I'm not trying to say, "HAH, YOUR RONG LOOSERS!" or anything like that...I'm just saying that these things are really not helpful when you're trying to prove your case beyond the shadow of a doubt. It makes sense that a lot of scientists would avoid association with Jones because of the stigma and everything, but nevertheless, lone wolves look like crackpots even when they're the only sane men in the room...and I don't have the expertise to judge the science on its own merits. :-/ Even if the proof is totally valid, the word "proof" still sounds like an exaggerated claim when hardly anyone will vouch for its credibility.

[tpreitzel]

Do you even know what hyperinflation is?
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Hyperinflation.html


Perhaps you can direct me to a time when the US had inflation of over 50% a month?

According to this Wiki chart, we have never been above 40% a year- let alone a month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg

I welcome any proof which would show hyperinflation in the US. Prove that my "false assertion" is wrong. Please.



Simple. Use a reference standard of value like gold instead of a statistical standard based on an inflated dollar. Unfortunately for you, the US most definitely has experienced a hyperinflation with the Continental dollar regardless of your foolish attempt to quantify a hyperinflation in terms of inflated dollars, i.e. the McCusker study. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, and I've proven you wrong again and again and again. ;)

"By the end of 1778 the Continentals retained from 1/5 to 1/7 of their value against coinage. At the end of 1779, they retained only 1/25 of their value against coinage, giving rise to the phrase "not worth a continental" .... Dream on, ZippyJuan . ;)



If you would like to discuss some of the 9/11 theories that is fine too. I choose not to go into them with Danno because we have done that several times already. But for starters the "peer reviewed" publication which released the article accepts articles as long as you are willing to pay their fees. In the wake of the nano-thermite article, two editors of the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal resigned. One was the Editor in Chief. She says that the article was published without her knowledge and that she would not have published it if she had had the chance to read it before hand. The second editor who resigned was none other than a superior to Harrit at the University of Copenhagen. Coincidence or conspiracy that he was on the board which published the article? Is that an unbiased source? Is it a reliable source?Naturally, having an agenda, you accept the EIC's claim that the article was published without her knowledge since your intention is to discredit the undeniable proof that nano-thermite was detected. Address the issue of the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust samples, not the departure of editors in an attempt to discredit the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. You can't and won't because the evidence of nano-thermite is irrefutable. ;)

[Zippyjuan]

Naturally, having an agenda, you accept the EIC claim that the article was published without her knowledge, right since your intention is to discredit the undeniable proof that nano-thermite was detected. Address the issue of the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust samples, not the departure of editors in an attempt to discredit the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. You can't and won't because the evidence of nano-thermite is irrefutable.

The editor herself was the one who announced her retirement over the article and she is the one who said it was published without her knowledge. It is not just an EIC claim.

PRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION
A telephone call reveals that editor in chief Marie-Paule Pileni had never been informed that the article was going to be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal giant Bentham Science Publishers.

“They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.


Jones has no custody on his samples. He did not collect them- they were given to him by people so he cannot be absolutely sure where they came from or if they were contaminated somehow. Yes, he did test for elements which are found in thermite- but he did not do any tests to rule out what else they could be. In a TV interview, Harrit said that there would probably have had to have been some ten to 100 tonnes of nano thermite in the World Trade Center. I don't have the info at my fingers right now, but at the time of 9/11 there was just one place making it and there was no way they had the capacity to produce that much nanothermite. The government was looking into possibly using it for primers in bullets.

[tpreitzel]

The editor herself was the one who announced her retirement over the article and she is the one who said it was published without her knowledge. It is not just an EIC claim.

Again, address the issue of the discovery of nano-thermite, not an issue related to your attempt to discredit the findings in the study itself. We're waiting.

[Zippyjuan]

You posted while I was editing.

Jones has no custody on his samples. He did not collect them- they were given to him by people so he cannot be absolutely sure where they came from or if they were contaminated somehow. Yes, he did test for elements which are found in thermite- but he did not do any tests to rule out what else they could be. In a TV interview, Harrit said that there would probably have had to have been some ten to 100 tonnes of nano thermite in the World Trade Center. I don't have the info at my fingers right now, but at the time of 9/11 there was just one place making it and there was no way they had the capacity to produce that much nanothermite. The government was looking into possibly using it for primers in bullets.


