The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

originally posted by: AutisticEvo
a reply to: mrthumpy


All you need to do is find a photo after the collapse that shows the UNCUT ibeams.

If you can do that, I will forget all the other inconsistencies with " a plane or fire caused vertical collapse" and never speak of an inside job again.

Deal?

Deal

www.metabunk.org...


Plus core columns still standing after the collapse

a reply to: AutisticEvo

Another falsehood, the towers were built with departures from code? Is that false. What year of codes was the towers built to? Pre-9/11, the WTC fire insulation was found deficient. Is that false. I don’t think jet impacts that removed the fire insulation, removed outer columns, removed core columns, caused load redistributions, and introduced thermal strain with uneven heating and cooling was remodeling to code?

a reply to: AutisticEvo

Soooo.

Have that explanation for what caused the inward bowing and buckling of the outer columns that initiated collapse as seen in the video in the linked to thread below?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

A collapse with absolutely zero evidence of cut columns. A collapse initiated with absolutely zero evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel with zero probability a CD system would survive jet impacts and fire?

With a collapse that looks nothing like an implosion? With long lengths of vertical columns still standing after the complete collapse of of the towers’ floor system?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux You post so much nonsense. When a 110-floor building collapses you not going to hear explosions on the way down, that noise would be undetectable as these explosions are occurring inside the building. People reported hearing explosions inside the building, basement floor, near the elevators and on different floors untouched by fires. Did you hear this noise personally on TV no that sound is undetectable if you not in or near or close to o the building when it collapsed.

Why would you not hear detonations that would be louder and at higher frequencies than the rumble of building collapse?

Any detonation capable of cutting steel would be 130 to 140 DB, and be heard from the outside.

The collapse of the towers were initiated by buckling outer columns as attested to by video evidence. No cut columns. The core was not cut and dropped, or a shockwave would have traveled up the tower before collapse.

Something initiated the collapse when it was relatively quiet, and it was not detonations with the force to cut steel.

There is no seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel.

There is no visible shockwaves, flashes, evidence of ejected splintered steel in buildings where tarps, traps, nor water barrels were set up to catch shrapnel. Items commonly used in implosions to protect nearby property and persons.

Example of a building not properly set up to trap shrapnel from an implosion.

Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

www.canberratimes.com.au...
The public's attendance was encouraged by the then ACT Liberal Government. Katie was standing more than 400m away from the explosion but killed instantly when she was hit by a piece of flying steel.

Break

Seconds after the explosion on that Sunday afternoon, Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.

Any evidence splintered steel was ejected out of buildings mostly built out of steel columns at 140 km/h?

I consider this unlikely, the area around the WTC towers was busy and noisy with people and vehicles were coming and going with sirens on. When the buildings started falling that would drown out any internal noise from inside the towers.

The 130b- is the noise of a power drill or security alarm. Twin Towers falling would have sounded like a 2.5 to 3.5 earthquake .

Actually, truly nobody knows where the collapse event initiated. All you see is the severe crushing and then a ball of fire, then you see building parts starting flying everywhere as the buildings are coming down floor by floor.

You can access the steel cores by way of the elevators shafts. The Skeptics keep claiming how did conspirators wire up a 110 building unnoticed? Have they ever heard of working late at night when everyone went home and have they ever heard of the setting off explosions wirelessly, absolutely zero need to run wires along every floor.The conspirators only had to access the elevators and they have complete access to the cores across the building. What the people report on the day hearing explosions in and around near the elevator shafts, afterwards when the plane had already hit.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

I think it’s sad people are suckered by the charlatans of the truth movement with false pictures of thermite cuts, fraudulent thermite research, and pseudoscience. People that enable the exploitation of 9/11, and ignore the real incompetence of the government.

Then provide evidence something other than inward bowing leading to vertical column buckling resulting in collapse for the WTC Towers? As seen in the video in the linked to thread below.

www.metabunk.org...



