What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

reply to post by Nutter


Or....

I have figured out the answer to the question:

"If thermite/ate brought the buildings down, then how did they stay alit for so long, thermite burns out"

Now we can say......"but then it would ignite the gypsum along with it and there was plenty of gypsum in those buildings to burn for weeks".

Enjoy.

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Your whole point rests upon ignoring science. Why? There is no direct evidence? Huh? You ignore the Bentham Open paper. Why? Has there been a scientific rebuttal to the paper? Never mind, we all know the answer.

Ignoring bad science and faked science. Jones paper self-published in Bentham pretend peer review journal. As a test some students submitted random generated nonsense papers to Bentham and were accepted on standard terms: $700 paid to Abu Dhabi head offices.

Been proved repeatedly by professional and academic chemists - Jones et al tests done on red primer paint. Commercial thermite not present as claimed. Even if it were it is not effective as a demolition explosive in millimeter thin layers as in the paint chip samples tested.

Not to mince words - Jones is a fraud.

reply to post by Swing Dangler

The conditions in the underground fires could produce sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Your whole point rests upon ignoring science. Why? There is no direct evidence? Huh? You ignore the Bentham Open paper. Why? Has there been a scientific rebuttal to the paper? Never mind, we all know the answer.

Ignoring bad science and faked science. Jones paper self-published in Bentham pretend peer review journal. As a test some students submitted random generated nonsense papers to Bentham and were accepted on standard terms: $700 paid to Abu Dhabi head offices.

Been proved repeatedly by professional and academic chemists - Jones et al tests done on red primer paint. Commercial thermite not present as claimed. Even if it were it is not effective as a demolition explosive in millimeter thin layers as in the paint chip samples tested.

Not to mince words - Jones is a fraud.

1. Your attack on Bentham is unfounded especially in light of the climategate scandal involving the manipulation of other scientific peer reviewed journals. Make sure you tell every scientist, including Nobel Prize winner that their science is junk because Bentham published it. You are uniformed regarding the the tests some 'students' did. That test was never published. It was accepted but never published. Remember it was accepted in order to find the frauds perpetrating the hoax. Dolt! Again an uniformed debunker spewing debunk junk is what we have here.

2. Red paint??? LOL. Your accepting at face value too much debunker junk. Try reading the report and how 'red paint' was addressed by the team of scientists. You have failed to even read Jones and Co. report.

3. Been proven by professionals and academic chemists? Where? Where is this scientific peer reviewed report rebutting Jone's team's report?
Surely you have a link to this rebuttal or are you simply spouting debunk junk again? Never mind I think I know the answer.

Originally posted by Swing Dangler


1. Your attack on Bentham is unfounded especially in light of the climategate scandal involving the manipulation of other scientific peer reviewed journals. Make sure you tell every scientist, including Nobel Prize winner that their science is junk because Bentham published it. You are uniformed regarding the the tests some 'students' did. That test was never published. It was accepted but never published. Remember it was accepted in order to find the frauds perpetrating the hoax. Dolt! Again an uniformed debunker spewing debunk junk is what we have here.

2. Red paint??? LOL. Your accepting at face value too much debunker junk. Try reading the report and how 'red paint' was addressed by the team of scientists. You have failed to even read Jones and Co. report.

3. Been proven by professionals and academic chemists? Where? Where is this scientific peer reviewed report rebutting Jone's team's report?
Surely you have a link to this rebuttal or are you simply spouting debunk junk again? Never mind I think I know the answer.

Debunk means to get rid of bunk.

Jones thermite claims are bunk. No scientific peer review journal would touch it. Only fellow Truthers consider the experiments show anything significant.

Jones himself has admitted thermite could not effectively be used as an explosive in millimeter thin layers. He vaguely asserts conventional explosives might have been used No evidence of conventional explosives found. No blasting caps, chemical residues, seismic record, consistent series of identifiable explosions, nothing consistent with the speculated controlled demolition.

What Jones tested and drew incorrect conclusions from is red primer paint. Actual chemists have looked at the results. This has been elaborated on dozens of forums.

Use the Search function on this forum and read through the numerous threads on this tpic.

Get back to us if you find any credible substantiation of thermite or some variant causing any damage to one of the WTC Towers. Endless speculation, zero hard evidence.







[edit on 22-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Swing Dangler


1. Your attack on Bentham is unfounded especially in light of the climategate scandal involving the manipulation of other scientific peer reviewed journals. Make sure you tell every scientist, including Nobel Prize winner that their science is junk because Bentham published it. You are uniformed regarding the the tests some 'students' did. That test was never published. It was accepted but never published. Remember it was accepted in order to find the frauds perpetrating the hoax. Dolt! Again an uniformed debunker spewing debunk junk is what we have here.

2. Red paint??? LOL. Your accepting at face value too much debunker junk. Try reading the report and how 'red paint' was addressed by the team of scientists. You have failed to even read Jones and Co. report.

3. Been proven by professionals and academic chemists? Where? Where is this scientific peer reviewed report rebutting Jone's team's report?
Surely you have a link to this rebuttal or are you simply spouting debunk junk again? Never mind I think I know the answer.

Debunk means to get rid of bunk.

Jones thermite claims are bunk. No scientific peer review journal would touch it. Only fellow Truthers consider the experiments show anything significant.

Jones himself has admitted thermite could not effectively be used as an explosive in millimeter thin layers. He vaguely asserts conventional explosives might have been used No evidence of conventional explosives found. No blasting caps, chemical residues, seismic record, consistent series of identifiable explosions, nothing consistent with the speculated controlled demolition.

What Jones tested and drew incorrect conclusions from is red primer paint. Actual chemists have looked at the results. This has been elaborated on dozens of forums.

Use the Search function on this forum and read through the numerous threads on this tpic.

Get back to us if you find any credible substantiation of thermite or some variant causing any damage to one of the WTC Towers. Endless speculation, zero hard evidence.




[edit on 22-12-2009 by mmiichael]

So in other words, NO, no one has published a scientific rebuttal to the Jone's team's paper. Thanks for pointing that out. Your opinion of science you don't/can't understand is plainly obvious.

Why did you turn the discussion into traditional CD when we were talking about thermite and its variants? No need to do that with your straw!

Now can you provide to me (us) a scientific rebuttal using the same methodology, testing equipment, and debris samples from ground 0 showing that the red chips are indeed paint? Never mind, no rebuttal has ever been published via peer review or otherwise. You know this because the researches tested red paint in order to determine that it wasn't red paint! You knew this right, from reading the paper??

I know this and you can't provide the rebuttal. You simple re-spew the same debunking crap. Get your JREF science team together, get the samples, the facilities, get the peer review and get busy.

Originally posted by Swing Dangler no one has published a scientific rebuttal to the Jone's team's paper. Thanks for pointing that out. Your opinion of science you don't/can't understand is plainly obvious.

Why did you turn the discussion into traditional CD when we were talking about thermite and its variants? No need to do that with your straw!

Now can you provide to me (us) a scientific rebuttal using the same methodology, testing equipment, and debris samples from ground 0 showing that the red chips are indeed paint? Never mind, no rebuttal has ever been published via peer review or otherwise. You know this because the researches tested red paint in order to determine that it wasn't red paint! You knew this right, from reading the paper??

I know this and you can't provide the rebuttal. You simple re-spew the same debunking crap. Get your JREF science team together, get the samples, the facilities, get the peer review and get busy.

You must enjoy histrionics. I already said there are a number of ATS threads going over Jones claims with input by members with demonstrable scientific knowledge - and links provided to people who have exposed Jones's fraudulent science like NASA worker Ryan Mackey.

If you are incapable or too lazy to read what has already been presented - that's you problem.

One of the most thorough annihilation of Jones's paint chip experiments with photos is on the site of Italian demolition expert Enrico Manieri.

Find the appropriate English pages for yourself here:

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

Jones acts as if he's doing objective experiments. The provenance of his samples is not substantiated, there are no proper controls, no alternate explanations sought. No one beyond his selected Truther circles was allowed to make independent tests independently, etc. If results aren't repeatable it isn't scientists.

I can claim my new process converts lead to gold and supply data. Someone else has to be able to repeat the results independently.

