The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jesushere

Two planes crashed you going to find lifevests from the two planes scattered around New York.

So are you admitting things can survive a fire ball.

That's a big step forward.

Was not reported the man who ran away was wearing a business suit?

Business attire.

Never said otherwise. Objects can fall off or out of the plane when it collides with another object. The complaint I had was the passport is alleged to have been found on a street near the Banker Trust building? How did the hijacker passport end up over there? Flight 11 hit Tower 1 on the opposite side that means the passport had to go through the building exit out fly in the air for least 50 to 100 feet and land.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jesushere


It makes more sense the central core resistance got removed and the building then fell into freefall speed coming down.

Freefall is not a speed. There is no such thing. Only Truthers use the term "freefall speed. If the speed was constant then WTC7 would be falling at terminal Velocity, which would probably be somewhere around mach 1. The proper fraise is free fall acceleration, a constant increase in velocity at a constant rate. On earth it's 32' per second per second.

If you want us to stop laughing at you, then you should probably stop using the phrase "freefall speed"

Did you know WTC7 fell at a rate faster than free fall acceleration for most of that 2.25 seconds.

Every thing above the black line is slower than FFA. Every thing below is faster than FFA. It got up to around 39' per second per second.

Can you explain to us how Nano Thermite made it accelerate faster than FFA.

Acceleration is an increase in speed. That absolutely nothing wrong in saying freefall speed occurred. The proper term is actually gravitational acceleration.

WTC7 you claim fell faster than gravity would allow that's an interesting statement.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

Professor Harrit paper was peer-reviewed by the Physics Dept at BYU and accepted as scientifically sound.

First thought? Why would a physics department peer review a chemistry paper?

Bullet point from Steven E. Jones BYU home page below. No mention of BYU. The link to the paper does not work?

www.physics.byu.edu...
Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.

Then this is what is written about Jones’s “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on Wikipedia.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Jones placed a research paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on his page in the Physics department Web site, noting that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.[21]

Jones subsequently presented the WTC research in lectures at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave.[29] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and that perhaps Jones' research had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.

This is what Wikipedia has on Jones’s involvement with the active thermite paper

en.m.wikipedia.org...
In April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[47] The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,[48][49] resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.[50][51] According to Pileni, the article was published without her authorization. Subsequently, numerous concerns arose regarding the reliability of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishing. This included the publishing an allegedly peer reviewed article generated by SCIgen [52] (although this program has also successfully submitted papers to IEEE and Springer [53]), the resignation of multiple people at the administrative level,[54][55] and soliciting article submissions from researchers in unrelated fields through spam.[56] With regard to the peer review process of the research conducted by Jones in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, David Griscom identified himself as one of the reviewers.[57] The paper which Jones co-authored referenced Griscom, and multiple scientists studying 9/11, in the acknowledgements for "elucidating discussions and encouragements".[19] Almost four years prior to identifying himself as a reviewer and the welcome he received from Jones for speaking out boldly,[58] Griscom published a letter in defense of evidence-based 9/11 studies;[59] of which Jones was an editor.[60]

Scientists who study chemical physics peer reviewed the paper.

BYU admin is protecting is own interests. This is not uncommon. The Skeptics probably bombarded them with complaints about the subject. Skeptics are zealots BYU Administration did not want to stick its neck out and support this paper. Scientists are individuals they often support non-conformist ideas and are not bogged down by the politics of it all.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

Professor Harrit paper was peer-reviewed by the Physics Dept at BYU and accepted as scientifically sound.

can you back this up by a cited source. Was the lead peer reviewer David L. Griscom, PhD, who is part of a truth movement group called scholars for 9/11 truth and justice. That does not seem like a independent peer review? Seems like a biased peer review.

9/11 happened 17 years ago. Skeptics label everyone who disbelieves the official story about 9/11 a truther. Pentbom leading FBI agent said 9/11 was a conspiracy. He's come out and said it bluntly the US government covered up Saudi Arabia involvement with the 9/11 attacks. He Probably be labelled a truther too by Skeptics. Artichects and engineers many scientists have valid reasons for not believing the official story. They did not all come out as disbelievers overnight they looked at the science and researched the topic and then supported what the truth movement had to say.

David L. Griscom, PhD, was a peer reviewer but there is no evidence he was not an independent reviewer. He was convinced by the evidence and then joined the truther camp.

David Griscom a bio is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has "referred at least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts" and was himself published twelve times in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

Professor Harrit paper was peer-reviewed by the Physics Dept at BYU and accepted as scientifically sound.