From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Production
A method for producing nanoscale, or ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum powders, a key component of most nano-thermitic materials, is the dynamic gas-phase condensation method, pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A variant of the method is being used at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. A critical aspect of the production is the ability to produce particles of sizes in the tens of nanometer range, as well as with a limited distribution of particle sizes. In 2002, the production of nano-sized aluminum particles required considerable effort, and commercial sources for the material were limited.[4] An application of the sol-gel method, developed by Randall Simpson, Alexander Gash and others at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, can be used to make the actual mixtures of nanostructured composite energetic materials. Depending on the process, MICs of different density can be produced. Highly porous and uniform products can be achieved by supercritical extraction.[4]


Here is a bid in 2007 from the Navy concerning

OBJECTIVE: Develop a safe, low-cost, high performance, high production rate method of preparing nanostructured super-thermite materials.


http://www.navysbir.com/n08_1/N081-020.htm
Phase one is questioning the feasability of larger scale productivity. If they had 100 tonnes in 2003, this would probably not be an important step which it seems to be.

PHASE I: Determine the technical feasibility of preparing a high performance super-thermite composites in a low-cost but commercially scalable process. The material prepared by the new process should be comparable to that from the ultra sonication method. Capability to determine the performance of the super-thermite material by measuring the reaction rate, time to peak pressure, maximum peak pressure, and energy content is preferred.

[tpreitzel]

You posted while I was editing.


Jones has no custody on his samples. He did not collect them- they were given to him by people so he cannot be absolutely sure where they came from or if they were contaminated somehow. Yes, he did test for elements which are found in thermite- but he did not do any tests to rule out what else they could be. In a TV interview, Harrit said that there would probably have had to have been some ten to 100 tonnes of nano thermite in the World Trade Center. I don't have the info at my fingers right now, but at the time of 9/11 there was just one place making it and there was no way they had the capacity to produce that much nanothermite. The government was looking into possibly using it for primers in bullets. Oh, really? ;) Maybe, Jones hopped over to the "only" known facility churning out nano-thermite at the time, broke into the facility or bribed someone working at the facility for nano-thermite, and spiked the samples? Personally, I'm sure that it'd be quite easy to identify the chain of custody for the samples that Jones used in sampling. True, the chain of custody depends on those individuals originally collecting the samples so the procedure certainly isn't foolproof, but the evidence is clear: nano-thermite was found in various dust samples collected from the enormous dust clouds on 9/11. Obviously, due to the nature of the tragedy, Jones wasn't on the ground collecting the samples during 9/11. LOL!

Again, NONE of your attempts to discredit the actual finding mean anything. Did Jones spike the dust samples used in his chemical analysis with nano-thermite? Did those people collecting the original samples spike their samples with nano-thermite? If the samples were spiked, how did the perpetrators of this fraud get the nano-thermite and from whom? Maybe, Jones concocted, i.e. milled, nano-thermite in his private laboratory? :) Again, address the discovery of nano-thermite in the samples. Your attempt to discredit the irrefutable fact that nano-thermite was discovered in various dust samples collected during 9/11 because Jones wasn't on the ground during the tragedy is simply a smokescreen. * You use similar tactics with nearly everything you post. One of your favorite tactics employs the use of dubious references knowing most people won't examine them closely. You're simply a disinformation agent of some kind. Over the years, it's become all too obvious. ;)


Production
A method for producing nanoscale, or ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum powders, a key component of most nano-thermitic materials, is the dynamic gas-phase condensation method, pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A variant of the method is being used at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. A critical aspect of the production is the ability to produce particles of sizes in the tens of nanometer range, as well as with a limited distribution of particle sizes. In 2002, the production of nano-sized aluminum particles required considerable effort, and commercial sources for the material were limited.[4] An application of the sol-gel method, developed by Randall Simpson, Alexander Gash and others at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, can be used to make the actual mixtures of nanostructured composite energetic materials. Depending on the process, MICs of different density can be produced. Highly porous and uniform products can be achieved by supercritical extraction.[4] I'm certainly glad that you highlighted that line. I've italicized the meaningful term in your highlighted sentence, commercial. Since nano-thermite has been researched OPENLY by commercial sources since the early 1990s, you're simply throwing up another smokescreen. Since we KNOW nano-thermite was now used, the nano-thermite was obviously NOT planted by a commercial outfit, but rather elements within the military-industrial complex. ;) Nice try.




* Furthermore, thermographs from the USGS of the site taken shortly after the collapse of the twin-towers show extremely high temperatures consistent with the use of thermite. Notice areas of extremely high temperatures in areas NOT impacted by the planes.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

[fatjohn]

Ya know it still amazes me that we now have absolute physical proof and still....nothin..

Yeah physics also dictates that when you get shot in the head and as a result your head moves to the left, you got shot from the right. But you know JFK got shot from the back and that was because of an echo of the shot and he went like: "Jackie, what was that?" and then he got shot. Bill Hicks explains it perfectly.

[Zippyjuan]

You are assuming that it was nanothermite he found. He found elements similiar to those found in nanothermite (using his spectrometer) but those elements are also found in paint chips which could have iron from the beams they were painted onto. Aluminum (the third ingredient) is also a common element in high rise buildings and can also be used in paints. His paper produces no spectragraph of nanothermite to compare his samples to. Nor are there any spectrograph comparisons to paint samples taken from the buildings. He did not compare the combustion of his samples with the combustion of a sample of nanothermite. He only noted that a reaction occured when heated to a certain point. Rust (iron oxide) will ignite at a certain point too.

To be truely scientific and "irrefutable" you must compare and rule out other possibilities. Jones was looking for nanothermite (after giving up looking for evidence of micro nukes) so he considered what fit into that possibility without ruling out other options.

It is also interesting that you would try to bring down a building with a substance which has never been used to bring down a building before. Nanothermite was supposedly choosen because it is more explosive than regular thermite. So why did not the majority of windows blow out from the air pressure created by the blasts? Why didn't any seismic devices detect any explosions other than the planes hitting and the buildings hitting the ground? How did you get in and hide in the right places ten to 100 tonnes of explosives without being noticed? How did it get ignited at the desired moment and not get ignited by the fires from the planes crashing into the buildings and spreading their fuel?

In another interview, Haritt says that he does not know how thermite was used to bring down the buildings but suggests that abundance of standard explosives were also used.

"When you say 'in abundance'- how much do you mean?"
"Tons. Hundreds of tons. Many, many, many tons."
In a different interview he said that there were possibly 100 tons of thermite too. Incredible amounts of explosives to have been allegedly used. Massive amounts to be secretly placed in the buildings and not triggered until the proper moment (and not show up again on any seismic data- up to a hundred tons of nanothermite plus hundreds of tons of conventional explosives all going off). The logistics are mind boggling.

YouTube - Did nano-thermite take down the WTC? (English with subtitles) Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alo2DKG-PdI)

[BlackTerrel]

Yeah physics also dictates that when you get shot in the head and as a result your head moves to the left, you got shot from the right. But you know JFK got shot from the back and that was because of an echo of the shot and he went like: "Jackie, what was that?" and then he got shot. Bill Hicks explains it perfectly.

Here's the thing with conspiracy theories. People like to believe them, they want to believe them, and you can't argue it because any evidence you present is part of the conspiracy. It's all very convenient. And it sells well - A book saying the CIA killed JFK will sell a lot better than a book saying Oswald killed JFK.

The reason I usually doubt them is the complexity involved would require a genius and a thousand people working together. But a genius and a thousand people working together would never try anything so complex.

Take JFK. Say you're some evil shadow government that rules the world. And JFK is a thorn in your side and you need to get him out of the way. What do you do?

1. Put some kind of poison in his food that makes it look like a heart attack. To do this you need to control two people: someone with access to JFK's food and the doctor who does the examination. Difficult but doable.

2. Shoot him while he's moving in a car, with difficult and unpredictable conditions. With a million people in attendance and another 50 million watching at home and countless video that is going to be watched again and again and again.

#2 is really fucking hard. You need to have hundreds of people in on it. There are a thousand ways you could mess up. It is going to be videotapes and questioned for all of time and it is going to be really really hard to cover up.

#1 is easy (in comparison).

Wouldn't anyone with any brains at all choose some variation of #1? It makes no sense, if you have the ability to pull off #2 and get away with it you surely have the resources for #1.

This is why I'm always skeptical. I know I'm the only person in the country that thinks there was no conspiracy in the JFK assassination but that's where logic takes me. I feel similarly about 9/11 but I really don't feel like arguing it because it's been done to death.

[lynnf]

Unfortunately, the name "Loose Change" is kind of tainted goods now. It's probably somewhat unhelpful that the same "discredited" scientist (Jones, excommunicated from Brigham-Young, tried as a witch, and burned at the stake...I'm joking here, but you know what I mean) has been carrying the torch this whole time. Before viewing the above video series, can you tell me if it directly addresses the claims of paint chips and convincingly explains why the spectrometer readings actually rule them out (if that's actually the case)?

I don't know whether ZippyJuan's claims are correct or not, but if so, the lack of genuine peer review, etc. doesn't help the latest nano-thermite case either. I'm not trying to say, "HAH, YOUR RONG LOOSERS!" or anything like that...I'm just saying that these things are really not helpful when you're trying to prove your case beyond the shadow of a doubt. It makes sense that a lot of scientists would avoid association with Jones because of the stigma and everything, but nevertheless, lone wolves look like crackpots even when they're the only sane men in the room...and I don't have the expertise to judge the science on its own merits. :-/ Even if the proof is totally valid, the word "proof" still sounds like an exaggerated claim when hardly anyone will vouch for its credibility.

link to Jone's peer-reviewed published paper on nano-thermite and the chips:
in my signature below.

Jones has a chain of custody for the samples he used, unlike the misinformation someone else is pushing.

there is now speculation that the recent supposed search for victim remains in the NY landfill is really a search for evidence in the crime. if so, that could be good news.

[Zippyjuan]

Similar problem with 9/11 conspiracies. For them to work, it is incredibly complex. You get these radio controlled planes to fly into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania (some theories say that crash was faked too but that adds to the complexity of details if it was indeed a conspiracy). You crash those planes into buildings where you hid hundreds of tons of explosives without the planes setting off any of your explosives ahead of time or knocking out your devices. Then you do trigger them and bring down the buildings. Why not use what was tried before- just a van loaded with explosives? Simpler. Just place it better and load it up with more explosives. According to Harrit you are already going to use hundreds of tons. The more complexity you add, the more your chances of failure. More complexity also involves more people which increases the likelyhood of your plot getting reveiled or screwed up. KISS- keep it simple stupid. Could have? Sure. Could have. Logical to do it that way? A different question altogether. Anything which supports your theory is an unquestionable fact while any evidence which may disagree with you is faked and another part of the conspiracy.

We will now return you to your own conspiracy theories. Carry on.

[tpreitzel]

You are assuming that it was nanothermite he found. He found elements similiar to those found in nanothermite (using his spectrometer) but those elements are also found in paint chips which could have iron from the beams they were painted onto. Aluminum (the third ingredient) is also a common element in high rise buildings and can also be used in paints. His paper produces no spectragraph of nanothermite to compare his samples to. Nor are there any spectrograph comparisons to paint samples taken from the buildings. He did not compare the combustion of his samples with the combustion of a sample of nanothermite. He only noted that a reaction occured when heated to a certain point. Rust (iron oxide) will ignite at a certain point too.

Oh, really? "but those elements are also found in paint chips which could have iron from the beams they were painted onto." Could have or did have? Iron oxide will ignite at a certain point, too? LOL! Is the ignition point the same as nano-thermite? Oh, really? His peer-reviewed paper doesn't produce a spectrograph of nano-thermite? Well, I guess Jones didn't hop over to the only known commercial facility producing nano-thermite to purchase it so he could spike his samples after all, eh? ;) Oh, really? His peer-reviewed paper doesn't compare the combustion of his samples to paint samples taken from the buildings? I wonder why? ;) Lastly, you completely ignore the size of the particles found in the samples versus the particulate size of normal thermite or the fact the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) was producing Metastable Intermolecular Composite (MIC) formulations, e.g. Al/MoO3, by 2000 from research conducted at Indian Head's Naval Surface Warfare Center by Dr.Puszynski. [1] Why? Oh, we know why. ;)




To be truely scientific and "irrefutable" you must compare and rule out other possibilities. Jones was looking for nanothermite (after giving up looking for evidence of micro nukes) so he considered what fit into that possibility without ruling out other options. No, you're simply looking for any feeble smokescreen imaginable. Professor Jones used the tools and evidence at his disposal since the scene left little but dust to analyze since the steel was promptly secured and buried in some far away places. Oh, brother. ;)




It is also interesting that you would try to bring down a building with a substance which has never been used to bring down a building before. Nanothermite was supposedly choosen because it is more explosive than regular thermite. So why did not the majority of windows blow out from the air pressure created by the blasts? Why didn't any seismic devices detect any explosions other than the planes hitting and the buildings hitting the ground? How did you get in and hide in the right places ten to 100 tonnes of explosives without being noticed?Assumptions on your part and legitimate theorizing on the part of the investigators since government officials continue to hide behind the giant lie of 9/11 that only Muslim terrorists were behind the tragedy. Since the government continues to stonewall, who knows if 100 tons of nano-thermite was employed, but it was used in some unknown quantity despite your crazy diversions. Whether only nano-thermite was employed is definitely open to debate. The use of nano-thermite is NOT open to debate as it has been irrefutably proven to exist in the samples.




