Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

[hot enough]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

Reg he does not read or consider any possibility but the ones in his preconceived views as to what happened. Thus if you tell him what he thinks must  and can only be  proof of  a nanothermite  may simply be evidence of common  paint chip residue, he will change the subect when its brought up by either focusing to another issue or engaging in personal insults.

Speaking of changing the subject, Rue, that's exactly what you are trying to do. Instead, why don't you bring forward your serious errors from another thread when you discussed 911 and some science and you were not only thread drifting, you were totally out to lunch. 

[Wilber]

You guys not tired of Whack a Mole yet?

[hot enough]

13 minutes ago, Wilber said:

You ?

Do you deny that nanothermite was discovered and produced by US government military labs in the 1990s, Wilber?

Do you deny that nanothermite was discovered in WTC dust, along with the by products of those reactions? 

Do you deny the molten/vaporized steel found at WTC?

[Omni]

37 minutes ago, Wilber said:

You guys not tired of Whack a Mole yet?

That nanu nanu stuff  must be addictive I guess.

[hot enough]

12 hours ago, Reg said:

Some research on my part shows that the "thermite" is a conclusion being drawn from the presence of aluminum and iron oxide. 

Yes, scientists will agree that thermite is a combination of those 2 compounds. They will also tell you it's  in common paint.

Here's research:

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/paper/index.htm

And here is a quote from the conclusion:

"According to the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology, kaolin (also known as aluminum silicate or china clay) is a platy or lamellar pigment that is used extensively as a pigment in many segments of the paint industry.12 It is a natural mineral (kaolinite) which is found in vast beds in many parts of the world.13 Iron oxide pigments are also used extensively in paints and coatings.13,14 Both kaolin and iron oxide pigments have been used in paints and coatings for many years.13,14 Epoxy resins were introduced into coatings in approximately 194715 and are found in a number of specially designed protective coatings on metal substrates."

Its more likely these compounds are a result of paint flakes. 

Paint chips do not explode, Reg, and create the same by products of thermite/nanothermite. 

One of the scientists who has studied these unreacted particles of nanothermite explains what they are. The part that is pertinent to your offering above, can be seen starting at 3:57.

 

[hot enough]

12 hours ago, Reg said:

Some research on my part shows that the "thermite" is a conclusion being drawn from the presence of aluminum and iron oxide. 

Yes, scientists will agree that thermite is a combination of those 2 compounds. They will also tell you it's  in common paint.

Even regular thermite cannot be produced from iron/iron oxide and aluminium pieces falling together in a collapse. The notion that nanothermite could be created in this fashion is ludicrous in the extreme. ONLY the US government/military has nanothermite, 'nano' meaning one-billionth of a meter, one-millionth of a millimeter.

What was a US government, high grade military explosive doing at WTC, Reg? 

Quote

Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives

...

Energetic materials are made in two ways. The first is by physically mixing solid oxidizers and fuels, a process that, in its basics, has remained virtually unchanged for centuries. Such a process results in a composite energetic material such as black powder. The second process involves creating a monomolecular energetic material, such as TNT, in which each molecule contains an oxidizing component and a fuel component. For the composites, the total energy can be much greater than that of monomolecular materials. However, the rate at which this energy is released is relatively slow when compared to the release rate of monomolecular materials. Monomolecular materials such as TNT work fast and thus have greater power than composites, but they have only moderate energy densities-commonly half those of composites. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

 

[Omni]

13 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Paint chips do not explode

Airplanes full of fuel crashing into buildings at high speed on the other hand.....

[hot enough]

Why do science deniers/anti-truthers keep advancing, in totally deceptive and patently dishonest fashions, things they know are lies?

Quote

John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3  

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. ⁴  

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by hot enough

[Rue]

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

You guys not tired of Whack a Mole yet?

Hell its been made into syndicated shoes like Jerry, Maury, Judy, and my own show Ruey is on Russian state television..

[Rue]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

Speaking of changing the subject, Rue, that's exactly what you are trying to do. Instead, why don't you bring forward your serious errors from another thread when you discussed 911 and some science and you were not only thread drifting, you were totally out to lunch. 

No errors were brought forward by me or anyone else, you simply disagree with the people we quoted.

[Michael Hardner]

Even if the crackpot scientists quoted by the pro-conspiracy folks confessed they were lying, or found to be crazy, the crowd would find another to trumpet above all consensus and good reason.  Whack-a-mole is a great analogy @Wilber

[Rue]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

Even regular thermite cannot be produced from iron/iron oxide and aluminium pieces falling together in a collapse. The notion that nanothermite could be created in this fashion is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

No one stated the iron/oxide and aluminium pieces fell together and by falling together created thermite. You don't read what the poster wrote or I and others sent you. Its what you do. You are so blinded by your preconceived biases you can't even read what's presented to you.

