99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by -PLB-

Based on what! The paint exotherm you came with yourself even shows a similar peak.

It is not a remotely similar peak. The example of paper in a DSC also LOOKS LIKE a similar peak until you take a gander at the units.

That is like saying a mole hill is LIKE the Himalayas. True, but so what?

No it is not meaningless. You just don't understand what it means, you even started out with saying that you don't know much about the subject. Within 2 posts or so you became an expert? You are making an argument from ignorance.

You are using that term incorrectly.

But nevermind. How is the fact the KJ/g is in the same range as both TNT and PAPER not mean that that measure is meaningless for this purpose for the reasons cited?

A test in argon would ensure there is no combusion of carbon, and proves that another reaction takes place. This reaction could possibly be thermite.

Have a look at the paper exotherm. Subtract that from the total W/g. What you are left with is still a significantly exothermic reaction. Which is what Harrit et al. wanted to establish.

reply to post by Darkwing01


You say this because you have no clue what the J/g figure means. That figure is the integral of the graph. This mean that when the shape of the curve is similar, so is the magnitude.

reply to post by -PLB-

You say this because you have no clue what the J/g figure means. That figure is the integral of the graph. This mean that when the shape of the curve is similar, so is the magnitude.

Okay, so school me.

If the J/g is in the same range for paper and TNT and HMX and Jones' sample and Jones' sample has a peak W/g an order of magnitude greater than paper, what does this tell you?

reply to post by Darkwing01


That only means that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't feel like explaining this to you, figure it out yourself.

The conclusion is that the DSC experiments only proves that combustion took place. Nothing more.

reply to post by -PLB-

That only means that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't feel like explaining this to you, figure it out yourself.

I have, it means that you are wrong.

All that you are saying is that the graphs have a similar shape, not size, when even if they were the same shape AND size it would not prove what you would like it to prove.

The same applies even more to the paint exotherm cited by the Randi'ites, the peak of the exotherm is not even 1000 mW/g if you assume that there was 1g of material and the scale is just using shorthand. This is not an insignificant difference.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
All that you are saying is that the graphs have a similar shape, not size, when even if they were the same shape AND size it would not prove what you would like it to prove.

No, they also have similar size. Look on Wikipedia what an integral is, and how it relates to a graph.

I don't "like" it to prove anything. It proves what it proves, I don't have any preference.

The same applies even more to the paint exotherm cited by the Randi'ites, the peak of the exotherm is not even 1000 mW/g if you assume that there was 1g of material and the scale is just using shorthand. This is not an insignificant difference.

Maybe you should just stop making meaningless assumptions about subjects you know next to nothing about?

reply to post by -PLB-

No, they also have similar size. Look on Wikipedia what an integral is, and how it relates to a graph. I don't "like" it to prove anything. It proves what it proves, I don't have any preference.

So can figure out how many grams of material there is in the mW graph then? Can you explain why the J/g figure is similar to that of TNT?

Are you an expert in this or not? If you are an expert you should be able to explain this to a layman like me without any difficulty instead of relying on cryptic references to things which are not specifically relevant.

[Just speaking as a layman here, but could your inability to do this have anything to do with not having the "second" part of W.s?]

It doesn't prove anything unless you can show that having this J/g value on a similar shape of exotherm indicates paint to the exclusion of thermite. If you cannot see this I don't understand what the point of doing a test in argon would be frankly. You would just find some other random thing to snipe at.

reply to post by Darkwing01


You could figure out the approximate weight, but I don't see the point, the energy density already gives you enough information.

A test in argon would ensure there is no combusion of carbon, and can prove that another reaction takes place. This reaction could then possibly be a thermite reaction. If no other reaction takes place, there is no thermite reaction.

Is that really so hard to understand, or are you doing your utmost best not understanding it?

ps. I already told you that I am no expert. I do understand the concepts though, as they are very generic.

Nano thermite was used to blow up towers

a plane of that size can barely bring down a 60 story tower but yet it some how brought down a 100 and something story tower in a few seconds Approx. 5 seconds?!?!

that defy's the laws of gravity thats like me dropping faster than i normally would


ALSO didnt someone say that if towers do come down they stop half way and the topper levels just crash down on the street but half of the building remains?