First thought? Why would a physics department peer review a chemistry paper?

Bullet point from Steven E. Jones BYU home page below. No mention of BYU. The link to the paper does not work?

www.physics.byu.edu...
Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.

Then this is what is written about Jones’s “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on Wikipedia.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Jones placed a research paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on his page in the Physics department Web site, noting that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.[21]

Jones subsequently presented the WTC research in lectures at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave.[29] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and that perhaps Jones' research had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.

This is what Wikipedia has on Jones’s involvement with the active thermite paper

en.m.wikipedia.org...
In April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[47] The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,[48][49] resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.[50][51] According to Pileni, the article was published without her authorization. Subsequently, numerous concerns arose regarding the reliability of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishing. This included the publishing an allegedly peer reviewed article generated by SCIgen [52] (although this program has also successfully submitted papers to IEEE and Springer [53]), the resignation of multiple people at the administrative level,[54][55] and soliciting article submissions from researchers in unrelated fields through spam.[56] With regard to the peer review process of the research conducted by Jones in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, David Griscom identified himself as one of the reviewers.[57] The paper which Jones co-authored referenced Griscom, and multiple scientists studying 9/11, in the acknowledgements for "elucidating discussions and encouragements".[19] Almost four years prior to identifying himself as a reviewer and the welcome he received from Jones for speaking out boldly,[58] Griscom published a letter in defense of evidence-based 9/11 studies;[59] of which Jones was an editor.[60]

Scientists who study chemical physics peer reviewed the paper.

BYU admin is protecting is own interests. This is not uncommon. The Skeptics probably bombarded them with complaints about the subject. Skeptics are zealots BYU Administration did not want to stick its neck out and support this paper. Scientists are individuals they often support non-conformist ideas and are not bogged down by the politics of it all.

Why would work associates and people from Jones’s own department be asked to independently peer review a paper he worked on.

INYU palled and an early WTC paper from their site because it was more speculation than science. Not from pressure by any group. Do you have proof otherwise?

How does a whole physics department a coauthor of the paper who worked for that department independently peer review a paper.

You

Professor Harrit paper was peer-reviewed by the Physics Dept at BYU and accepted as scientifically sound.

Is this statement another blatant falsehood by you?

neutronflux I don't see any point in me addressing your other points as you seem unable to grasp what has already been found.

FEMA was handed a WTC7 steel sample to look at. Fact, not a lie most of the steel was got rid of hastily and shipped away in two weeks to China. This is a criminal act. That FEMA only got two pieces to look at is scandalous.

You keep claiming there no evidence of cut steel. Yet the two samples FEMA have from WTC7 and one of the towers clearly shows the steel was dissolved by high temp oxidation. We know because science says so steel does not melt below 1300c.

And you ignored NIST own statement that no fire inside building 7 had reached a temp above 600c at any time during the day.

You have not addressed this at all. Do you believe NIST or not about the temp of fire inside WTC7?

a reply to: Jesushere

That is typical of you. You try create false narratives by posting blatantly falsehoods. You get called out, the you try to change the subject. Which is typical for most conspiracists in the 9/11 forum. Why do you think most people turned on the truth movement. Because there is no proof of planted charges st the WTC, the truth movement used pseudoscience, and right out lies.

Now. Why would you post

Professor Harrit paper was peer-reviewed by the Physics Dept at BYU and accepted as scientifically sound.

Is that a total fabrication by you?

Or can you cite the source that would cause you to post Harrit and Jones’s active thermite paper was peer reviewed as a whole by the BYU physics department, and sanction by the BYU as scientifically sound?

Who in the BYU physics department had the credentials and background to peer over what is essentially a forensic chemistry problem concerning pyrotechnics?

Thermite (/ˈθɜːrmaɪt/)[1] is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder, which serves as fuel, and metal oxide.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Jesushere

You

FEMA was handed a WTC7 steel sample to look at. Fact, not a lie most of the steel was got rid of hastily and shipped away in two weeks to China

Another blatant falsehood by you

Where the Twin Towers Ended Up

www.theatlantic.com...

When the Twin Towers came down 14 years ago, about 200,000 tons of steel slammed into the ground.

Shortly after the attacks, New York City sold 175,000 tons of World Trade Center steel scrap to be made into something else. Some went to cities in the United States; about 60,000 tons went to companies in China, India, and South Korea. But some steel was recovered from Ground Zero for a different purpose: to be memorialized.

So “about 60,000 tons went to companies in China, India, and South Korea.“ equates “most of the steel was got rid of hastily and shipped away in two weeks to China” when it took up to three months to remove all rubble from the WTC?