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

I find it odd I want to talk about the evidence in the actual video and audio of the Towers’ collapse. The actual moment the collapse was caught on video. From different angles. And the lack of evidence for planted explosives.

You want to change the subject to Shanksville and passports to prove planted explosives at the WTC?

Don’t worry, typical conspiracist’s behavior.....

Why is the thermite research fraudulent? Professor Harrit is a professor who did teach at a University? Are you just unhappy with the results? The Skeptics have failed to debunk his findings so not sure why you keep saying its fraudulent? The Skeptics claimed the red/grey chips were just primer paint but when they tried to ignite the primer paint at the temperatures Harrit observed nothing happened.

I don’t know? Something about a journal caught in play to pay publishing. The papers’s peer reviewed skipped the appointed peer review referee. The person that was bypassed over as referee quit the journal over the fraudulent action of the journal. A person that helped with the paper’s writing was a peer reviewer. Another breach of ethics. The research into thermite never completed the discovery process. The samples were never independently verified by other labs. And other samples of WTC dust analyzed revealed no thermite.

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Posted by chrismohr

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Here is Jim Millette's latest reply to the new 9/11 Truth chant that "he didn't do DSC so his testing is invalid":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim

Here is another link on another study that was going to prove thermite? And after something like 50 months, people are still waiting on the results. Sort of like AE’s WTC 7 evolution’s finished report, and opening the report to public review?

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
www.internationalskeptics.com...

And if my understanding of the Harrit’s paper is correct, quote from the paper thermite was found? Or does the paper claim a thermite like reaction occurred?

Professor Harrit published his findings on this website because it was less expensive to do so and people can readily gain access to it for free. Some sites charge people for access. There absolutely no evidence that Professor Harrit is a charlatan or fraud, and he has published peer review pieces before and nobody said his work was nonsense then.

Professor Harrit samples seem unique I will agree with you on that, but you have ignored what he said. The red/grey chips they saw are unreacted thermite and they can only be seen by microscope. If unreacted that means for some reason the chips did not ignite. Thermite of this size would be nano-thermite ( nano just means tiny or small)

Quote
'My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite'

So this person admits the characteristics are consistent Professor Harrit was not lying. He just doubts their conclusion what they saw was thermite? So what does he think the red/grey chips are then if not thermite?

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

I think it’s sad people are suckered by the charlatans of the truth movement with false pictures of thermite cuts, fraudulent thermite research, and pseudoscience. People that enable the exploitation of 9/11, and ignore the real incompetence of the government.

Then provide evidence something other than inward bowing leading to vertical column buckling resulting in collapse for the WTC Towers? As seen in the video in the linked to thread below.

www.metabunk.org...



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

I find it odd I want to talk about the evidence in the actual video and audio of the Towers’ collapse. The actual moment the collapse was caught on video. From different angles. And the lack of evidence for planted explosives.

You want to change the subject to Shanksville and passports to prove planted explosives at the WTC?

Don’t worry, typical conspiracist’s behavior.....

Why is the thermite research fraudulent? Professor Harrit is a professor who did teach at a University? Are you just unhappy with the results? The Skeptics have failed to debunk his findings so not sure why you keep saying its fraudulent? The Skeptics claimed the red/grey chips were just primer paint but when they tried to ignite the primer paint at the temperatures Harrit observed nothing happened.

I don’t know? Something about a journal caught in play to pay publishing. The papers’s peer reviewed skipped the appointed peer review referee. The person that was bypassed over as referee quit the journal over the fraudulent action of the journal. A person that helped with the paper’s writing was a peer reviewer. Another breach of ethics. The research into thermite never completed the discovery process. The samples were never independently verified by other labs. And other samples of WTC dust analyzed revealed no thermite.

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Posted by chrismohr

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Here is Jim Millette's latest reply to the new 9/11 Truth chant that "he didn't do DSC so his testing is invalid":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim

Here is another link on another study that was going to prove thermite? And after something like 50 months, people are still waiting on the results. Sort of like AE’s WTC 7 evolution’s finished report, and opening the report to public review?

