Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Lazy88



A good presentation done about 6 months ago that goes through the problems with NIST view of events. For one scientific paper that looks at the thermite evidence:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

The following video is an interview with one of the authors of this paper:

a reply to: Lazy88

How do you resolve the issue that NIST did not look at any evidence of explosives and incendiaries used in the fall of the towers? Do you support this government policy or do you value the public knowing what exactly happened with 9/11?

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: Lazy88

A good presentation done about 6 months ago that goes through the problems with NIST view of events. For one scientific paper that looks at the thermite evidence:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

The following video is an interview with one of the authors of this paper:

Which as nothing to do with the blatant lies of the truth movement.


Now..

Every indication WTC 7 fell from fires and thermal stress.

No indication of high energy explosives setting off, creating over pressure events, hitting steel with pressure waves to cut steel and producing shrapnel. There was something like 87 columns with WTC 7 having 47 floors. How many cutting charges would it take with kicker charges to misalign the columns for a C4 demolition of WTC 7. And there is no indication of such pressure events.

No indication steel worked on my explosives.

Every indication WTC 7 suffered to a greater extent lower down in the structure the failures seen in WTC 5 and 6 that lead to a collapse internally as seen by the penthouse sinking below the roofline. The internal collapse gutting the building leaving the facade unsupported, then the facade falling last as proven by the exterior being on top of the WTC 7 pile. With parts of WTC 7 falling across a street to damage Fiternan hall.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: Lazy88

How do you resolve the issue that NIST did not look at any evidence of explosives and incendiaries used in the fall of the towers? Do you support this government policy or do you value the public knowing what exactly happened with 9/11?

They can’t look into something that has no evidence at all, and is a truth movement lie.


I asked you a question concerning thermite.

You posed this.

originally posted by: kwaka


Aluminum is a small part of thermite

My reply
Total BS answer not based in chemistry what so ever.

There are two compounds in the thermite.

Fe2O3 (s) + 2 Al (s) → Al2O3 (s) + 2 Fe (s)

Aluminum, pure aluminum not chemically bounded to anything, is literally half the reaction and required to drive it.

In the truth movement “research” of WTC dust. Where is the free aluminum to carry out a self oxidizing reaction that is thermite where it would burn in an inert atmosphere.


In fact, the aluminum in the WTC dust is already oxidized. Is that false. And not going to carry a thermite reaction.

a reply to: kwaka

The truth movement and Richard Gage F’d up and showed their hand when they continued to pushed and lie columns cut during clean up by thermal lance where cut by thermite at collapse. And lied calling rust chips, paint chips, and primer chips with all aluminum bounded to other compound with no free elemental aluminum thermite.

a reply to: kwaka

It’s kind of simple.

I can analyze water and find it contains hydrogen and oxygen, but that doesn’t mean water will support combustion.

Where in the WTC dust was there free elemental aluminum not already oxidized free to support a thermite reaction which is this.

Fe2O3 + 2 Al → 2 Fe + Al2O3

a reply to: kwaka

Don’t you believe the Dr Wood lie the WTC was turned to “dust”?

Then what would there be to look into the lie thermite was used?

But the two above were created to milk the truth movement because there is zero evidence of structural steel cut by explosives. But you also push explosives.

. Would you stop grasping at straws and stop with the ad hoc BS wanting something to stick when there is no evidence. And you keep contradicting yourself with embracing contradicting innuendo.

a reply to: Lazy88

They can’t look into something that has no evidence at all, and is a truth movement lie.

So you value the government narrative over the facts of this case. This does help explain why you are having such a hard time trying to resolve this issue.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: Lazy88

They can’t look into something that has no evidence at all, and is a truth movement lie.

So you value the government narrative over the facts of this case. This does help explain why you are having such a hard time trying to resolve this issue.

WTF?

Do you have any evidence of columns cut by thermite.

Again. Private individuals looked into truth movement claims and documented Richard Gage lies.

Debunked. The WTC 9/11 angle cut column [Not thermite, thermite cut later]

www.metabunk.org...

The truth movement killing its own credibility by using proven lies has nothing to do with the “government”.

a reply to: kwaka

Then why using video of government officials in uniform?

a reply to: Lazy88

The truth movement killing its own credibility by using proven lies has nothing to do with the “government”.

It is good to see you do respect credibility. You can ignore the evidence I have presented, say it is all lies and continue to believe whatever you want.

One thing about credibility, it goes both ways. Others apply it to us as we apply it to others.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: Lazy88


You can ignore the evidence I have presented,

WTF?

I either:

One, place it in its proper context.

Two, Directly address it walk through with evidence why it’s wrong.


Three, just use documented items to show your just wrong.