FORENSIC STUDY OF THE STEEL IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

ws680.nist.gov...

RECOVERY AND CATALOGING OF THE STEEL
Beginning in October 2001, the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT, led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and American Society of Civil Engineers) and members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), began work to identify and collect WTC structural steel. They collected these pieces from the various recovery yards where debris, including the steel, had been taken during the cleanup effort. NIST joined the recovery effort and provided an area for safe storage of the steel for later forensic investigation.
A major task for the NIST investigation was cataloging the recovered structural steel elements (perimeter panels, core columns, floor trusses, bolts, etc.) for further evaluation and/or testing relative to the fire and structural response of the buildings. NIST has cataloged these 236 elements, mostly from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which represent between 0.25 % to 0.5 % of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the two towers.
Critical to this task was the determination of the original, as-built location of the recovered elements within the buildings. The buildings were complex, with the 14 specified grades of steel having strengths ranging from 36 ksi to 100 ksi. To keep track of the material during construction, each piece was given a serial number indicating the location in the building. The numbers were embossed by stampings and/or painted stencils (Figure 2). In many cases the serial numbers, or at least a partial identifier, survived the collapse and subsequent recovery events. After correlating the identifiers with the structural plans for the buildings, 41 distinct perimeter panel sections were unambiguously identified from the two towers, and the location of 12 core columns was established. The following pieces of special interest were found:
WTC1 - 4 perimeter panels directly hit by the aircraft (Figure 3), - 22 perimeter panels from critical floors (91-101),
- 2 core columns from the fire-affected floors,
WTC 2
- 4 perimeter panels from near the impact floors,
- 2 core columns from the impact floors with possible impact damage.

a reply to: Jesushere

Is it false that WTC steel was identified as it was removed in the three month clean up.

Is it false clean up would stop as needed at the WTC pile to recover personal remains, personal effects, and evidence.

Is it false material from the WTC pile was taken to lay down yards such as Fresh Kills for storage, identification, sorting, sampling, and identifying. Before release.

Is it false the hand sorting of rubble resulted in 19,000 pieces of human remains recovered, 6,000 pieces of the human remains that could fit in a test tubes, and scores of ID cards were recovered. The recovered DNA and personal effects identified almost half the WTC victims?

Is it false the WTC investigation sampled steel, identified key pieces, and documented the steel through actual samples, photos, and videos.

Yet, not a single piece of evidence the WTC was worked on by demolitions. No a single piece of evidence the steel was heated to the temperatures thermite burns at, 4000F.

a reply to: Jesushere

More innuendo by you

You keep claiming there no evidence of cut steel. Yet the two samples FEMA have from WTC7 and one of the towers clearly shows the steel was dissolved by high temp oxidation. We know because science says so steel does not melt below 1300c.

One, high temps do not dissolve steel. Chemical attacks dissolve steel. Pieces of steel being dissolved with no evidence of cut ends by thermite is no evidence of C.D. Do you have evidence of a steel beam cut in half by thermite.

Two, corrosion of steel by chlorides, sulfates, and sulfites result in iron compounds with considerably lower melting points than the structural steel. Is that false?


What happen to your

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Corroding steel requires a temp of 1000c to 1500c.

All corrosions of steel? What corrosion of steel?

Another example of your total disregard for facts based on reality.

You will literally post anything that is blatantly false.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That noise heard in the WTC7 is louder than 130db. 130DB is just the noise of a drill being heard.

How can anyone at this point think you have any credibility? Or you want to take part in a serious and intellectual honest debate. Time after time you have been caught posting blatant falsehoods to try to sway the debate. Just makes you seem delusional and out of touch with real science.

a reply to: Jesushere

By the way, when you talk about the steel sold to China? How was the structural steel from WTC 1, 2 and 7 from a 3 month cleanup shipped out in two weeks. Was the steel sold to China from other buildings and destroyed cars from the streets? You may want to check what from the WTC was actually sold to China.

I do know the WTC rubble was remove methodically and carefully out of fear it was actually bracing up the slurry wall. Is that a false statement?

neutronflux Some of the WTC steel pieces was saved because a voluntary group called Civil Engineers of New York went to the dumpsite and removed the pieces. The US government was trying to get rid of it all. Most of the steel got shipped away and was not kept for future investigations and research. NIST themselves did not receive steel samples till mid-2002 and there no evidence the steel they received was heated by fires. This is a big blunder because steel members are coded and you check reference this and find the sample you need. Getting rid of the steel was a way of covering up this crime! It denies other researchers and scientists evidence to look at a later stage. If the steel was preserved where fires were present we could also determine what the rate of heat was and the damage was done.

