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

reply to post by -PLB-

The examples you come with are not explosive materials. They only become explosive when mixed with oxygen. Are you saying that the material Jones is testing also only becomes explosive when mixed with oxygen?

Chlorine bomb? Oxygen? Do you know how a chlorine bomb works?

A chlorine bomb is a small-scale explosive device using the pressure of chemically produced chlorine gas to produce an explosion. It is made with an airtight container part-filled with rubbing alcohol or similar solvent. When a chlorine tablet is added, it produces an expansive pressure increase, shattering the container

Gunpowder? Oxygen? Do you know how gunpowder works?

Black powder is a granular mixture of
a nitrate, typically potassium nitrate (KNO3), which supplies oxygen for the reaction;
charcoal, which provides carbon and other fuel for the reaction, simplified as carbon (C);
sulfur (S), which, while also serving as a fuel, lowers the temperature required to ignite the mixture, thereby increasing the rate of combustion.

Potassium nitrate is the most important ingredient in terms of both bulk and function because the combustion process releases oxygen from the potassium nitrate, promoting the rapid burning of the other ingredients.[8] To reduce the likelihood of accidental ignition by static electricity, the granules of modern black powder are typically coated with graphite, which prevents the build-up of electrostatic charge.

Gunpowder is NOT an explosive?

Gunpowder is classified as a low explosive because of its relatively slow decomposition rate and consequently low brisance. Low explosives deflagrate at subsonic speeds. High explosives detonate, producing a supersonic wave. Ignition of the powder packed behind a bullet must generate enough pressure to force it from the muzzle at high speed, but not enough to rupture the gun barrel. Gunpowder is thus less suitable for shattering rock or fortifications, where high explosives such as TNT are preferred.

Do you KNOW what an explosive is?

An explosive material, also called an explosive, is a reactive substance that contains a great amount of potential energy that can produce an explosion if released suddenly, usually accompanied by the production of light, heat, sound, and pressure. An explosive charge is a measured quantity of explosive material. This potential energy stored in an explosive material may be chemical energy, such as nitroglycerine or grain dust pressurized compressed gas, such as a gas cylinder or aerosol can nuclear, such as fissile isotopes of uranium-235 and plutonium-239 Explosive materials may be categorized by the speed at which they expand. Materials that detonate (explode faster than the speed of sound) are said to be high explosives and materials that deflagrate are said to be low explosives. Explosives may also be categorized by their sensitivity. Sensitive materials that can be initiated by a relatively small amount of heat or pressure are primary explosives and materials that are relatively insensitive are secondary explosives.

First you claim that samples are hold in vaults. Then you claim they are destroyed. And then you ask me to explain why they are destroyed. Right...

If it is not held in evidence then it must have been destroyed. Destroying evidence is a crime in itself so I'm not sure how that is better.

I don't know if there are such samples, if there aren't that is all the more reason for Jones to not just hand out the precious few he has to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

So are you suggesting that any dust collected in any apartment in NYC at any time after 9/11/2001 should have the same exact properties as the alleged samples that the jones et al gang is supposedly testing? And if that is not the case does it then prove that jones et al are officially full of it?

Debunker logic at its finest.



Seriously though, there is nothing that convinces me more that this was a conspiracy than the lame ass convoluted logic you guys have to deploy to "debunk" things at this point.

reply to post by Darkwing01


I meant the first examples you came with, those are not explosives. Chlorine is also not an explosive. A Chlorine bomb depends on "slow" pressure buildup in an airtight container. If you think it is an explosive, then so is air.

As for gunpowder, can you show me an experiment where someone put a blowtorch on a small sample of gunpowder where doesn't all react? By the way, did you see the experiment Jones did with real thermite?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
If it is not held in evidence then it must have been destroyed. Destroying evidence is a crime in itself so I'm not sure how that is better.

I don't know if there are such samples, if there aren't that is all the more reason for Jones to not just hand out the precious few he has to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

So you didn't know what you were talking about and was just saying whatever came to your mind, and then asked me "why would that be". What happened to you being advocate of logic and reason some while back?

No, he should not hand them out, he should get them tested, preferably anonymously, by an independent lab which has neither connections to the government nor the truth movement.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Until an independent party is able to reproduce Jones results, we can dismiss it as being scientific.

This is what is known as a Freudian Slip.

And we all know, the truth movement is not eager at all to have an independent analysis done. Why would that be...

So you're saying the truth movement is "not eager" for an "independent investigation" in to 9/11??????

That would be news to them..........

Originally posted by Wotcher
This is what is known as a Freudian Slip.

Because?

So you're saying the truth movement is "not eager" for an "independent investigation" in to 9/11??????

No.