And this is not even getting into Jones's ignorance of industrial and fire damage chemistry.

The scientific world has given little attention to Jones because he did not conduct proper tests, and he has come up with an supposedly explosive super thermite claim that even if it were validated would not work bringing down 110 story buildings.

Like Dr Judy Wood's theories of beams from space, No Plane theories, etc. Just more Truther junk science.

Originally posted by mmiichael
One of the most thorough annihilation of Jones's paint chip experiments with photos is on the site of Italian demolition expert Enrico Manieri.

Find the appropriate English pages for yourself here:

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

That's a nice paper. I wonder why NIST still claims it was molten aluminum with organics burning in it?

Doesn't that right there make you question NIST and their "findings"?

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by mmiichael
One of the most thorough annihilation of Jones's paint chip experiments with photos is on the site of Italian demolition expert Enrico Manieri.

Find the appropriate English pages for yourself here:

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

That's a nice paper. I wonder why NIST still claims it was molten aluminum with organics burning in it?

Doesn't that right there make you question NIST and their "findings"?

NIST said tens of thousands of things and had input form hundreds of contributors. The report was largely a function of editing data. Inevitable minor errors, shortfalls, inconsistencies crept in.

The job was to explain what happened not address every fringe claim that might emerge years later.

Anyone who has worked in the sciences knows there are bugs in something as massive as this. The science is forensic - not a lab study.

Tens of thousands of experts worldwide in related fields have had the opportunity to go over the findings in details. Hundreds, maybe thousands of articles have come out, some formal , some informal.

Quibbling on details, no serious problems with NIST findings.

Truthers will try to find fault forever. We're all still waiting for the scientific papers that disprove NIST findings.

Originally posted by mmiichael
We're all still waiting for the scientific papers that disprove NIST findings.

Here you go.

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by mmiichael
We're all still waiting for the scientific papers that disprove NIST findings.

Here you go.

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

So now blogs are considered scientific papers?

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by mmiichael
We're all still waiting for the scientific papers that disprove NIST findings.

Here you go.

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

So now blogs are considered scientific papers?

Figure it out. There is no need for a formal scientific paper to refute Jones. He has never published anything in serious peer review that has any credibility.

Jones, if even noticed, is remembered for his false Cold Fusion claims in the 80s. Another totally disproven attention-seeking scientific con.

Jones has also written a paper trying to validate the Mormon belief Jesus Christ visited America.

Real scientists only look at and dispute things that resemble real science.
Note there are no scientific papers proving the earth is round.

The Jones magic paint chip pseudoscience claim is not even worth remarking on outside conspiracy discussion forums.

Check out all those old threads on this exhausted topic.


[edit on 22-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by mmiichael
We're all still waiting for the scientific papers that disprove NIST findings.

Here you go.

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

So now blogs are considered scientific papers?

It's the same "blog" mmichael used above.

So, according to "debunkers"....yes.


[edit on 22-12-2009 by Nutter]

reply to post by mmiichael


How did we get onto the subject of Jones when we were talking about your "blog/paper" that you posted and NISTs findings?

Strawman maybe?

Let's reiterate.

You posted a blog that stated the molten metal seen dripping from the WTC was molten USP batteries.

NIST says it was molten aluminum with organics burning mixed in with it.

NONE of which has ANYTHING to do with Jones.

reply to post by hooper


I guess since this "blog" was posted by a "debunker" it is acceptable as a scientific paper in your eyes?

originally posted by mmichael
One of the most thorough annihilation of Jones's paint chip experiments with photos is on the site of Italian demolition expert Enrico Manieri.

Find the appropriate English pages for yourself here:

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

I can assume this since you didn't say anything to mmichael about using a blog as scientific proof but actually accused me of using it.

Caught in your own biasness.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Nutter]

I just made a comment on a different 9/11 thread in which I offered my conspiracy theories, but just to be well balanced, I will play the role of OT believer and pretend to believe in the Obama bin Laden theory of 9/11. I'll try to talk as if I was sitting at a bar, drinking a beer, watching a football game, in between commercials of course.