In another interview, Haritt says that he does not know how thermite was used to bring down the buildings but suggests that abundance of standard explosives were also used.

In a different interview he said that there were possibly 100 tons of thermite too. Incredible amounts of explosives to have been allegedly used. Massive amounts to be secretly placed in the buildings and not triggered until the proper moment (and not show up again on any seismic data- up to a hundred tons of nanothermite plus hundreds of tons of conventional explosives all going off). The logistics are mind boggling. The logistics aren't nearly as mind boggling as the official lie that the collapse of the twin-towers was due to jet fuel . Be sure to study the thermograph taken of the site shortly after 9/11. Oh, did I mention that the graph is from the USGS? :)

[1] South Dakota School of Mines & Technology (C) 2001: http://ret.sdsmt.edu/projectdescr.htm
(http://ret.sdsmt.edu/projectdescr.htm)

[tpreitzel]

We will now return you to your own conspiracy theories. Carry on.
Now, we get to the company running security for the WTC complex, but that's another subject in itself... and it ain't a conspiracy theory. Thanks for the temporary reprieve from your smokescreens, disinfo man. ;)

Notice the color of the streaming molten metal dripping down the side of the South Tower which certainly is NOT due to jet fuel, but thermite:

Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11#)


Now, look at another thermite reaction. Notice the IDENTICAL color and properties associated with this photograph and the one of the South Tower:
http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Images/Thermite2(3-12-06)-small.jpg (http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Images/Thermite2%283-12-06%29-small.jpg)

BTW, JippyJuan,

I'm still waiting for another nonsensical response that the US has never experienced a hyperinflation. 500% inflation over the course of ONE year isn't good enough to meet your statistical nonsense based on the McCusker study, eh?

[Srg1]

[QUOTE=tpreitzel;2642712]Now, we get to the company running security for the WTC complex, but that's another subject in itself... and it ain't a conspiracy theory. Thanks for the temporary reprieve from your smokescreens, disinfo man. ;)

Notice the color of the streaming molten metal dripping down the side of the South Tower which certainly is NOT due to jet fuel, but thermite:

Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11#)




Swamp gas

[tpreitzel]

Swamp gas

Too bad we didn't have colored lights to accompany the government's ole' standby excuse. I guess the colored lights from the streaming molten metal could be technically classified as an artifact of swamp gas. After all, look at the lights float down the side of the South Tower. :)

[pacelli]

Similar problem with 9/11 conspiracies. For them to work, it is incredibly complex. You get these radio controlled planes to fly into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania (some theories say that crash was faked too but that adds to the complexity of details if it was indeed a conspiracy). You crash those planes into buildings where you hid hundreds of tons of explosives without the planes setting off any of your explosives ahead of time or knocking out your devices. Then you do trigger them and bring down the buildings. Why not use what was tried before- just a van loaded with explosives? Simpler. Just place it better and load it up with more explosives. According to Harrit you are already going to use hundreds of tons. The more complexity you add, the more your chances of failure. More complexity also involves more people which increases the likelyhood of your plot getting reveiled or screwed up. KISS- keep it simple stupid. Could have? Sure. Could have. Logical to do it that way? A different question altogether. Anything which supports your theory is an unquestionable fact while any evidence which may disagree with you is faked and another part of the conspiracy.

We will now return you to your own conspiracy theories. Carry on.

The FBI fucked up the van tactic in 1993. It was a complex plot, which is why it has been exposed for being a complete ruse. Besides, if the terrorists had used truck bombs (which was initially reported at the pentagon on 9/11/01), the feds would not have had justification to make every air passenger a suspect with the creation of the TSA.

To be fair, the 9/11 commission report is also an elaborate conspiracy theory from start to finish.

[Trimbeaux]

I look at who benefited in history from the the explosion on the battleship Maine, sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the assassination of JFK, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and 911. It certainly was not the American public who benefited from all these events that led us into destructive foreign adventures and creation of the police state we have now. Yeah they all happened by accident.

[Trimbeaux]

We have to understand that the philosophy we are facing: "the ends justify the means". That is why killing thousands or millions are of no concern because in the end it was justified and worth it in their minds to get the world they want. We are nothing to those that feel they have the only mature minds in the world.