9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

a reply to: Informer1958

If WTC 7 fell into its footprint, how did it damage the building at 30 West Broadway so badly that it was later torn down?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Informer1958

If WTC 7 fell into its footprint, how did it damage the building at 30 West Broadway so badly that it was later torn down?

I'm unsure what the whole 'into it's own footprint' is supposed to prove anyways?
Gravity works in one direction, down.
These buildings aren't trees being felled by a lumberjack in the forest, do people expect the buildings were supposed to tip over in the same fasion as a tree unless it was a 'controlled demolition'?
Building 6 was DESTROYED by debris from the falling tower, the tower certainly never fell into it's own footprint.
Another thing, the towers would have been the first top down demos ever pulled off, quite a feat.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: neutronflux

Jones paper

From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.

The only journal that would publish the Jones paper is a known Pay to Publish Journal. Did they expect not to find aluminum and Iron in the debris? It's a far stretch to go from there to calling it nano thermite. You could take debris from most any fire and find aluminum and iron in an elemental analysis.

Academics stay away from controversy whenever they can. That is no surprise.


However, if you were to read the paper, his evidence was based on analysis of particles and the odd stuff he found in it.

Thermite residue is indistinguishable from stuff you might find in an industrial weld (because they both can leave the same residue) However what he found evidence of was high temperatures, much higher than any that would have been anticipated.

That, and the calcium residue was interesting. Debunkers suggested it could come from the gypsum in the dry wall, but he didn't find any Sulfur in the same droplets. A common rule of thumb in chemistry is that it is easy to mix chemicals, but hard to separate them.

I guess it could have come from the cement.




The point is.... the paper wasn't exactly a "smoking gun" because it's mostly circumstantial and indirect evidence, but it also doesn't have any glaring deficiencies. It's very disingenuous to claim to have "debunked" it.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: neutronflux

Jones paper

From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.

The only journal that would publish the Jones paper is a known Pay to Publish Journal. Did they expect not to find aluminum and Iron in the debris? It's a far stretch to go from there to calling it nano thermite. You could take debris from most any fire and find aluminum and iron in an elemental analysis.

Academics stay away from controversy whenever they can. That is no surprise.


However, if you were to read the paper, his evidence was based on analysis of particles and the odd stuff he found in it.

Thermite residue is indistinguishable from stuff you might find in an industrial weld (because they both can leave the same residue) However what he found evidence of was high temperatures, much higher than any that would have been anticipated.

That, and the calcium residue was interesting. Debunkers suggested it could come from the gypsum in the dry wall, but he didn't find any Sulfur in the same droplets. A common rule of thumb in chemistry is that it is easy to mix chemicals, but hard to separate them.

I guess it could have come from the cement.




The point is.... the paper wasn't exactly a "smoking gun" because it's mostly circumstantial and indirect evidence, but it also doesn't have any glaring deficiencies. It's very disingenuous to claim to have "debunked" it.

Au contraire, the paper was grossly deficient and started with a conclusion that it tried, and failed, to support. It is internally inconsistent from a thermodynamics standpoint and the experimental protocol was flawed by incompetence. Finally, having a primer paint thin layer of thermite on large masses of steel will not do anything but slightly warm the steel even if it could be ignited. You would think that physicists and chemists would understand heat of reaction and heat capacity of steel but, alas, these dolts do not.

No competent scientists were involved in writing or publication of this paper.

a reply to: pteridine

Or the willful con to keep getting booked on speaking touris by providing a specific product to a target consumer base. A base more interested in fantasy than fact. A base that does not fact check.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

What temperatures do YOU expect from an office fire looking forward to reading your answer.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

For thermite, you have what to supersede the lawsuit and NIST conclusions?

They follow the scientific method by applying modeling, observation, and research to produce the most likely cause of collapse.

Although that is admirable behavior, it is NOT the scientific method.

A scientist can say nothing definitive without real evidence. They are saying something definitive (although carefully reminding their audience it is only speculation), and without real evidence.

Taking poor evidence and applying a computer model doesn't transform that poor evidence into good evidence. It just makes your hypothesis more complete, and insures it is self consistent.

But "self consistent" does not guarantee accuracy. Many many many very very very bad scientific hypothesis have been proposed over the years that were entirely self consistent. But wrong. Modern scientists know better.

I asked you to discredit the sworn testimony from the Aegis lawsuit.

You might as well have asked me to pull a unicorn out of my butt.

There is nothing reliably stated in their testimony to discredit in the first place. How do I remove credibility that isn't even present, and which the one giving the testimony knows full well to be speculation on their own part (and qualifies as speculation before stating it.)

No proof the cores failed in the two towers to initiate collapse. Video proves only a one or two story section of vertical columns buckeled to initiate collapse. A falling core would produce the same effect on ever floor above the point of failure in the core.

Nothing has been proven by anybody about anything at this point.

That's how real life is sometimes. In fantasy world, there is always a way to be absolutely certain of the truth of every matter. It's just a matter of digging.

But in real life, sometimes there just plain isn't enough to go on.

You misinterpreted the WTC antenna where other videos shows the antenna leaning, and then descending with the upper block of the tower. The antenna did not fall into the roof of the tower at collapse initiation.

That isn't what I said happened.

I said it began its descent at the same time as the walls. But if the walls failed first, then the antenna should have remained standing for a short time (at least a brief moment) before it started falling also.

If thermite was only used in a few cuts, how would it even be detectable in 1,000,000 tons of dust, ruble, and steel?

Dr. Jones found it composed about 0.1% of his samples, and only after any large bits of solid debris were removed first.

The samples were taken from people's homes near the collapse, so we're talking about dust that was ejected during the collapse. (Or perhaps prior to the collapse, when the devices were set off.)

Dust from other parts of the collapse might not have made it to the same locations. If it wasn't traveling at the same speed, or ejected from the same height, then it stands to reason it would arrive at a different resting place.

Can you cite credible work thermite was discovered at the WTC.

It's been shown how bowing would lead to vertical column failure.

Jones' paper gives pretty good evidence of it. He found nano-sized particles composed of .... well....undetonated thermite. He does a really bad job of saying so. Very poor showmanship skills on his part. But the science is pretty strong.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

For thermite, you have what to supersede the lawsuit and NIST conclusions?

They follow the scientific method by applying modeling, observation, and research to produce the most likely cause of collapse.

Although that is admirable behavior, it is NOT the scientific method.


Jones' paper gives pretty good evidence of it. He does a really bad job of saying so. Very poor showmanship skills on his part. But the science is pretty strong.

Jones wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit him on the a$$. The science is non-existent. Showmanship skills is all he has. He estimates that ten tons of unreacted "thermitic material" is in the dust. This is the highly reactive thermitic material that won't react.

Would you like to discuss the paper in detail?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The NT was hit mid elevation high up and if you look at the orientation of the core steel relative to the impact that's why you see what you see as the collapes initiates.