Of course Osama Bin Laden was in charge of the attacks, anyone who doesn't think so must have been in a cave along with him. The entire nation watched the event on t.v. You'd have to be out of the country, literally out of the world not to know that Osama Bin Laden was in charge of the attacks.

The 19 hijackers, who cares what their names are, they're guilty of course, why would the FBI willingly lie to the media and the American people? Imagine if you were an FBI agent and you covered up evidence of a terrorist operative, you'd be thrown in jail or at least fired on the spot. Can you mention any FBI agent that has been fired as a result of a "cover up?"

Bush was a lousy president, but at least he was a good leader at the time. America was pissed off and angry, and it wasn't about politics, it was about people uniting for the first time in a long time. New York City after the attacks was a different kind of world. People were not out to run you over or step all over you, for a brief moment New York was actually somber from the attacks.

The Iraq war went over horribly, but that in no way means the government was in charge of it. After all, if they were, why wouldn't they just plant WMD's in Iraq, since they are so good at being shady. And can you really believe there is a secret cabal working within the government? We all know Bush is a certifiable moron, how could he even keep this under wraps without accidentally spilling the beans? No way was the American government responsible for these attacks, it is an insult to everyone who ever fought and died for this country. You're lucky there are people who believe in America enough to fight the Nazis so you can have your freedom of speech and talk so idiotically about your little pet conspiracy theories. Just be glad we don't live in Iraq or Iran, where not only are conspiracies pulled off by the government all the time, but you can get beheaded if you even think of them in the wrong way.

So stop smoking your wacky tobaccy and let's watch some football.


I could of course debunk my own statement, but I'll let other people do it for me. Ah, time to enjoy a beer. Seriously, I actually might.


edit: I actually meant Osama Bin Laden, but it somehow came out as Obama Bin Laden. Honest mistake, you probably won't believe that, but it really was a mistake.


[edit on 22-12-2009 by ancient_wisdom]

Originally posted by Nutter

I guess since this "blog" was posted by a "debunker" it is acceptable as a scientific paper in your eyes?

I can assume this since you didn't say anything to mmichael about using a blog as scientific proof but actually accused me of using it.

Caught in your own biasness.

I'm just passing on old news known to every single person who has looked at Jones' so-called paper and has more than high school chemistry. As mentioned before, Bentham accepts for publication papers with random generated numbers and scientific names for a fee. The Jones paper just appears scientific to the untrained eye.

Here's just one of many critiques from a Truther forum with a spoon-feeding explanation for Truthers tempted to buy into the paint chip explosive nonsense:

www.davidicke.com...

Tabea Blumenschein wrote:

The paper is rubbish, let the Truth movement say what it may. But just for fun, let's try to figure out what the alleged nano-thermite paint would do if it actually worked as speculated and you applied some to a steel column and managed to ignite it somehow.

Data. The paper gives a large range of values for available energy, but the highest is 7 kilojoules per gram. We'll use that one.

My steel box column will measure 14 inches by 14 inches by 11 feet 6 inches (0.36 meters by 0.36 meters by 3.5 meters). I'll have the thickness of the steel be 1/4 inch (0.64 centimeters).

The density of steel is 7900 kilograms per cubic meter.

The box column has a volume (minus the empty space inside) of 0.032 cubic meters. That means that the beam is comprised of about 250 kilograms of steel.

The surface area of the four outer faces of the beam is about 50 square feet. One gallon of paint covers about 400 square feet -- at least according to the label of a can of house paint I just checked. So the total paint on the beam will be about 0.12 gallons, or 466 grams' worth. Let's round that up to 500 grams.

We have 7,000 joules per gram of paint, and 500 grams of paint. The total available energy is 3,500,000 joules.

The question before us is, how much will that amount of energy raise the temperature of the steel due to combustion of the "nano-thermite" paint?

If you'll kindly consult your physics books, you'll find that the increase in temperature of a material equals the energy input, divided by the mass of the material multiplied by the material's specific heat capacity:

Delta-T = E / cm

Where Delta-T is the temperature change, E is the energy input, m is the mass of the material, and c is the material's specific heat capacity.

The specific heat capacity for steel is 460 joules per kilogram-Celsius (from table 17-1 of my copy of Schaum's 3000 Solved Problems in Physics).