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
www.internationalskeptics.com...

And if my understanding of the Harrit’s paper is correct, quote from the paper thermite was found? Or does the paper claim a thermite like reaction occurred?

Professor Harrit samples seem unique I will agree with you on that, but you have ignored what he said. The red/grey chips they saw are unreacted thermite and they can only be seen by microscope. If unreacted that means for some reason the chips did not ignite. Thermite of this size would be nano-thermite ( nano just means tiny or small)


So this person admits the characteristics are consistent Professor Harrit was not lying. He just doubts their conclusion what they saw was thermite? So what does he think the red/grey chips are then if not thermite?

No, nanoparticles are between 1 and 100nm (ie smaller than bacteria) not just tiny or small

And the red/grey chips are quite likely flakes of primer paint used to coat the girders before construction. The thermal output certainly doesn't match thermite

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

I found the attitude concerning the Passport odd. It is a fact personal items are expected to survive crashes. The passport was not needed as evidence, or used as a key piece of evidence. So why plant it? Why the risk? If it was planted, it could have been anyone? Like a co-conspirator wanting to make sure the individual hijacker was made known?

Where there are any passports belonging to passengers found? There were two planes that crashed in New York. It just not believable a passport would escape the plane and travel in the air for a mile before landing. Sep 11 was a Sunny day the wind to carry it would not be there. And we know this terrorist was not shown on any STV video at any airport on 9/11.

The passport was found a few blocks away on Vesey street among jet wreckage. Please cite the source claiming it was found 1 mile away.

And it’s expected personal items will survive a jet crash. Even jets knocked out of the sky by missiles.

Looters Stole Cash, Credit Cards, and Jewelry from Flight MH17 Crash Victims
Locals and armed separatist raided the scene before the investigators could even get to the suitcases.

www.theatlantic.com...

First reports where the passport was found blocks away from the crash site. Then the report was updated narrowing the distance down and was reported it was found on Vesey Street. Who knows if the update to where the passport was found is legitimate? I think it's unbelievable a passport would escape a jet-fueled explosion unscathed. The plane was going over 400 to 500mph an hour when it crashed and got devoured by the building. Even a block away what momentum forced the passport to fly over there, you think the passport would land somewhere near the building on the ground?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

I think it’s sad people are suckered by the charlatans of the truth movement with false pictures of thermite cuts, fraudulent thermite research, and pseudoscience. People that enable the exploitation of 9/11, and ignore the real incompetence of the government.

Then provide evidence something other than inward bowing leading to vertical column buckling resulting in collapse for the WTC Towers? As seen in the video in the linked to thread below.

www.metabunk.org...



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

I find it odd I want to talk about the evidence in the actual video and audio of the Towers’ collapse. The actual moment the collapse was caught on video. From different angles. And the lack of evidence for planted explosives.

You want to change the subject to Shanksville and passports to prove planted explosives at the WTC?

Don’t worry, typical conspiracist’s behavior.....

Why is the thermite research fraudulent? Professor Harrit is a professor who did teach at a University? Are you just unhappy with the results? The Skeptics have failed to debunk his findings so not sure why you keep saying its fraudulent? The Skeptics claimed the red/grey chips were just primer paint but when they tried to ignite the primer paint at the temperatures Harrit observed nothing happened.

I don’t know? Something about a journal caught in play to pay publishing. The papers’s peer reviewed skipped the appointed peer review referee. The person that was bypassed over as referee quit the journal over the fraudulent action of the journal. A person that helped with the paper’s writing was a peer reviewer. Another breach of ethics. The research into thermite never completed the discovery process. The samples were never independently verified by other labs. And other samples of WTC dust analyzed revealed no thermite.