FEMA investigation team postulated in their 2002 report, the steel samples from WTC7 and Twin Tower were corroded. It's not my theory, never was. If you had done some research none of this will be confusing for you. FEMA suggested the steel from WTC7 to have looked the way it did must have experienced a very high temp attack.

Quoting you. Now this made me laugh and just another example of your lack of knowledge.

"One, high temps do not dissolve steel. Chemical attacks dissolve steel"

Again you posting falsely because as I have shown you steel members cut by standard thermite and the steel had holes in it resulting from thermite igniting. FEMA WTC7 steel sample had identical hole cutouts.

We have the video. Clean out your earwax if you truly don't think that sound is over 130db. I hear a very loud bang noise and this was recorded many buildings away from WTC7

You just waffling about other things that have no relevance to this discussion.

a reply to: Jesushere

You

Fact, not a lie most of the steel was got rid of hastily and shipped away in two weeks to China.

Was true? For a pile that took 3 months to cleanup? And sent to China? Tuned into the below

neutronflux Some of the WTC steel pieces was saved because a voluntary group called Civil Engineers of New York went to the dumpsite and removed the pieces.

How? It was sent to China? And why would they be allowed to enter the dump site.

This is reality.
Supposedly only 60,000 of the total 300,000 tons of recyclable steel was sold to China. Out of the 300,000 tons, 200,000 tons was WTC steel.

Several groups where doing their thing before NIST took the lead role in August 2002? Just another road block to your false narrative. How did NIST have the authority to send steel to China anyway?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

NIST began its investigation on 21 August 2002. Prior to this date, volunteers from NIST, FEMA, ASCE and others collected steel members important to the investigation from the four steel recycling facilities during the recovery effort. They collected and cataloged 236 steel artifacts, including exterior columns, core columns, floor trusses and other similar structural members.[15] They were able to observe the metallurgical chemistry and structure and perform experiments on the recovered elements to measure their attributes such as mechanical properties under high temperatures.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Numerous volunteers organized to form "bucket brigades", which passed 5-gallon buckets full of debris down a line to investigators, who sifted through the debris in search of evidence and human remains. Ironworkers helped cut up steel beams into more manageable sizes for removal. Much of the debris was hauled off to the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island where it was further searched and sorted.[39]

nymag.com...

As soon as the second plane hit, the NYPD began treating the area around the World Trade Center as a crime scene. It was standard procedure. The incident would fall under the “mass fatality” protocol—ten or more people killed. That meant, among other things, getting the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner ready to collect bodies for identification. A group of forensic scientists, including the city’s chief medical examiner, Charles Hirsch, loaded into a white Ford Excursion and drove downtown, toward the smoking Towers. Robert Shaler, then the director of OCME’s Forensic Biology Department, stayed behind.

The WTC was treated as a crime scene. Again, there were numerous agencies with numerous technical personal that started as a rescue operation that turned into a recovery operation. There were technical personal on site from the NYPD, NYFD, and city engineers to collect evidence and remains. The FBI, FEMA, and NIST has their teams there too. In Aug 2002 NIST got the funding to take over investigation lead.

From the beginning, every effort was taken to identify and recover remains, personal effects, and evidence at the pile. Then the rubble and steel was taken to lay down yards for further examination, identification, sampling. The smaller rubble was hand searched three times using a system of conveyors.

a reply to: Jesushere

You glossing over that somehow the NYPD, NYFD, and New York City Enginners did not have the competent personal, took no action to recover evidence, and were somehow complicit in conspiracy is insulting. The departments that lost the investments of trained personnel, colleagues, and family.

It is sickening what guilt you imply by spreading your falsehoods to create false narratives. And one of your implications is New Yorkers did not treated the WTC as a crime sence, and took no action to collect evidence?

Again, how many times is the whole house saved as evidence from an arson case for years on end? Yet there are memorials containing the WTC steel in all fifty states. Up to Jun 2016, a JFK hanger housed WTC steel and Relics.

www.theatlantic.com...

For years, that steel, along with hundreds of other artifacts from that day—crushed police cars, elevator parts, souvenirs, and jewelry from the underground mall—was stored in an 80,000-square-foot hangar at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The 840 pieces of steel were cut to create 2,200 chunks. Since 2008, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has doled out these artifacts to government and

Break

The biggest chunk of steel, weighing 47,000 pounds, was given to the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation, which raises money for first responders injured or killed in the line of duty.