Guys you are debating an issue, which is outside your expertise. Why not send the Fig. 29 to a scientist who has done some thermoanalytical experiments using DSC equipment, asking one particular question without mentioning 9/11 or WTC.
''Does the blue peak represents a combustion or a more like explosive/pyrotechnic event, when the tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute. During heating, the air was allowed to flow at 55 milliliters per minute. The plots were generated by acquiring data points at a rate of 20 points per °C or 200 points per minute. The plots were set to display positive heat flow out of the sample such that exothermic behavior of the sample would yield a peak and endothermic behavior a trough.''.. or something similar.

reply to post by Herkus

''Does the blue peak represents a combustion or a more like explosive/pyrotechnic event, when the tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute. During heating, the air was allowed to flow at 55 milliliters per minute. The plots were generated by acquiring data points at a rate of 20 points per °C or 200 points per minute. The plots were set to display positive heat flow out of the sample such that exothermic behavior of the sample would yield a peak and endothermic behavior a trough.''.. or something similar.

I hear what you are saying and I agree.

Problem is this is one of those cases where multiple experts have chirped in and given multiple different answers. Some members of the Harrit team were DSC experts (not sure who off-hand), while some other DSC experts who disagree (although admittedly I haven't seen any) seem to not have all their figures in a row either.

"Experts" in many fields can go wrong for donkey's years for all sorts of reasons, this is why science never stands still.

I do not think it illegitimate for non-experts to expect experts to present their argument in such a way that all logical inconsistencies are clarified. This is the same sort of situation as doctors prescribing medicine to babies, to a very large extent they are no more experts than you or I, because you cannot conduct scientific tests on human infants.

If you are telling me that the J/g figure is sufficient to identify paint I want to know why vastly dissimilar things (Paint or TNT) can have the same J/g figures. It doesn't take an expert in anything but logic to know that that ain't right. Of course I know that it is possible to prove it nevertheless, but to my knowledge this has not been done or even attempted. What you need to do is to show that the shape of the exotherm plus the J/g figure can postively distinguish between things that have the same J/g independent of the W/g figure.

It is not too much too ask to have a valid logical connection between the facts at your disposal and what you are trying to prove with them.

If you think that you can positively identify paint to the exclusion of thermite using only the exotherm you are making a positive claim with no evidence. You may be right but I have as much reason to believe it as the opposite.

The simple fact is that Jones DID NOT identify, or seek to identify, the chips by their exotherm. So it remains to be demonstrated that even if their exotherm is WHOLLY misleading it would not invalidate the other lines of reasoning.

You can't just state that things are logically connected when they aren't. You need to show the basis for your reasoning.

The only people that believe 9-11 was pulled off by a group of 'cave dwellers'...are those STUCK in denial. Most Americans don't want to believe their gov't would EVER do something like this, to them. Most believe the government is working FOR them, and would NEVER do anything to harm them. And that's just NOT the case.

After a good 6 or 7 years worth of studying, and researching and wanting to know for MYSELF...exactly what happened that day, i will say this...most of the 'evidence' is nothing more than planted distractions.

The people that pulled off 9-11 KNEW people weren't gonna buy into their official story, so...they left trails of evidence...just to keep us talking and distracted from the real deal.

First, we should stop saying that the towers 'collapsed' because they didnt....they were pulverized and turned to dust! Just the word 'collapse' should sound the alarm...and raise some concerns.

Second, we should also understand that jet fuel doesnt burn steel; nor does it produce enough heat to even make it glow, hot orange.

Third, we need to stop saying it was an 'inside job' because it wasn't. It was a planned EVENT and world wide conspiracy. Many nations were involved in that day, not just the U.S.; but the U.S. and it's current president, George W. Bush, Jr. should be held accountable because he FAILED to do his job; and he lied and started 3 wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, War on Terror) based on his lies. Not including the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, devastated, and changed forever; for the sake of 'freedom'.

Fourth, well...who needs 4 when i gave you 3 great reasons, to serve some justice!

There's only 1 person, who's theory i'm gonna stick with, and whom makes the most SENSE...and that's this lady: Dr Judy Wood

Also, doesn't 1 lie, make the entire story a lie??? 9-11 was a bunch of LIES!!!

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Herkus

 

If you are telling me that the J/g figure is sufficient to identify paint I want to know why vastly dissimilar things (Paint or TNT) can have the same J/g figures. It doesn't take an expert in anything but logic to know that that ain't right.

Of course. If you look only at the energy density, you could say that the chocolate bars are more sufficient in taking a building down than TNT. You have to look how fast the energy was released from that material.

The DSC analysis was discussed in this thread:

An analysis of the DSC data in the Harrit-Jones paper

Read turbofans' posts.

This thread deals with the energy density:

Jones' Dust Analysis - Common Arguments Addressed

reply to post by -PLB-

No it is called reality. The fact that there has been no response in the scientific community whatsoever proves it (except for the handful of responses on the internet). Ironically, to truthers this very same fact means that it must be a good piece of work.

No, since I haven't got a response, that either means that they haven't looked at their e-mail, they saw the e-mail but were too busy to give me a response and just deleted it, or they saw the e-mail and didn't know who Steven Jones is or what the Open Chemical Physics Journal is so instead of e-mailing me and saying "IDK", they just didn't respond.

I don't know about you guys, but as exciting as talking about the same thing for 6 pages is, I'm pretty damn bored. Here is where we stand right now: The people that support the OS have been arguing against his paper for 6 pages, and the people that think there was a conspiracy have been supporting his paper for 6 pages.

Let's call it a draw and talk about something else since we haven't accomplished anything in these 6 pages.

reply to post by TupacShakur


duh! WINNING

Originally posted by TupacShakur

The paper was published in 2009, and it's the middle of 2011. There's still plenty of time for him to release it.

April 2009. Over two years ago.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

reply to post by TupacShakur


"Thuth" isn't a game where you can have draws. Something is true, or something is not true. The claim that Jones proved there was nano-thermite (or similar) is not true. But somehow, ironically, the "thuthers" don't care and just accept it. Instead of pushing Jones to get to the truth and get those experiments done, they are afraid to do so and rather just accept it as it is, claiming "others" should prove them wrong. What a weak positions from someone who is after the truth.

reply to post by -PLB-


Yeah OK cool man, so now that we're finished talking about Jones paper since we've wasted plenty of time on that, what would you like to move onto now? WTC7? The Twin Towers? The Pentagon? Shanksville? It's your call.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Let's call it a draw and talk about something else since we haven't accomplished anything in these 6 pages.

Funny that, truthers have not accomplished anything in the last 10 years either, except for their conspiracy theories about what they claim happened getting sillier and sillier. They are no closer to getting another investigation.

These comments sum up the "truth movement" very well

In 2006, a book critic with Time magazine noted that a major problem with films such as Loose Change and most 9/11 conspiracy theories in general is that "the more one thinks about them, the more one realizes how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis, quotes taken out of context, and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses"

and

Linguist Noam Chomsky stated that, regarding US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, "the evidence that has been produced is essentially worthless" and while the American government stood to benefit from the incident, "every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11th." He argues that the enormous risk of an information leak, "it is a very porous system and secrets are very hard to keep", and consequences of exposure for the Republican party would have made such a conspiracy foolish to attempt. He dismisses observations cited by conspiracy proponents saying, "if you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence," arguing that even when a scientific experiment is carried out repeatedly in a controlled environment, phenomena and coincidences remain that are unexplained.[74]

and

Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to Steven E. Jones publishing a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eager said that adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they "determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.

and

In a research paper written in 2008, Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule conclude that theories supported by 9/11 truth movement members "typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy...those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology..

and also

Calling conspiracy theorists "the truthers", Bill Moyers states they "...threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right's sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the "truthers" cherry-picked a few supposed "anomalies" to build an "inside-job" story line".[

People like Jones know that they are wrong, which is why he does not do the testing of the paint in a oxygen free environment and truthers are not pushing him to do that as they also probably know the result, and it would destroy one of their conspiracy theories!

reply to post by spoor

Funny that, truthers have not accomplished anything in the last 10 years either, except for their conspiracy theories about what they claim happened getting sillier and sillier. They are no closer to getting another investigation.

You quote a lot of things that people said but neglect to talk about experimentally established facts. Do you know what Chomsky's stance on physical science is?

Let's look at some experimentally established facts:

The OS'ers theory that what was pouring out the building was aluminium: FALSIFIED BY EXPERIMENT.
That iron micro-spheres like that observed can found found all over the place: FALSIFIED BY EXPERIMENT.
That thermite cannot cut vertical columns: FALSIFIED BY EXPERIMENT.
That their paint exotherm is the same as thermite: FALSIFIED BY LOOKING AT THE SCALE.
That every demolition must involve loud bangs from RDX: FALSIFIED BY EXPERIMENT.
That "walking off the seat" or the pull in of the columns could occur due to thermal expansion: FALSIFIED BY EXPERIMENT.

I could go on, but it isn't hard to see a pattern developing here. OS'ers say something random backed by some random expert they dug up in some random field and then stick to it until someone actually goes and does the experiment, which almost invariably falsifies their position. At which point they either a) pretend the new data doesn't exist b) claim that experts are better evidence than experiments c) snipe at the most absurd details of said experiment or d) continue claiming the original position.

There is hardly ANY key facts in the OS that can be reproduced experimentally, and PLB is here sniping about what is at best an ancilliary test that he has failed to establish EXPERIMENTALLY can distinguish between paint and thermite.

THAT is where we are now.