The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

Just found this juicy nugget on Oystein page, a comment from him

3. I am heavily involved, and have pushed Chris to in turn push Jim to focus on chips a-d, and identify it as either LaClede, or disprove our theory (and perhaps offer a different one). So far this has given us mixed results: Jim agrees that all the ingredients are typical for primer paint, he agrees that the chip a-d type is not Tnemec, but he has also not been able to positively identify LaClede, or otherwise identify the specific paint product. I expect that his final report will be clearer on that topic. But in reality, my (our) objective takes only 3rd place here; I provided a small percentage of the money, and a little advice; but he is the expert, my money won't buy much from him, and who am I to give him advice

Oystein lets out the bag here the chips are not Tnemec. Fail for the Skeptics.

Unable to postively identify LaClede. So you just made it all up so because if you had a source for this it would have idenified the paint was used.

originally posted by: Jesushere

where is quoted they used this paint on the floor trusses?

Appendix B

Have fun.

ws680.nist.gov...

waypastvne what page?

originally posted by: Jesushere
waypastvne what page?

Appendix B

a reply to: Jesushere

Oystein lets out the bag here the chips are not Tnemec. Fail for the Skeptics.

Unable to postively identify LaClede. So you just made it all up so because if you had a source for this it would have idenified the paint was used.

This is what honesty and working to the truth looks like. I know it’s confusing.

It’s not like they bought an unethical peer review, used pseudoscience to draw a conclusion, will not complete the discovery process, will not release their samples for an independent confirmation, and then will not publish any additional results of analysis to conclusively prove or disprove thermite.

Why would you need a paper at all if you used proven analytical forensic science to prove active thermite? Because it is about the show.

waypastvne It does confirm Leclede paint but it doesn't go into detail this was used but I have no reason to not believe it wasn't the paint used. Was this published in 2005. It very interesting to see Oystein blog from 2012, and he never found this, you think a guy writing blogs and investigating this topic would have found the pdf by 2012.

First issue. The red chips have a grey side, this unlikely if it was paint. Both sides should be uniform in color if it was paint.

The ingredients in the Leclede paint are interesting but basic. It's a pity this was not tested though.Spiked exothermic DSC peak test would have to be carried out. Harrit claims the elemental aluminium separated from the silicon and this is unlikely to happen in a paint mix.

a reply to: Jesushere

First issue. The red chips have a grey side, this unlikely if it was paint. Both sides should be uniform in color if it was paint.

I think you have base metal coated with primer coated with paint?

a reply to: Jesushere

Why would thermite have a grey side and a red side. Wouldn’t you want the elemental aluminum evenly distributed with the iron oxide in ratios to each other as required by the thermite reaction?

waypastvne Actually I could be wrong Harrit never tested the Leclede paint he categorically states he tested all paints listed by NIST.

originally posted by: Jesushere
waypastvne Actually I could be wrong Harrit never tested the Leclede paint he categorically states he tested all paints listed by NIST.

Harrit also pushed the narrative of an ethical peer review of his paper too......

a reply to: Jesushere

It’s always ok to question, but let’s put the thermite claim in prospective?

Why would anyone expect the grey/red chips to be anything but paint and primer? Can you cite thermal imaging of temperatures which thermite burns from the WTC? Can you cite one example of any physical evidence from the WTC the steel was cut by demolitions before cleanup started?

If Harrit believed in thermite, any credible forensic lab should have been able to conduct an analysis. Are peer reviews written for every conclusion by forensic scientists from established lab procedures? No. There is a reason Harrit chose the route of a paper and a shady journal. He wanted to control the results to spin them the way he wanted.

The Harrit paper is more complex, but has the same level of intellectual dishonesty as pushing photos of columns cut at the WTC by cleanup crews as cut by thermite.

The reason people get tired of the truth movement, it’s cult members are easily fooled in ignoring the most obvious answer into believing some convoluted fantasy.

Was there any reason to believe the pictures of columns cut at the WTC was cut by thermite, no.

Was there any reason for Harrit to write a paper. No, any competent independent forensic lab should have been able to prove, or disprove thermite.

Was there any reason to believe the chips were not paint and primer. No.

I have started to read the 9/11 commission report and noticed 40 pages in, serious flaws. I keep reading it but so far here is what I found.

This is one is a blatant lie.

The 9/11 commission states at page 40 that Dick Cheney was taken to an underground bunker underneath the White House at 9.37am, around the time of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

We know this is a lie. Norman Minetta the transport secretary in 2001 said he saw Dick Cheney in the underground bunker between the hour of 9.20am and 9.30am. Dick Cheney 16th September 2001 was on ABC news and he stated after the second plane hit, he got on the phone about seven minutes later around 9.10am the secret service rushed in and took him to the underground bunker. Why is the 9/11 commision stating something that clearly false?

The 9/11 commission report also made a claim Flight 11 was hijacked in under 16 seconds. Remember our recovered passport hijacker. was on this plane. The ATC was in contact with the pilot at 8.14am, 16 seconds later pilot was given an instruction to head to 35,000 feet and no communication was received back. 16 seconds to overpower a plane with passengers and take out a flight crew bull#.

The 9/11 commission reports that Renee May( onboard flight 77) saw 6 hijackers on the plane. We got one extra hijacker on the plane not accounted for by the FBI.

It got stranger passengers reported the pilot communicated the plane was hijacked to the passengers. Unlike flight 175 and flight 11 there no reported stabbings or incidents just men with box cutters. Barbara Olsen hints that maybe one of the pilots was in the back with the passengers? What happened to the other pilot?

Flight 93 several passenger-only saw 3 hijackers, not 4. We got an extra hijacker or the pilot or someone else was involved in the hijacking?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

It’s always ok to question, but let’s put the thermite claim in prospective?

Why would anyone expect the grey/red chips to be anything but paint and primer? Can you cite thermal imaging of temperatures which thermite burns from the WTC? Can you cite one example of any physical evidence from the WTC the steel was cut by demolitions before cleanup started?

If Harrit believed in thermite, any credible forensic lab should have been able to conduct an analysis. Are peer reviews written for every conclusion by forensic scientists from established lab procedures? No. There is a reason Harrit chose the route of a paper and a shady journal. He wanted to control the results to spin them the way he wanted.

The Harrit paper is more complex, but has the same level of intellectual dishonesty as pushing photos of columns cut at the WTC by cleanup crews as cut by thermite.

The reason people get tired of the truth movement, it’s cult members are easily fooled in ignoring the most obvious answer into believing some convoluted fantasy.

Was there any reason to believe the pictures of columns cut at the WTC was cut by thermite, no.

Was there any reason for Harrit to write a paper. No, any competent independent forensic lab should have been able to prove, or disprove thermite.

Was there any reason to believe the chips were not paint and primer. No.

The steel was hauled away to China and even the senators during a Senate hearing about 9/11 described it as a crime.

Harrit paper is not fraudulent its a working theory what could have caused building 7 to collapse. He tested NIST listed paints and nothing matched up. There always a possibility of cross-contamination?

We know for a fact people saw melted steel molten metal molten iron there far to too many eyewitnesses who saw this and NIST denies anyone saw it. Why would you believe NIST when they lie so blatantly? Even if was not molten steel after the testing was done, that does not excuse lying about what people say they saw, that's denying the evidence.

We know the fires did get put out till Dec 2001 so something underneath the rubble was maintaining the heat.

a reply to: Jesushere

We know the fires did get put out till Dec 2001 so something underneath the rubble was maintaining the heat.

Perfectly normal.
That is why fire fighters remain on scene for many hours or days on large fires.
Don't trust google , go ask any fire fighter.

a reply to: Jesushere

Give the quotes of the melted steel and the context. There is not that many to quote.

Again, show where the thermal imaging you keep invoking ever showed hotspots at which thermite burns.

You

The steel was hauled away to China and even the senators during a Senate hearing about 9/11 described it as a crime.

Show one picture from all the pictures of the WTC rubble that showed melted steel columns, or thermite cuts.

The steel was fist taken to Fresh Kills for identifying and examination. There are video and records of steel samples taken and analyzed.

Steel was held for use in a warship, and there are numerous WTC pieces used as memorials across the USA.

Anymore blantant falsehoods by you?

Please show video of thermite still sparking after the WTC collapse.

Explain how a CD system would still be functional after jet impacts and fires.

Please explain what caused the inward bowing leading to collapse by buckled columns, not cut columns as seen in the video evidence. An example is in the video in the thread below.

www.metabunk.org...

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

Harrits paper is junk science that never conducted an experiment based on properties exclusive to thermite to conclusively prove thermite. Your false assurances that Harrit tested for enough free elemental aluminum to declare active thermite were blatant falsehoods.

There is zero credibile evidence of CD.

a reply to: Jesushere

So you cannot point to any video evidence why thermite should be taken seriously? From all the video of the collapsing towers? Thermite is a joke.

a reply to: Jesushere

How would inconstant burning thermite be set up in a sophisticated top down split timed fantasy CD and still maintain its integrity required for the degree of sophistication after the jet impacts and fires? And not one piece of video evidence of a cut column on the numerous outer vertical columns from a CD the truth movement claims had to remove the resistance of every floor! From thermite that would require two to three minutes to cut through if the thermite could even achieve a cutting velocity? Thermite does not pressure away the molten steel like a blow torch.

neutronflux Just this one video debunks NIST claim nobody saw Molten Steel

Leslie Robertson lead structural engineer of the Twin Towers gave a lecture at Stanford University and he saw Molten Steel. Does NIST doubt his credibility and knowledge?

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Jesushere

Commence sense tells a person of normal intelligence there would be no pure molten anything. Nobody is discrediting there was probably molten globs of plastic, lead, copper, aluminum, and silver/solder. Molten metal does not equate molten steel.