Funny behavior if “they” sent all the steel to China in two weeks from a rubble and steel pile that took three months to remove to lay down yards for further examination.

a reply to: Jesushere


And you still need to answer to this....

Now. Why would you post

Professor Harrit paper was peer-reviewed by the Physics Dept at BYU and accepted as scientifically sound.

Is that a total fabrication by you?

Or can you cite the source that would cause you to post Harrit and Jones’s active thermite paper was peer reviewed as a whole by the BYU physics department, and sanction by the BYU as scientifically sound?

Who in the BYU physics department had the credentials and background to peer over what is essentially a forensic chemistry problem concerning pyrotechnics?

Thermite (/ˈθɜːrmaɪt/)[1] is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder, which serves as fuel, and metal oxide.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

neutronflux Did you not notice the dates and times in the pasted info?. You think after 2 years 9/11 NIST received the steel that was touched by fires in the three towers?

The WTC steel has to be moved from dump sites and transported to cargo ships. The WTC steel will then be stored and placed on ships and can take some time for it all to arrive. When the ship sets outs for China it could take weeks to arrive even months depending on stoppages along the way.

The steel that was damaged by fire was likely transported to ships in the first two weeks or three weeks after the incident. I would not be surprised if this was done covertly and not announced. Then after a while, they had to announce this later to the public as more and more shipments of steel were shipped to China and other countries.

Civil Engineers of New York were able to retain some pieces before tons of steel members were sent to China and other volunteer groups like SEAony visited dump sites. It, not accurate FEMA and NIST collected steel samples.

When did I ever say NYPD and Civil Engineers of New York and FEMA were involved in a cover-up? Stop saying I have said this when I haven't.

Harrit paper was peer-reviewed by BYU scientists who cares if the BYU administration did not approve, they are not scientists.

a reply to: Jesushere

What are you babbling about. Did you finally lose all your marbles?

It took three months on the average of 400 dump trucks a day to remove the rubble.

Even at that pace, the steel was mythology removed from the cite to maintain the integrity of the slurry wall.

The rubble and streets had to be cleared from the collateral damage of the towers just to get to the piles.

The WTC rubble was taken to the lay down yards. From the lay down yard, after it was inspected, then the steel was loaded.

Again, only 60,000 tons of steel was sold to China. There was a total of 300,000 tons of steel removed from the WTC. 200,000 tons was structural steel from WTC 1 and 2.

a reply to: Jesushere

Again, what are even implying.

Is it false the WTC was treated as a crime scene.

Is it fale the truth movement claims the resistance of each floor of each tower had to be removed.

There is no evidence of columns cut floor by floor.

No evidence of columns cut by thermite.

No evidence columns heated to the temperatures thermite cuts at.

No evidence of steel worked on by demolitions.

No evidence of blasting cap fragments.

No evidence of remote detonator fragments.

No evidence of demolition shrapnel recovered from the rubble, steet, bodies, human remains.

There was on site forensic scientists at the pile from multiple agencies that never noted any steel cut by demolitions or detonations.

There was law enforcement at the lay down yards looking for evidence in the sorting of WTC materials that never noted any steel cut by demolitions or detonations.

Is it false NIST identified and saved examples of steel failures at the areas of jet impacts. The areas where the tower collapse initiated.

Many of the failure modes were repeated throughout the WTC structures. You only need a few representative samples for the same repeated failur modes.

All failure modes where mechanical in nature. Broken welds, sheared floor connections, stretched floor connections.

No failures found associated with the cutting of steel columns or floor connections.

Why would you keep literal tons of the same failure modes for analysis.

There was every effort to process every bit of the WTC rubble as a crime scene. There was no evidence of steel columns physically cut to initiate collapse.

a reply to: Jesushere

And you still need to address

And you still need to answer to this....

Now. Why would you post

Professor Harrit paper was peer-reviewed by the Physics Dept at BYU and accepted as scientifically sound.

Is that a total fabrication by you?

Or can you cite the source that would cause you to post Harrit and Jones’s active thermite paper was peer reviewed as a whole by the BYU physics department, and sanction by the BYU as scientifically sound?

Who in the BYU physics department had the credentials and background to peer over what is essentially a forensic chemistry problem concerning pyrotechnics?

Thermite (/ˈθɜːrmaɪt/)[1] is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder, which serves as fuel, and metal oxide.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Jesushere

Why did iron workers have to cut up the WTC steel for loading on to trucks if the fantasy WTC implosion cut the columns floor by floor?