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Posted by chrismohr

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Here is Jim Millette's latest reply to the new 9/11 Truth chant that "he didn't do DSC so his testing is invalid":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim

Here is another link on another study that was going to prove thermite? And after something like 50 months, people are still waiting on the results. Sort of like AE’s WTC 7 evolution’s finished report, and opening the report to public review?

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
www.internationalskeptics.com...

And if my understanding of the Harrit’s paper is correct, quote from the paper thermite was found? Or does the paper claim a thermite like reaction occurred?

Professor Harrit samples seem unique I will agree with you on that, but you have ignored what he said. The red/grey chips they saw are unreacted thermite and they can only be seen by microscope. If unreacted that means for some reason the chips did not ignite. Thermite of this size would be nano-thermite ( nano just means tiny or small)


So this person admits the characteristics are consistent Professor Harrit was not lying. He just doubts their conclusion what they saw was thermite? So what does he think the red/grey chips are then if not thermite?

No, nanoparticles are between 1 and 100nm (ie smaller than bacteria) not just tiny or small

And the red/grey chips are quite likely flakes of primer paint used to coat the girders before construction. The thermal output certainly doesn't match thermite

Yes, the size of red/grey chips is 100nm that only can be seen with an electron microscope.

The primer paint has been debunked for a number of years now. NIST listed in their report the primer paint used, and the manufacturer. Harrit had gotten samples of the primer paint used. He discovered the samples did not match. The chemical composition of the primer paint is not the same as the red/grey chips. So we know the primer paint explantaion does not work.
Harrit tested the Red/Grey chips at 430c and they ignited and Iron Microspheres were produced, nothing happened when he carried out the exact same experiment on the WTC towers primer paint.

a reply to: Jesushere

First reports where the passport was found blocks away from the crash site. Then the report was updated narrowing the distance down and was reported it was found on Vesey Street. Who knows if the update to where the passport was found is legitimate?

So this is your response to being asked to post a source saying it was found a mile away?

I think it's unbelievable a passport would escape a jet-fueled explosion unscathed.

Why?

Humans have fallen out of planes many km's up in the sky an survived.


Other crashes have had many personal belonging recoverable and identifiable.

The plane was going over 400 to 500mph an hour when it crashed and got devoured by the building. Even a block away what momentum forced the passport to fly over there, you think the passport would land somewhere near the building on the ground?

Have ever heard of the term kinetic forces?

There are a million or more factors involved to explain how and why the passport fell where it did and not else where.

a reply to: Jesushere

Conspiracists and false information.....

The 130b- is the noise of a power drill or security alarm. Twin Towers falling would have sounded like a 2.5 to 3.5 earthquake .

A thunder clap is 120 db. You cannot hear thunder on a busy street? Really? A jack hammer is 100 db. You cannot hear a jack hammer over the noise of a busy street?

If the towers’ collapse was initiated by detonations with the force to cut steel which would be at least 130 dB blasts, nobody would hear because of street noise? Would not be captured with handheld video cameras with the microphones pointed at the towers? That is a false statement. See list below. By the way, the loudest street noise by car is under 100 dB.

www.chem.purdue.edu...
Noise Sources and Their Effects

If the WTC towers were brought down by planted explosives capable of cutting steel, the explosions would have been captured in the audio. Funny you can here detonations in the videos of city implosions over street noise, at some distance from the safe zones?
And there still would be visible shockwaves with splintered steel being ejected out at 140km/h.

Actually, truly nobody knows where the collapse event initiated. All you see is the severe crushing and then a ball of fire, then you see building parts starting flying everywhere as the buildings are coming down floor by floor.

Really, then the below is false? Not backed by video evidence?

www.nist.gov...

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Seems like something happened at the 98 th floor and the 82 floor to make the top 12 and 28 stores fall into the towers below? And for WTC 2 at least, it was the narrow band of inward bowing outer vertical columns that buckled.

Again. Video of the inward bowing leading to buckling initiating collapse of WTC 2 in the thread linked below.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

You explain what caused the initiation of collapse by citing the ample video and audio evidence.