Like your evidence “thermite in WTC”, where you link to something and hope for the best. Where you can’t show any evidence of free elemental aluminum in the WTC dust. Where all the aluminum in the dust is in primer or paint chips bound up chemical and already oxidized. Reacted and /or bound aluminum that can’t support the reaction that is thermite.

Fe2O3 (s) + 2 Al (s) → Al2O3 (s) + 2 Fe (s)

Where you can’t show the WTC dust can even support a thermite reaction which would require trying to set off the dust in an inert atmosphere. Even steel wool will burn if enough atmospheric oxygen gas is added. Making iron microspheres.

coming to terms with 911 .....

the Globalists won the competition---- which was orchestrating a 'Paradigm Changing Event' which involved 'duping' all the Western Intelligence industry organizations into participating and leaving finger-prints all over the place in doing so...

the Israeli team looked the dumbist with the van full of agents jumping & cheering the exploding towers and did not realize they 'got played' until much later reflection...

a reply to: Lazy88

Two, Directly address it walk through with evidence why it’s wrong.

So can you walk through and address the evidence Richard Gage got wrong? Or are you just going to project your charlatan argument again and ignore it all?

Even steel wool will burn if enough atmospheric oxygen gas is added.

Are you claiming WTC was made of steel wool to account for all the iron microspheres found? With the Aluminum used in the thermite reaction, most of it went up in white smoke.

originally posted by: kwaka
Are you claiming WTC was made of steel wool to account for all the iron microspheres found? With the Aluminum used in the thermite reaction, most of it went up in white smoke.

WTF dude?

Burning steel wool or thermite isn’t nuclear reactions.

With steel wool you didn’t change the amount and mass of steel in existence.

With thermite you don’t change the amount and mass of aluminum in existence. The free aluminum gets covered to oxidized aluminum.

Again the balanced reaction that is thermite.

Fe2O3 (s) + 2 Al (s) → Al2O3 (s) + 2 Fe (s).

Most of the aluminum gets converted to Al2O3 and the mass of the reaction is accounted for. Notice even the oxygen is balanced and accounted for.


And in no way have you proven thermite in WTC dust (which is not even the sane thing as proven there were WTC columns severed by thermite to collapse. Which you have no proof of. Just Richard Gage proven lies.)

Again…

“Like your evidence “thermite in WTC”, where you link to something and hope for the best. Where you can’t show any evidence of free elemental aluminum in the WTC dust. Where all the aluminum in the dust is in primer or paint chips bound up chemical and already oxidized. Reacted and /or bound aluminum that can’t support the reaction that is thermite.

Fe2O3 (s) + 2 Al (s) → Al2O3 (s) + 2 Fe (s)

Where you can’t show the WTC dust can even support a thermite reaction which would require trying to set off the dust in an inert atmosphere. Even steel wool will burn if enough atmospheric oxygen gas is added. Making iron microspheres.”

a reply to: kwaka

So. You’re down to trying to find excuses to post Richard Gage propaganda instead of posting about actual evidence and facts.

Talk about appealing to false authority. From some guy that markets and manufactures innuendo for a target consumer group.

a reply to: Lazy88

From some guy that markets and manufactures innuendo for a target consumer group.

Thank you for some credibility.

Our Father... forgive us of our trespass as we forgive those that trespass against us...

Hail Mary... Pray for all sinners now and in their final hour of death...

Amen

How do you see yourself in your final hour? Will you look back on how happy all those new shiny things made you, or will you say I made a mistake as you turned your back on the truth, on God. It is an amazing opportunity you have been provided to experience life as we do. Do you want to support that or fight it?

originally posted by: kwaka




Thank you for some credibility.

What credibility. Richard Gage is about making a media product for consumption.

originally posted by: kwaka


How do you see yourself in your final hour? Will you look back on how happy all those new shiny things made you, or will you say I made a mistake as you turned your back on the truth, on God. It is an amazing opportunity you have been provided to experience life as we do. Do you want to support that or fight it?

WTF? You completely off the rails and making judgements on my salvation?

“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.”

Matthew 7:1-5

gospelcenteredhealth.com...

I may be judgmental in science and physics. Specifically the low hanging fruit of the truth movement and reality. Where facts and data can be used.


But I’m not like you making judgment calls on people’s salvation that is between them and their own God. That is something completely different.

a reply to: kwaka

As far as “being treated”, I hope with something like if I used a blatant lie such as Richard Gage claiming WTC columns cut by thermite were in reality cut during cleanup with a thermal lance, I hope I would be put on the spot and called out in an instant.

a reply to: Lazy88

But I’m not like you making judgment calls on people’s salvation that is between them and their own God.

Your life and your god is your call. Maybe if I had your life I might be like you? Just letting you know mortality is a real issue for everyone. Make of it what you will.

Perhaps forgiveness is like judgment? I know we will never be better if we cannot admit our mistakes.