We now have all three values needed to solve our equation:

Delta-T = 3,500,000 J/ (250 kg * 460 J/kg*C)

Delta-T = temperature of steel increases by 30 degrees celcius.

Yeah, that's going to do a lot.

Truthers, please notice that I'm allowing 100% of the available energy to go into heating of the steel. That wouldn't happen in real life. Some of that energy would go into heating the surrounding air and/or any fireproofing insulation that may have been around the column.

I've read that Ryan Mackey did some calculations which gave a 24 degree celcius increase in the steel's temperature. I haven't actually seen those calculations, however. Mackey probably had a slightly higher ratio of steel to paint - or his model might have been more rigorous than mine. In any event, our numbers agree well, and I'm sure he concurs strongly with me that this alleged "nano-thermite" paint ain't gonna fail a column. No way.

Truthers, the following links should give you an idea of the objections we skeptics have to the Bentham paper. I challenge you to point out anything we have wrong:

Megalodon's brief analysis of the Bentham paper

forums.randi.org...

Megalodon has this to say:

“Also, the authors seem to conflate the energy release of a substance with their potential as an explosive. Analyzing a chocolate bar might have taught them something. “

That's an important point. Let's take a moment to discuss it.

I don't have a chocolate bar handy, but I do have a package of Pepperidge Farm cookies (white chocolate macadamia). The Nutrition Facts box tells us that there are 130 Calories per cookie. Note that we're talking about food calories -- note the capital C.

Very well. One food calorie equals 4186 joules. At 130 Calories per cookie, each cookie contains 544,180 joules of chemical energy.

There are 8 cookies in the package, which means the total chemical energy of all the cookies is 4,353,440 joules.

The net weight listed on the front of the package is 206 grams. That means we have roughly 21,000 joules per gram of chemical energy in our cookies.

Compare that to 7,000 joules per gram of chemical energy in Jonesy's "nano-thermite" paint.

Moral of the story: just because you have a lot of joules per gram of energy, that doesn't mean you can implode a building with it.

Unless you think the twin towers might have been imploded with Pepperidge Farm cookies or chocolate bars.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Originally posted by mmiichael
Truthers kick and scream "where's your proof" because they don't like their pet alternate theories demolished. ...

No alternative explanation?? Your ignoring the elephant in the room.

Your whole point rests upon ignoring science. Why?

And ignoring the fact that they don't have any evidence for their own claims. They ALWAYS ignore that.

Apparently the only reason we "kick and scream" for proof of mmiichael's pet theories is because... we don't want to be proven wrong?

At least he is candid enough to admit he doesn't actually have any proof. But he only admits it in his implied, off-hand way. It's okay that he doesn't have any proof, but we need proof. Yeah, that's not hypocritical at all. What a logical person we are debating.


The fact that he says there is no other explanation so he must be correct... Yeah, that's a face-palm right there. He argues every day with us, but nope, there is no alternative to his position.

Originally posted by Nutter
Let's reiterate.

You posted a blog that stated the molten metal seen dripping from the WTC was molten USP batteries.

NIST says it was molten aluminum with organics burning mixed in with it.

NONE of which has ANYTHING to do with Jones.

The fire burns him, Nutter. He has to turn away from it...

I would love to hear how he reconciles NIST with an internet blog that he apparently favors, though.

And you're right, he's just using Jones to distract from what we really want to see, lol.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The fact that he says there is no other explanation so he must be correct... Yeah, that's a face-palm right there. He argues every day with us, but nope, there is no alternative to his position.

Where's tangible evidence of the supposed controlled demolition, a sequence of explosions, seismic record consistency? Anything solid?

A pTruther physics prof applies a blow torch to paint chips and says he found thermite. Truthers have orgasms. The scientific world snickers.

Jones doesn't even merit a second look by chemists. The experiment procedures are fatally flawed, there is no provenance for the material, the conclusions are wrong. The tested material is paint chips. Jones saves himself humiliation by claiming there isn't any sample material to run through a proper lab. They would demolish his bizarro nano-thermite claims in an hour.

I just relay what is known by rational people out there looking at the increasingly strange unfounded claims being circulated.