What Reg said, and I and many others have produced references to state is that the same compounds in pain iron/oxide and aluminum also would be found in thermites. Those components didn't suddenly come together while free falling. They were pre-existent in the paint.

In fact all the references you quoted were proven wrong by independent third parties and your absurd response shows once again you just can't accept basic fundamental facts that paint is made of iron oxide and aluminum and your assumption they only exist because they come from thermites is wrong. You leaped to the conclusion these two components can only be found in thermites and now you go off on some absolutely idiotic theory that the only way these two compounds in paint did not pre-exist is because they fell together in the air.

By the way your claim also assumes quite incorrectly NOT  thermites but nano-thermites caused the explosion. Thermites could not have because they don't havethe chemical or explosive abilities to cause the explosions. That is why the people you think you quite had to reinvent the thermite theory to be nano thermite. Nano thermite being a super duper thermite with extra power since thermites won't fit the theory.

The theory of there being nano thermites which is a  non scientific way of saying super thermite to make it sound scientific is to advance a theory that there is a metastable intermolecular composite different from thermite.

Supposedly their components of  iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles) and are of such a make-up they  increases the reactivity.

The fact is the conspiracy had to bring in the notion of nano-thermites to suit their conspiracy claim when the regular thermite theory did not make scientific sense.

Conspiracy theorists such as yourself pose as if you understand both nano science and nano technology and that you understand it because you read an article on the internet that said it exists and is a military weapon.

It is a fact that no one in the public really knows the full extent and nature of the explosive abilities of nano thermite or even if it exists.

There are articles that speculate that countries NOT just the US are researching the creation of bombs using nanomaterials that would create the ultra-high burn rate that conspiracy theorists think were created by them at the WTC. The conspiracy theorists reject any other possible explanations for what caused the explosions other than a nanothermite weapon  They call them all errors such as the poster does who responds to me. . 

 

The fact is the creation of completion or operational abilities of a supposed nanothermite weapon have never been proven. There is no proof they exist or work but for a conspiracy theorist lack of proof simply means its secret.

People like this conspiracy theorist can see only one possible explanation-their explanation.

Thus I explained why this poster calls any explanation other than his own an error or not true.

You will never see this poster be able to acknowledge any theory other than one that he agrees with.

You again can notice when he responded to me he does what he does, restate the comment from the poster he responds to incorrectly and inaccurately.

 

 

[Rue]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Even if the crackpot scientists quoted by the pro-conspiracy folks confessed they were lying, or found to be crazy, the crowd would find another to trumpet above all consensus and good reason.  Whack-a-mole is a great analogy @Wilber

I like moles. I have them in my garden. I hate the other kind especially the ones with hair growing out of them.

Now Mr. Hardner allow me to share this because I like to debate no wack moles.

I find  Hotty's belief that  nano thermites not paint chips were found in the debris is not the workings of a mole but simply a person who wants to badly to believe in just one version of reality and I am not wacking him. I don't wack things including myself. My hands are only used for legal activities.

Here is what Hotty wants us to believe;

 

1-the material they found (which by the way  had been contaminated over six years) for reasons they can not explain could not be the components of paint chips (which are the components of paint chips) because we MUST without any proof assume they must be  nanothermites;

2-he rust and aluminum they found which are the basic components of paint and are present in most building structures, aren't simply that, they must be nanothermites;

3-the people who blew up the buiildings with nanothermites were able to being in to the towers anywhere from  10 to 100 tons of this highly dangerous substance in all three buildings without anyone noticing-and yes it would have to be in that amount to blow up the buildings even if they were nanothermites -but hey Hotty answer that one, lol;

4- ah but it gets better we are supposed to not ask, how the phack  did the bombers detonate there tons of nanothermite?  Lol. Please tell me because Hotty has no idea.

5 -Oh by the way how did these bombers know exactly where the planes were going to hit in order to plant the explosives in a way that would make it seem that the structure of the building gave way right around the point of impact-because to accept Hotty's theory that would have to be.

6-I would also love Hotty to explain how something so  highly explosive and reactive as he says his super-duper nano thermites are didn't  explode as soon as they came in contact with the burning hot flaming jet fuel that exploded all around them.

7-Oh yah one other thing, if I accept Hotty's theory.  Even though the buildings collapse immediately after the planes hit I am supposed to pretend they did not and the nano thermites waited without exploding until only when they react to  fire and then and only then the collapse started. I will just suspend what actually happened to pretend it did not.
 

I am not wacking a mole just pointing out Snow White and the seven dwarves were code for heroin. Dopey, itchy, sneexy, grouchy, do I have to spell it out. Olive Oyl was a gay man as were Popeye and Bluto fighting over him Of course he had no breasts. Do I need go on. The Elongated Man was the only superhero without a secret identity. Of course. He couldn't keep his elongations secret.

