Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

[Topaz]

As long as people have CLOSED mind to the possibility that their government could create or let a 9/11 happen.....government will always come up on top  throw out some many fake news to confuse it citizens just like the CIA did  when rogue agents killed JFK and that been proven by Peter Janney and he wrote a  book about called "Mary's Mosaic". Mary knew about what the CIA had done because her hubby was one of them and they killed her one day  back in the '60's while she did her daily run in DC, one bullet to the head.

[Rue]

Eutectoid Steel which Hotty seems to be having problems understanding  refers to  the eutectoid composition or make-up of  the iron-carbon components of steel which is usually .80% to .83% carbon and a eutectic temperature  of 1,333 degrees farenheit.

 

Here is the heating process of steel Hotty clearly does not understand but thinks he is an expert on:

http://www.csun.edu/~bavarian/Courses/MSE 227/Labs/6-Heat_Treatment_of_Steel.pdf

http://www.eng.utah.edu/~lzang/images/lecture-19.pdf

 

 All eutectic refers to is the point when steel becomes liquid and eutectoid refers to the point where steel remains solid.

 

There’s no such thing as eutectic steel. No one but a fool would call it that. They might use layman’s language and refer to it as molten steel, but technically until it cools off and is solid, its not yet steel.

 

 

Edited July 4, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

53 minutes ago, Topaz said:

As long as people have CLOSED mind to the possibility that their government could create or let a 9/11 happen.....government will always come up on top  throw out some many fake news to confuse it citizens just like the CIA did  when rogue agents killed JFK and that been proven by Peter Janney and he wrote a  book about called "Mary's Mosaic". Mary knew about what the CIA had done because her hubby was one of them and they killed her one day  back in the '60's while she did her daily run in DC, one bullet to the head.

You throw out speculation and it is illogical. People with open minds are just as easily if not more easily manipulated as people with closed minds.

[hot enough]

23 hours ago, Rue said:

Your continue

Still no science, not a source from Rue. That is the equal of lying, Rue, and you have it down pat.

[hot enough]

22 hours ago, Rue said:

You throw out speculation and it is illogical. People with open minds are just as easily if not more easily manipulated as people with closed minds.

Patently false, Rue. Just look at how all you closed minded folks absolutely refuse to look at that science, the facts of 911. 

Richard Feynman had an open mind. If he were alive, he would be chastising all these cargo cult scientists, and all their closed minded little followers, folks exactly like you all. 

You all have nothing remotely approaching integrity as regards science. Yours [plural] is nothing but deception and misdirection, avoidance and subterfuge, poor as it is.

He said,

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

 

R Feynman also said the following, and if he were alive, I doubt very much that this NIST fraud would have ever occurred. He describes NIST's cargo cult science below. Everything NIST did disagrees with science. 

"There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. … 

It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another."

Edited July 5, 2017 by hot enough

[GostHacked]

I think the vid I posted back on page 1 is a good place to start. 

[hot enough]

23 hours ago, Rue said:

There’s no such thing as eutectic steel.

Here's a video for you, Rue, that you might learn a bit.

[hot enough]

24 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

I think the vid I posted back on page 1 is a good place to start. 

I agree that there is much therein to be found . However, that's much too much for those with the attention span of a gnat. 

 

[Omni]

You simply ignore all the science that has been shown to refute your conspiracy theory claims so it gets a bit redundant to go over and over it.

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

You simply ignore all the science that has been shown

You have never shown any. The crap you have brought forward was out of date, which you, in your ignorance, didn't even realize. And the odd time that any of the science deniers/anti-truthers brought any source, they/you were totally incapable of discussing it.

[Topaz]

On 2017-07-04 at 3:03 PM, Rue said:

You throw out speculation and it is illogical. People with open minds are just as easily if not more easily manipulated as people with closed minds.

What I'm saying is IF one does not even open their minds to the possibility something COULD be true, then a government  or media could throw out  fake news and the people are suppose to believe their government because government would never lie to its people,especially what is going on now in the world and the US media.

[Omni]

29 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You have never shown any. The crap you have brought forward was out of date, which you, in your ignorance, didn't even realize. And the odd time that any of the science deniers/anti-truthers brought any source, they/you were totally incapable of discussing it.

Paint chips. All you need to know.

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

Paint chips. All you need to know.

No Trolling/Flaming

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.
Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

No Trolling/Flaming

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.
Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. 

Now that you've read it, follow it.

[hot enough]

As of today within the scientific community as it relates to 911 science, the Harrit et al paper entitled, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", describing the nanothermite found within WTC dust is uncontested science. 

There has been nothing to challenge this paper in any peer reviewed journal. I'll let Dr Steven Jones describe how the process works, for Omni and others for whom this all to be a wee bit too much to digest.

Quote

April 7 2009
Steven Jones
911blogger.com

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...

http://911debunkers.blogspot.ca/2009/04/steven-jones-tells-911-debunkers-to-put.html

 

[hot enough]

So, here we are at July, 2017 and US government proprietary nanothermite, both unreacted particles and the residue of exploded nanothermite, iron microspheres, have been found in WTC dust. None of this material had any legal/legitimate reason for being there. 

That, along with all the other irrefutable evidence, makes it clear that WTCs 1, 2 & 7 were controlled demolitions, carried out not by Al Qaeda or any Muslim terrorists. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

Quote

In April 2009, Jones, Danish Niels H. Harrit and seven other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, causing the editor, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, to resign as she accused the publisher of printing it without her knowledge;^[11][12] t

And your "journal" isn't respected, as it publishes fake papers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers#Controversy

Of course, you will continue to believe, eyes all aglow with your reality-denying faith.  Many reasonable people on here have given you evidence which you ignore.  I hope they are enjoying conversing with you, but it won't ever lead to changing your mind.  

[Michael Hardner]

I will add, yet again, that the idea of augmenting an already-planned plane attack with a completely unnecessary and complicated demolition makes no sense and would be comical if not for the tragedy of lost lives involved.

It's a testimonial to human stubbornness in the face of reason. 

[hot enough]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I will add, yet again, that the idea of augmenting an already-planned plane attack with a completely unnecessary and complicated demolition makes no sense and would be comical if not for the tragedy of lost lives involved.

It's a testimonial to human stubbornness in the face of reason. 

A typical illogical Michael Hardner argument. Illustrative of your lack of knowledge. You know nothing at all of what was planned. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, hot enough said:

A typical illogical Michael Hardner argument. Illustrative of your lack of knowledge. You know nothing at all of what was planned. 

Well, the plane attack would have been planned - are you disputing THAT ?  And you believe the CD was planned also.  So, what do I have wrong ?  Were these acts just execute spontaneously, spur of the moment ?

[hot enough]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And your "journal" isn't respected, as it publishes fake papers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers#Controversy

Of course, you will continue to believe, eyes all aglow with your reality-denying faith.  Many reasonable people on here have given you evidence which you ignore.  I hope they are enjoying conversing with you, but it won't ever lead to changing your mind.  

Why would you suggest that anyone believe Michael Hardner and not Dr Steven Jones, a PhD? What are you, Michael?

Micheal will now disappear, as he always does.

 

Quote

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

Ibid

 

[GostHacked]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I will add, yet again, that the idea of augmenting an already-planned plane attack with a completely unnecessary and complicated demolition makes no sense and would be comical if not for the tragedy of lost lives involved.

It's a testimonial to human stubbornness in the face of reason. 

That's one hell of an explosion when the plane hit to make it to the ground floor through 2 floor barriers via the elevator shafts in the center of the building. The elevator shafts in the WTC buildings were not one continuous empty column.  How did that fireball get to the ground floor?

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, the plane attack would have been planned - are you disputing THAT ?  And you believe the CD was planned also.  So, what do I have wrong ?  Were these acts just execute spontaneously, spur of the moment ?

You have avoided, as you folks always do, an unbelievable amount of hard science that says you are attempting shermerisms, deliberate attempts to move the discussion away from what is important. 

The nanothermite, the molten/vaporized steel, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speeds of the twin towers, the impossible NIST WTC7 fable, ... . 

Billions of dollars in removing all the hazardous asbestos and retrofitting might be one reason. 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Why would you suggest that anyone believe Michael Hardner and not Dr Steven Jones, a PhD? What are you, Michael?

Why would people believe you over the sources I quoted that label your journal as fake ?

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

That's one hell of an explosion when the plane hit to make it to the ground floor through 2 floor barriers via the elevator shafts in the center of the building. The elevator shafts in the WTC buildings were not one continuous empty column.  How did that fireball get to the ground floor?

I guess the fact that you ignored the point of my post means you accept it then ?  Once you answer that, I'll respond to this new tack.