When it comes to Jones work, most truthers are completely satisfied by it and don't require any additional experimentation to confirm his work.

reply to post by -PLB-

I meant the first examples you came with, those are not explosives. Chlorine is also not an explosive. A Chlorine bomb depends on "slow" pressure buildup in an airtight container. If you think it is an explosive, then so is air.

Air can be explosive too, yes.

ex·plo·sion (k-splzhn) n. 1. a. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases. b. A violent bursting as a result of internal pressure. c. The loud, sharp sound made as a result of either of these actions.

It is not AN explosive, no.

1. (Chemistry) a substance that decomposes rapidly under certain conditions with the production of gases, which expand by the heat of the reaction. The energy released is used in firearms, blasting, and rocket propulsion

But notice in that definition there it doesn't mention anything about the material being completely consumed. That's just something you made up.

And yes, if you light pile of gunpowder I can guarantee you that on the outside of that pile you will find un-reacted gunpowder.

reply to post by Darkwing01

And yes, if you light pile of gunpowder I can guarantee you that on the outside of that pile you will find un-reacted gunpowder.

I've run up against this inane argument that all gunpowder ignites before. I found that even if it's shot from a gun it will not all ignite. Here's some of the sources I found:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The best one is from a reference to an oh-so-valued Journal (when it supports their position):

The gunpowder does not ever burn with 100% efficiency in any kind of gun. It is known prior to 1963. This was all quantified by F.C. Barnes & R.A. Helson in their Empirical Study of Gun Powder Residue Patterns conducted in the late 50s to early 60s, and arose from and refers to even earlier tests conducted by Hatcher in the 1930s.
The specific cites can be found in the July 1974 reprint from the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 19, No.3.
The earliest copy of the study is contained in the Cartridges of the World, 4th edition copyrighted in 1965, page 367, paragraphs 1-8 of the summary and conclusion; which cites that "5-15%" of the gunpowder charge of any given load is discharged in the form of "UNBURNED & PARTIALLY BURNED" "PARTICLES or GRANULES" which can disperse in a pattern from 30 inches to over 8 feet.

But it doesn't matter, that dumb argument will come up again.

I'm just surprised this discussion is still going on when PLB all ready admitted his/her position is just speculation ("I suspect the spheres were already in the samples") and he/she has no interest in looking at the other side of the argument ("No thanks.").

reply to post by Darkwing01


Jones sample was not powder. When he put a blowtorch on it, part of it reacted and part of it didn't. If you want to believe that this material is some highly energetic substance that can be used to bring down skyscrapers, feel free to do so. But don't expect other to believe it too.

reply to post by -PLB-

Jones sample was not powder. When he put a blowtorch on it, part of it reacted and part of it didn't. If you want to believe that this material is some highly energetic substance that can be used to bring down skyscrapers, feel free to do so. But don't expect other to believe it too.

What has the fact that it is energetic got to do with whether it completely reacts dear PLB?

Even nuclear bombs do not completely react the fissile material it is made from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

When a small chip is ignited it blasts away from the site, expansion waves will follow the path of least resistance (much like building collapses for example). So it doesn't blast TOWARDS the chip, it blasts away from it. When there is a clump of material the blast heats up adjacent material which heats up adjacent material increasing the temperature in the vicinity of the chip to the point where it is ready to react.

When there is only air adjacent to the chip the heat is lost to the atmosphere.

This is completely un-mysterious and will be observed with nearly any kind of explosive material in one way or another.

Here is an article which explains in detail how and why this happens:
www2.fbi.gov...

If this approach is correct and reflects the actual course of events, the mathematical consequences are that the proportion of explosives residue, that is the weight percent of the charge, which survives as residue, as distinct from the total weight of residue, will:
Decrease with increasing charge weight because for any explosives charge, the amount of residue is proportional to the surface area, whereas the charge weight is proportional to the explosive volume (for most charge shapes, the volume increases at twice the rate of the surface area)...

The surface area of the chip is very large in relation to the weight of the charge so the fact that there would be lots of un-reacted material should be completely unremarkable.

The proportion of explosives residue will decrease as both the charge size and the velocity of detonation increase.

The same happens with high explosives like RDX, as can be seen in table 1 here.

reply to post by Darkwing01


There was reacted and unreacted residue in one and the same piece of material, not in two separate pieces.

reply to post by -PLB-


So what?

Are you really going to carry on pushing this line?

It is a completely baseless argument because you have UTTERLY failed to establish that an energetic material will react completely in any arrangement. It was just something you made up to begin with.

reply to post by Darkwing01


It is not "any arrangement". It is when someone puts a blowtorch on it. Doesn't this bother you even a bit?

reply to post by -PLB-

It is not "any arrangement". It is when someone puts a blowtorch on it. Doesn't this bother you even a bit?