Let's also get real. Why would anyone have left their children alone with Dr, Zachary Smith and why did the robot not cru out danger danger when he was around the kids?

Why were their no toilets on the USS Enterprise?

Why does Kathleen Wynne look like Orville Redenbaker

Oh please you did not notice Justin is Fidel's son?

How does anyone explain Sea horses, mosquitoes, warts, pimples, hemmeroids, ear wax, eye crust long fingernails on men obese people lecturing yout o go on a diet?

How about Indians or Chinese afraid of crowds, Irish people who don't drink,  non Jewish or black  people trying to do stand up comedy,  Japanese people who don't eat fish, Portugese people who don't like singing, French people who work all day, Germans not on time, and aliens always able to speak English?

Well?

We need to ask questions.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

Also why this part of the plot was necessary, who would execute it, and why, and why all the security guards in one building who presumably knew agreed to stay put, and die.

Moles.

[hot enough]

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also why this part of the plot was necessary, who would execute it, and why, and why all the security guards in one building who presumably knew agreed to stay put, and die.

Moles.

Rue wrote: I find  Hotty's belief that  nano thermites not paint chips were found in the debris is not the workings of a mole but simply a person who wants to badly to believe in just one version of reality and I am not wacking him. I don't wack things including myself. My hands are only used for legal activities.

Here is what Hotty wants us to believe;

=============

Well, Michael?

Edited June 30, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Even if the crackpot scientists quoted by the pro-conspiracy folks confessed they were lying, or found to be crazy, the crowd would find another to trumpet above all consensus and good reason.  Whack-a-mole is a great analogy @Wilber

You do realize that you are talking about yourself, Michael. The US government conspiracy theory is the one with no evidence supporting it. NIST are the crackpot scientists and your remarks are testament to how precious little you know.  

No evidence has ever come from you, or Rue, or any one of the US government conspiracy theory science deniers. It's always just the same childish 'whack a mole' nonsense. 

Quote

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...

Dr Steven Jones
 

 

 

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Here is what Hotty wants us to believe;

 

Rue: 1-the material they found (which by the way  had been contaminated over six years) for reasons they can not explain could not be the components of paint chips (which are the components of paint chips) because we MUST without any proof assume they must be  nanothermites;

"which by the way  had been contaminated over six years)" This illustrates your ignorance, Rue. The samples were not contaminated. But you would have to read the information, something none of you will do. 

But let's run with your "contaminated" gambit for a moment. Even if these were "contaminated" there is nothing that could have created NANOTHERMITE contamination because it isn't commercially available. You can't make it, only US government scientists can make it. Why would they go around, breaking into people's homes and apartments to spike their collected samples of dust with nanothermite?

Talk about wacko conspiracy theories!

It was nanothermite, because it measures at the nano scale. What don't you understand about this, Rue? It is a measurable quantity. The unreacted particles explode and create the same chemical signature as thermite, which is what nanothermite is, but just at the nano scale. Regular thermite had no business being at WTC, in WTC dust, so why do you think it is kosher for nanothermite to be there?

To create nano scale thermite is a much different process from making regular thermite. Scientists know this and so should you, as it has been discussed many times, with links to the very US scientists who made these discoveries. 

At Livermore Laboratory, sol-gel chemistry-the same process used to make aerogels or "frozen smoke" (see S&TR, November/December 1995)—has been the key to creating energetic materials with improved, exceptional, or entirely new properties. This energetic materials breakthrough was engineered by Randy Simpson, director of the Energetic Materials Center; synthetic chemists Tom Tillotson, Alex Gash, and Joe Satcher; and physicist Lawrence Hrubesh.
These new materials have structures that can be controlled on the nanometer (billionth-of-a-meter) scale. Simpson explains, "In general, the smaller the size of the materials being combined, the better the properties of energetic materials. Since these `nanostructures' are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar. In addition, these `nanocomposite' materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods."

https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

Rue: 2-he rust and aluminum they found which are the basic components of paint and are present in most building structures, aren't simply that, they must be nanothermites;

Again, your ignorance about the subject. Are you really a lawyer? It hardly seems possible. 
 

 

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

By the way your claim also assumes quite incorrectly NOT  thermites but nano-thermites caused the explosion. Thermites could not have because they don't havethe chemical or explosive abilities to cause the explosions. That is why the people you think you quite had to reinvent the thermite theory to be nano thermite. Nano thermite being a super duper thermite with extra power since thermites won't fit the theory.

The theory of there being nano thermites which is a  non scientific way of saying super thermite to make it sound scientific is to advance a theory that there is a metastable intermolecular composite different from thermite.

Supposedly their components of  iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles) and are of such a make-up they  increases the reactivity.