InhaleExhale A few blocks in New York is a good distance, the streets are long. Maybe not a mile, either way, half a mile or less it still unbelievable a passport escaped from a plane, escaped the jet-fueled fire, started flying in the sky ( no wind, by the way, was a nice Sunny day) and then landed blocks away maybe? Then an unidentified man hands this passport over and never seen or heard from again. Maybe this man did not hear on the news his story and was so shy he did not tell anyone about his incredible fortune of finding a 9/11 hijacker passport?

Humans don't take off over buildings and end up on another street? When they fall they come down 50 to 100 yards from where they fell. I not arguing items survive plane crashes, it just not believable a passport would be found when you see what happened to the plane and the resulting fireball.

a reply to: Jesushere

Actually the primer as a source has not been debunked.

Whole informed discussion below with cited sources.

investigating-active-thermitic-material-discovered-in-dust-from-the-9-11-wtc-catastrophe.t9485/

www.metabunk.org...

You are referring to Harrit that cannot not even go through a ethical peer review. And has never completed the discovery process by having independent labs verify his analysis.

He has no credibility. What do you not get about that? Ohhh, because you only need belief. Not verifiable results.

Your credibility is pretty much in the tank..... and still declining.

Unless you want to start actual citing sources, and the actual wording of those sources?

a reply to: Jesushere

The passport was found with jet wreckage, is that false? With the jet wreckage on Vesey Street. Is that false? And there is a history of IDs surviving crashes. Funny what happens when you provide actual context.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

I think it’s sad people are suckered by the charlatans of the truth movement with false pictures of thermite cuts, fraudulent thermite research, and pseudoscience. People that enable the exploitation of 9/11, and ignore the real incompetence of the government.

Then provide evidence something other than inward bowing leading to vertical column buckling resulting in collapse for the WTC Towers? As seen in the video in the linked to thread below.

www.metabunk.org...



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

I find it odd I want to talk about the evidence in the actual video and audio of the Towers’ collapse. The actual moment the collapse was caught on video. From different angles. And the lack of evidence for planted explosives.

You want to change the subject to Shanksville and passports to prove planted explosives at the WTC?

Don’t worry, typical conspiracist’s behavior.....

Why is the thermite research fraudulent? Professor Harrit is a professor who did teach at a University? Are you just unhappy with the results? The Skeptics have failed to debunk his findings so not sure why you keep saying its fraudulent? The Skeptics claimed the red/grey chips were just primer paint but when they tried to ignite the primer paint at the temperatures Harrit observed nothing happened.

I don’t know? Something about a journal caught in play to pay publishing. The papers’s peer reviewed skipped the appointed peer review referee. The person that was bypassed over as referee quit the journal over the fraudulent action of the journal. A person that helped with the paper’s writing was a peer reviewer. Another breach of ethics. The research into thermite never completed the discovery process. The samples were never independently verified by other labs. And other samples of WTC dust analyzed revealed no thermite.

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Posted by chrismohr

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Here is Jim Millette's latest reply to the new 9/11 Truth chant that "he didn't do DSC so his testing is invalid":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim

Here is another link on another study that was going to prove thermite? And after something like 50 months, people are still waiting on the results. Sort of like AE’s WTC 7 evolution’s finished report, and opening the report to public review?

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
www.internationalskeptics.com...

And if my understanding of the Harrit’s paper is correct, quote from the paper thermite was found? Or does the paper claim a thermite like reaction occurred?

Professor Harrit samples seem unique I will agree with you on that, but you have ignored what he said. The red/grey chips they saw are unreacted thermite and they can only be seen by microscope. If unreacted that means for some reason the chips did not ignite. Thermite of this size would be nano-thermite ( nano just means tiny or small)


So this person admits the characteristics are consistent Professor Harrit was not lying. He just doubts their conclusion what they saw was thermite? So what does he think the red/grey chips are then if not thermite?