Everything is in some arrangement, and no, this is completely expected behavior from any explosive.

If it DID react completely I might be suspicious of tampering, because no known explosive of any type behaves this way.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Your argument has been that an explosion separates explosive material from the heat source so it can not ignite. This is not the case when one part of the same piece of material did react, while another part didn't. You can of course claim it doesn't matter, but it completely destroys your argument.

But anyhow, your mind is set and you just accept Jones work as it is. Just curious, are you in favor of an independent test? Do you think it is required?

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Wotcher
This is what is known as a Freudian Slip.

Because?

Because......you said Jones work was "scientific" not "unscientific".

So you're saying the truth movement is "not eager" for an "independent investigation" in to 9/11??????

No.

When it comes to Jones work, most truthers are completely satisfied by it and don't require any additional experimentation to confirm his work.

The only way you can confidently state this is if you have spoken to and surveyed ALL truthers.

Have You????

Otherwise you are merely stating an assumption. Assumptions are not fact.

reply to post by Krusty the Klown


Thanks Krusty

You read my mind.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
Because......you said Jones work was "scientific" not "unscientific".

I see where the confusion comes from. You can also read it as "we can not accept it as being scientific work", which is of course what I mean to say. English is not my 1st language.

The only way you can confidently state this is if you have spoken to and surveyed ALL truthers.

Have You????

Otherwise you are merely stating an assumption. Assumptions are not fact.

It may be an assumption, but not a baseless one. I base it on the lack of posts from truthers who call out for independent experiments. In fact, most seem to be completely satisfied already.

reply to post by -PLB-

Your argument has been that an explosion separates explosive material from the heat source so it can not ignite.

The heat source in this case would be the blowtorch.

The surface area is to great for the reaction to sustain itself without the external source. You can see it reacting, and blowtorch won't form the sphere.

Actually what in all likelihood happened here was that the bit held in the clamp failed to react.

Again, I can't help but observe that you have trouble distinguishing general principles from specific instances.

But anyhow, your mind is set and you just accept Jones work as it is. Just curious, are you in favor of an independent test? Do you think it is required?

If it is done properly then of course.

Jones' work is conclusive as far as I am concerned so the the only thing you would be doing is to establish his credibility if you are going to test more samples.

But even without you can do all sorts of experiments like the Cole one and like the experiment to see what residues are left over after a reaction and how various types of thermite react. All this is legitimate work.

To date I have seen nothing that remotely contradicts Jones' view, most of it is just outright slander and veiled character assassination.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The heat source in this case would be the blowtorch.

The surface area is to great for the reaction to sustain itself without the external source. You can see it reacting, and blowtorch won't form the sphere.

Actually what in all likelihood happened here was that the bit held in the clamp failed to react.

Again, I can't help but observe that you have trouble distinguishing general principles from specific instances.

And I can't help but observe that you come with all kind of excuses why the "highly energetic" material failed to fully react when a blowtorch was put on it. Molten iron mixed with unreacted material, and you claim it was not hot enough.

If it is done properly then of course.

Jones' work is conclusive as far as I am concerned so the the only thing you would be doing is to establish his credibility if you are going to test more samples.

But even without you can do all sorts of experiments like the Cole one and like the experiment to see what residues are left over after a reaction and how various types of thermite react. All this is legitimate work.

To date I have seen nothing that remotely contradicts Jones' view, most of it is just outright slander and veiled character assassination.

Then not for the sake of your own satisfaction, but for the sake of the truth movement original goals you should be demanding these additional experiments.

reply to post by -PLB-

And I can't help but observe that you come with all kind of excuses why the "highly energetic" material failed to fully react when a blowtorch was put on it. Molten iron mixed with unreacted material, and you claim it was not hot enough.

That is what ALWAYS happens in explosives with large surface areas compared to volume. I showed you the study, don't act like you didn't see it.

"Happens that way in the real world" is not an excuse.

Then not for the sake of your own satisfaction, but for the sake of the truth movement original goals you should be demanding these additional experiments.

I am demanding them from the people who are claiming Jones to be wrong.

He has done more than enough to establish the theoretical basis for calling this thermite. All the OS'ers have is random hum-hahs that they make up as they go along.

Science NEVER proves anything absolutely, demaninding that someone does is simply disingenuous at least and deceitful or betraying of a severe lack of comprehension of what science is at worst.

At some point you have to accept that there is no reasonable objection to Jones' theory, none that any OSer has made stick, so the burden of proof goes to the other side.

The only argument you guys have left is basically that Jones et al are lying. So shouldn't YOU be demanding a government investigation to prove that he is?