In addition, these `nanocomposite' materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods." [same source as below]

The fact is the conspiracy had to bring in the notion of nano-thermites to suit their conspiracy claim when the regular thermite theory did not make scientific sense.

Again, you are woefully ignorant of the issues and the science of 911, Rue.

Quote

 

Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives

 

Energy Density vs Power, the Traditional Tradeoffs
Energetic materials are substances that store energy chemically. For instance, oxygen, by itself, is not an energetic material, and neither is fuel such as gasoline. But a combination of oxygen and fuel is.
Energetic materials are made in two ways. The first is by physically mixing solid oxidizers and fuels, a process that, in its basics, has remained virtually unchanged for centuries. Such a process results in a composite energetic material such as black powder. The second process involves creating a monomolecular energetic material, such as TNT, in which each molecule contains an oxidizing component and a fuel component. For the composites, the total energy can be much greater than that of monomolecular materials. However, the rate at which this energy is released is relatively slow when compared to the release rate of monomolecular materials. Monomolecular materials such as TNT work fast and thus have greater power than composites, but they have only moderate energy densities-commonly half those of composites.

"Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

 

 

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also why this part of the plot was necessary, who would execute it, and why, and why all the security guards in one building who presumably knew agreed to stay put, and die.

Moles.

What in heaven's name are you ranting about, Michael? What security guards? Who died? Do you even know what thread you are on?

[hot enough]

On 6/27/2017 at 4:37 PM, hot enough said:

 

 

[I found out why]

Edited June 30, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

On 6/28/2017 at 11:01 AM, Reg said:

hot enough:1. Do you think it misleading for the twin towers collapse sequence to be described by a "scientific" paper put out on September 13, 2001, two days after the collapse? 

Reg: I'm not sure what your referring to on the first point.

The manner in which the twin towers collapsed was described in the Bazant paper two days after the collapse. Is that how science works in your mind?

hot enough: 2. You remember reading, Why no link to your "source"? 

Reg: On the second point, I'm talking about looking into this maybe 10/15 years ago. 

Okay.

hot enough: 3.  You remember reading a source that actually describes jet fuel's "ability to melt steel"? You do know that that is impossible, don't you, Reg?

Reg: On the third point, I think the claim was that it was impossible for jet fuel to melt steel, therefore the fuel could not have caused the collapse. My point was that the steel is critically weakened at much lower temperatures.

You have missed the point, Reg, big time! The point is that "it was impossible for jet fuel to melt steel,", yet there was molten and vaporized steel and other high melting point metals, and something else therefore was at WTC that did melt and vaporize these metals, THEREFORE, there were no hijackers, THEREFORE, the US government conspiracy theory is totally bogus. 

Reg: There seems to be a growing market for this Alex Jones type stuff out there. It's easy to put together media that focuses on anomalies (any large chaotic event has anomalies) and paint a picture of conspiracy. Cherry picking information, taking things out of context, all these things can be used to make a compelling argument to those who want to believe.

These are world class scientists, Reg, not Alex Jones. People like you operate under the mistaken premise that these are a small group of scientists, while the rest all agree with the USGOCT. That is false. No scientist from any of the US major universities will debate for the US government story, while one of the top US scientists, a man who, because of his reputation as a top scientist, was given the job of analyzing moon rocks, was going to debate the controlled demolition position. 

 

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

No evidence has ever come from you, or Rue, or any one of the US government conspiracy theory science deniers. It's always just the same childish 'whack a mole' nonsense. 

And it's always the same with so many positive claimants...the expectation that it's up to everyone else to prove them wrong.

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And it's always the same with so many positive claimants...the expectation that it's up to everyone else to prove them wrong.

Please try to be clear about what you are saying, eyeball.

[Reg]

27 minutes ago, hot enough said:

 

I'm not going to research every claim you make on this conspiracy hot enough, I'm not very invested in this.

I am curious that you didn't respond to the fact that the research you posted used citations that contradicted the conspiracy. I have no doubt in my mind that you are being honest in your opinion on this, but I question the integrity of the author of the research paper you posted, as I've seen this type of thing before.  Research papers with contradictory (or sometimes bogus ) citations. Major red flag.

That alone doesn't disprove your theory, just be careful about your research - always check the credentials of the researcher/peer review, their affiliations, and first and foremost check all citations. If the paper is bogus, you can usually find out pretty quick checking citations as the perpetrators don't expect people to read them.

Take care

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Reg said:

I am curious that you didn't respond to the fact that the research you posted used citations that contradicted the conspiracy. I have no doubt in my mind that you are being honest in your opinion on this, but I question the integrity of the author of the research paper you posted, as I've seen this type of thing before.  Research papers with contradictory (or sometimes bogus ) citations. Major red flag.

If you will make clear what you mean, Reg, I can address what you believe to be contradictions. Isn't that how science is supposed to work?