No, nanoparticles are between 1 and 100nm (ie smaller than bacteria) not just tiny or small

And the red/grey chips are quite likely flakes of primer paint used to coat the girders before construction. The thermal output certainly doesn't match thermite

Yes, the size of red/grey chips is 100nm that only can be seen with an electron microscope.

The primer paint has been debunked for a number of years now. NIST listed in their report the primer paint used, and the manufacturer. Harrit had gotten samples of the primer paint used. He discovered the samples did not match. The chemical composition of the primer paint is not the same as the red/grey chips. So we know the primer paint explantaion does not work.
Harrit tested the Red/Grey chips at 430c and they ignited and Iron Microspheres were produced, nothing happened when he carried out the exact same experiment on the WTC towers primer paint.

I can't see specifically where Harrit tested the same paint as was used. There may have been a numbe rof different paints used

Iron microspheres are very easy to produce - you can do it with wire wool and a disposable lighter

neutronflux @ www.youtube.com... This video here you hear multiple sounds when the tower started falling, the noise even sounds like demolition blasts going off. Even on the lower floors, you see puffs of smoke blowing out the windows, before the collapse floors reached there. In my opinion, though, it would be hard to discern the differences between demolition and building collapse noise. Like are we hearing a building collapsing noise or are we hearing steel cores being blown up when the building coming down?

a reply to: Jesushere

InhaleExhale A few blocks in New York is a good distance, the streets are long. Maybe not a mile, either way, half a mile or less it still unbelievable a passport escaped from a plane, escaped the jet-fueled fire, started flying in the sky ( no wind, by the way, was a nice Sunny day) and then landed blocks away maybe?

So I take it that's a no

you don't know or understand what kinetic energy is?

No wind?


You mention the explosions, you saw them, they were quite large fireballs.


How is it possible for there to be no wind when there was such a disruption to the surrounding environment just moments before?


No wind? I hope that was some sort of joke.

Humans don't take off over buildings and end up on another street?

Who said they did?

However if a human has a lot of momentum and when whatever causes that momentum to stop the human keep going in the direction the momentum was going.

The more momentum the further one will travel.

I not arguing items survive plane crashes, it just not believable a passport would be found when you see what happened to the plane and the resulting fireball.

Actually it is believable


just do some research and look a plane crashes and see that is very believable because many unbelievable happen in plane crashes.


Why?

because when something so severe is happening like a plane crashing and impacting something there are millions of factors involved to explain why any certain object behaved the way it did.

each object one decides to try and explain why and how it ended up where it did will all have differing factors.

neutronflux I never read any reports the passport was found with Jet Wreckage. When the towers came down jet wreckage would probably reach to Vesey street as it only a block away.

Did any of the 9/11 passengers passports survive?

Mrthumpy. His paper is online and is free to access he talks about his primer paint experiments in his paper. NIST listed all the primer paints used. if people believe different primer paints were used, they need to provide evidence for that.

You can but the red/grey chips are unique. Skeptics, have never disproved Harrit theory, the chips are unreacted nano-thermite. They have claimed it was primer paint that doesn't work. So what else do they think it is?

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux I never read any reports the passport was found with Jet Wreckage. When the towers came down jet wreckage would probably reach to Vesey street as it only a block away.

Did any of the 9/11 passengers passports survive?

The one found at Vesey Street. How many passports on a domestic flight? How many passengers were up front? They found jet wreckage on the street. And scores of ID cards from 9/11 victims in the hand searching of WTC rubble at Fresh Kills. And they recovered human remains of the passengers. You tell me? Be warned, I think I can think of one another passenger ID recovered...... but they did recover other personnel effects from the passenger jets that hit the towers. That is a fact.

a reply to: Jesushere

How is that explanation of the inward bowing and buckling of WTC 2 coming along? Would you care to cite more falsehoods from the charlatans of the truth movement?