911 and the Demo Truth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: Henry on 15 Oct 2009 07:43 AllYou! wrote: > In news:hb5243$i4b$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >> >>> Here's the simple question..... >>> What is your supportable theory as to the technology (e.g., >>> thermite, nukes, volcanoes, etc..) which brought down the WTC >>> buildings? >> There is solid irrefutable proof that thermite was used >> to destroy the towers and WTC7. > > The only evidence you've posted is that there was some substance > which is not only found in thermite, but in virtually thousands and > thousands of other substances that are readily available, that > someone said that they collected from some place in NY some time > after 9/11. That's all you've ever shown. > >> How else do you explain >> the molten metal that flowed like lava, > > Lead, aluminum, copper, and any other substances that could look > 'like' lava as much as metal does. So, you "think" the structural steel in the towers and WTC7 was made of lead, aluminum, and copper, eh? Good "thinking", nut job... >> the iron rich >> microshperes, and the unreacted nanothermite? > There are nothing but wild claims that any such spheres were found > near the WTC, More nut job lies and ignorance. Read and learn, nut job. Press Release: http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html Summary of research: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive. The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by critics of the official reports. At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to understand the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings of a demolition raise new questions about how the 'War on Terror' -- an enormous source of recent American spending -- was started. Officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), charged with establishing the cause of the buildings' destruction, have stated that they "did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel," and that thermite, "or another incendiary compound," would be too difficult to have placed in the buildings without notice. NIST has stated that such difficulties make demolition unlikely. They concluded that aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires led to the building failures. Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and author on the paper, says that NIST has refused to test the dust for thermite, super-thermite, or any other accelerant or explosive. "We've repeatedly asked them to follow standard investigative procedure, to perform these tests and release the results. They haven't." Jones says such tests may be required by fire protection codes. Kevin Ryan, chemist and co-author on the paper, explained why he thinks NIST is wrong. "What we've discovered is not conventional thermite -- which is what NIST continues to refer to -- but a highly engineered thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed for just this type of application." Pre-planned demolition, supporters say, is the 'best-fit' model for the many unusual and unexplained characteristics of the building failures, such as the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and the extreme pulverization of the materials leading to clouds of micron-sized dust particles, described in one insurance report as behaving similar to a "volcanic eruption". "One of the unusual features that piqued my interest," Jones said, "was the pools of molten metal seen in all three rubble piles, WTC 1, 2 & 7." NIST officials have published a response stating that the condition of the steel was "irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse." Jones, formerly a Professor of Physics with Brigham Young University and known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature, Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, began researching the 9/11/01 attacks in 2005. Jones discovered the curious thermitic material in 2007, when he ran a magnet over a dust sample given to him by a Manhattan resident survivor of the attack, and found that some particles were attracted to the magnet. "That was very odd to me," he said. Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust. But to fully analyze, describe and report on the thermitic material would take longer. Jones was joined in that effort by several others including Dr. Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor with the University of Copenhagen for over 30 years and author of numerous research papers in journals such as Nano Letters, the Journal of the American Chemistry Society, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry A. Harrit says that he is frequently asked why he researches the September 11th attack. and says has two answers. "First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask me, 'Grandfather, which side were you on?' I will be able to answer them, 'I was on your side'." Co-author Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, a materials scientist and Director of the TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU, says he hopes the paper will "change the way the 9/11 truth movement is viewed by the mainstream public and media." And chemist and co-author Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories manager, challenged the NIST report in public statements in 2004, and was consequently fired. "This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been shown," says Jones. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available to just anyone." In a 2006 interview with Deseret News, Jones noted that commercial explosives must contain tag elements for traceability, but that no law requires tagging of advanced forms of thermitics. In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and The Journal of Engineering Mechanics Dozens of other papers making similar challenges have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of over 700 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001 attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method. >> If you "think" a volcano played a role in demolishing >> the towers or WTC7, you're compleletly insane. In other >> words, I wouldn't be surprised if you do.... > You're the guy who claims to have evidence of protoplasmic clouds, > and lava at the site. Not me. You're lying again, and being even more stupid than usual, nut job. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 15 Oct 2009 07:47 Ironhead amused its many betters with: > Henry aksed: >> Iarnrod revealed still more of its insanity and ignorance with: >>>> How many jets do you "think" crashed into WTC7, psycho? <chuckle> >>> Umm, two. >> Wow. At this point, it's a very safe bet that ironhead is >> actually a 9-11 Truth advocate who's out to make mindless >> parrots of the Bush regime's cartoon conspiracy theory >> seem even more insane and deluded than usual. Well done, >> ironhead... > > Caught me misreading your post... I told you can't read or think, and you prove it repeatedly, nut job. > WTC7 was crashed > into by something worse than a jet plane: tens of thousands of tons of > free falling steel girders and flaming debris from WTC1's collapse. Your lies sure are stupid and blatant, nut job. As always, here's hard proof. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html "Finally, the report notes that ?while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.? It > gouged out a gaping 18- to 23-story hole in the south facade and > weakened the structure and set of raging uncontrolled ires that > eventually engulfed much of the building, to the extent that FIVE > HOURS before its structural failure, FDNY ordered a pullback because > the wall was bulging already and showing signs of the upcoming > structural failure that we know was the cause of its collapse. > >>>> The demolitions shown in the video below both display all >>>> the characteristics of controlled demolition, >>> Nope, none of them does. >> <link restored because we can't afford to let freedom, >> justice, truth, and America hating extremists or nut jobs >> hide the truth and facts> > > Link deleted because it is a fully debunked kookvideo that purposely > misleads by showing only the final collapse without any of the > antecedents. >> So, in your "mind" the video on the right showing a known >> demolition doesn't display any of the characteristics of a >> demolition, eh? > > Idiot, the WTC7 collapse on the left is the lie. Try to keep up. >> Ironhead, I'm really pleased that you and Dykes are here to >> *solidly* confirm the insanity of clueless parrots of the Bush >> regime's cartoon fairy tale. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Al Dykes on 15 Oct 2009 08:36 In article <ce7c6dcc-3c52-468d-a70c-8b3b9d1a63fc(a)i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 13, 11:29=A0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) for the Spooks wrote: >> In article <756b5895-e150-450a-b4f8-e9091ffba...(a)y28g2000prd.googlegroups= >.com>, >> >> =A0<knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Oct 13, 7:59=3DA0am, Iarnrod (The Spook) <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On Oct 13, 8:49=3DA0am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >> >> > Iarnrod wrote: >> >> > > On Oct 13, 8:05 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >> > >> =3DA0The demolitions shown in the video below both display all >> >> > >> the =3DA0characteristics of controlled demolition, >> >> > >> Nope, none of them does. >> >> >> > =3DA0 <link restored because we can't afford to let freedom, >> >> > justice, truth, and America hating extremists or nut jobs >> >> > hide the truth and facts> >> >> >> Link deleted because it does not show anything like your delusional >> >> mind claims, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor. >> >> >Spook Speak (R) rule #1. >> >"If you delete and ignore the evidence it doesn't exist." >> >> >> > =3DA0 So, in your "mind" the video on the right showing a known >> >> > demolition doesn't display any of the characteristics of a >> >> > demolition, eh? >> >> >> The WTC7 was a progressive structural collapse and had NONE of the >> >> characteristics of a controlled demolition starting with the proven >> >> fact that there were no controlled demolition charges, >> >> >"See the Emperor's new clothes?" >> >www.ae911truth.org >> >> Why doesn't Gage or anyone else from ae811 speak in front of >> professional groups of structural engineers and explain in technical >> terms why a new investigation is called for? >> >Anyone can go to his lecture. >Are you saying he won't let "professionals" in to ask questions? Gage speaks for 2-2/1 hours and says 100 stupid things. Then the Q&A starts and a professional gets one shot at the microphone and doesn't get to ask followup questions. That's not professional dialag. I had a friend at the Cambridge meeting the other day. That's how it went. That's how it always goes. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: AllYou! on 15 Oct 2009 08:53 In news:hb71rd$aib$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:hb5243$i4b$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>> >>>> Here's the simple question..... >>>> What is your supportable theory as to the technology (e.g., >>>> thermite, nukes, volcanoes, etc..) which brought down the WTC >>>> buildings? >>> There is solid irrefutable proof that thermite was used >>> to destroy the towers and WTC7. >> >> The only evidence you've posted is that there was some substance >> which is not only found in thermite, but in virtually thousands >> and thousands of other substances that are readily available, >> that someone said that they collected from some place in NY >> some time after 9/11. That's all you've ever shown. >> >>> How else do you explain >>> the molten metal that flowed like lava, >> >> Lead, aluminum, copper, and any other substances that could look >> 'like' lava as much as metal does. > > So, you "think" the structural steel in the towers and WTC7 > was made of lead, aluminum, and copper, eh? Good "thinking", nut > job... You're using your conclusion that the molten metal was steel in order to prove that the steel was melted. The fact is that there's no evidence whatsoever that the molten stuff that someone said that they think they saw was steel at all. But thanks for proving that you're a whacko with your ad hominems. > >>> the iron rich >>> microshperes, and the unreacted nanothermite? > >> There are nothing but wild claims that any such spheres were >> found near the WTC, > > More nut job lies and ignorance. Read and learn, nut job. Whacko
From: Henry on 15 Oct 2009 09:46
Al Dykes wrote: > Gage speaks for 2-2/1 hours and says 100 stupid things. Can you quote and refute one of these "things" for us? Here's an example of how to quote something incredibly stupid. It was written by you. >> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of >> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight >> down onto its own footprint? > Yes. Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they did it? http://www.metacafe.com/watch/176540/china_demolition/ I wonder if the other magic fire cartoon conspiracy kooks are embarrassed by the level of your insanity yet? <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |