Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I figure it's because conservatives can't apologize.

This can't be blamed solely on conservatives as you, seemingly of a liberal bent, are doing as much or more than conservatives to deny reality, science, logic, ... . 

Edited July 2, 2017 by hot enough

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

This can't be blamed solely on conservatives as you, seemingly of a liberal bent, are doing as much or more than conservatives to deny reality, science, logic, ... . 

I'm not a scientist and I'm no more inclined to listen to the miniscule number of scientists who subscribe to the CD theory than I am to the miniscule number of scientists who deny climate science.

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm not a scientist and I'm no more inclined to listen to the miniscule number of scientists who subscribe to the CD theory than I am to the miniscule number of scientists who deny climate science.

Again, no personal slight intended.

You are not even of a scientific bent, even remotely so, because everything you have discussed, mentioned is the very antithesis of science. You have avoided science, opting for the equivalent of the bible. 

You obviously aren't even a very logical person for given the total impossibilities described by the science, you still vainly stick to the wacky US government conspiracy theory. 

Any thinking person can look at the evidence and know that the US fable is just that. Shows the incredible power of propaganda, something I kinda thought you were not so influenced by. 

[hot enough]

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 I'm no more inclined to listen to the miniscule number of scientists who subscribe to the CD theory than I am to the miniscule number of scientists who deny climate science.

The title of this thread is Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory.

You don't want to listen to the miniscule number of scientists who subscribe to the CD theory, but you and everyone else are totally incapable of bringing forward any evidence from what you seem to think are the astronomical number of scientists who support the USGOCT.

Silence does not equate to support. To make such an illogical leap, or to hold that as a core belief, isn't of science. 

Quote

9/11: Believe It …or Not

Jon Cole

...

Well it (US official story) just wasn’t right, and I had to tell others. I now believed that once people were aware of this evidence they would rise up collectively and demand justice. My, how naïve my new belief was! Much to my surprise, rather than provoke interest or outrage, what I mostly got was silence, doubt, or ridicule.  I was about as popular as the one that told you that Santa doesn’t really exist.

I began to realize what a firm grip our belief systems have on us, and how loath we are to having those beliefs challenged. For many, it seems far more important to preserve a lifetime of beliefs about one’s country, religious or political views than to peek into any details that go against them. Even in my engineering world, I found it’s ok to study the scientific details of how a bridge or building falls just as long as that building didn’t fall on September 11. There seems to be a deep “disconnect” between what the average person believes and what the evidence says must be true.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/this-is-the-first-editorial/

 

[Rue]

18 hours ago, hot enough said:

A "lawyer" brushes aside all the tangible, hard physical evidence in favor of bodiless, immaterial, incorporeal, insubstantial, unsubstantial, ethereal, unreal evidence.

Right after he has been shown that "his evidence" was all pure fiction, hearsay, lies, ... .

Need any more proof of the deep delusion?

You in fact have provided no evidence for your positions, just speculation and inference. Do yourself a favour. You clearly don't understand scientific methodology don't try pose as a lawyer either. You have been unable to explain why the combination you think was found was not paint chips. You simply assume it wasn't. That's not proof of anything other than you speculate and infer. In fact if I was to teach a class on inadmissible evidence  I would reproduce your statements. Hot Enough caling people names won't substitute for your inability to prove your inferences.

Calling me names won't change the fact you haven't a clue how to suggest the components you think can only prove nanothermites don't also prove paint chips.

You were asked to repeatedly and each name you responded by changing the subject and name calling.

That makes your diatribes both funny and sad, You live in a bubble. When thinks don't fit your bubble you claim they don't exist.

The myth of conspiracy you huff and puff on is a theory that was repudiated. In fact the irony is you are being led by your gullible nose because you don't know how to critique what you read.  There is a reason you think your "evidence" is rock solid-you won't question it. You can't. You haven't a clue how to question the doctrines you preach.

 

[Omni]

54 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm not a scientist and I'm no more inclined to listen to the miniscule number of scientists who subscribe to the CD theory than I am to the miniscule number of scientists who deny climate science.

They are few and far between, but they seem to still have some die-hard supporters, apparently.

[Rue]

41 minutes ago, hot enough said:

 

You are not even of a scientific bent, even remotely so, because everything you have discussed, mentioned is the very antithesis of science.

You have avoided science, opting for the equivalent of the bible. 

You obviously aren't even a very logical person for given the total impossibilities described by the science,

Any thinking person can look at the evidence and know that the US fable is just that.

 

In response to your first sentence, you are not a scientist so it renders the rest of your response nonsensical. If we follow your argument and reject the opinions of others because they are not scientists, the same holds with you.

Your third sentence is absurd. If you were in fact logical you would  know your first response negated everything you say. As well your 4th response above is clearly not logical. You have not defined the evidence you claim "any thinking person" would conclude the same thing from which is illogical because you have assumed "any thinking person" must think like you and only limit themselves to your views, let alone what you think is evidence. That is in fact illogical.

Also you claim "any thinking person" would know the US is a fable. That is itself illogical. Calling the US a fable is a subjective opinion not a provable absolute concept. You again show you have no idea what the difference is between your personal subjective opinions and objective facts. You assume there is only one way to define the US. You even use an illogical description. The US exists so it can not be a fable That would be illogical. What you probably meant to say is you think its full ofm ixed messages. That would not make it a fable.  The fact a pathological liar may exist and repeatedly lie does not make the liar a fable. It might make what he says a fable. Your lack of logic again shows.

Back to your second sentence. You have provided no science. In fact you provide references to subjective opinions that contain NO scientific methodology to present their conclusions only speculated theories. There us a huge difference between a theory and a fact and you continue to demonstrate you don't understand that difference passing off theory as fact simply because you agree with that theory.

In fact, you demonstrate the very faith based practices you have accused others of.

Hotty every time you respond it becomes more and more obvious you believe your theories are absolute and infallible and can not be questioned. That just makes you someone full of his sense of reality to the point you can see no others. That is simply classic narcissism the inability to differentiate yourself and your thoughts from others and their thoughts.  That Hotty is illogical.

 

[Rue]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

This can't be blamed solely on conservatives as you, seemingly of a liberal bent, are doing as much or more than conservatives to deny reality, science, logic, ... . 

The fact people disagree with your subjective theories does not mean they reject science. That is illogical. It is illogical to assume your theories are as you refer to them

"science". You have yet to provide a scientific methodological process to establish the foundation for even one theory you have presented. What you do is reprint speculative

theories that even their writers claim are only that.

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

You have been unable to explain why the combination you think was found was not paint chips.

So dishonest, Rue. I didn't find anything. Harrit et al did. I posted it. I posted Dr Steven Jones describing how their results are established science, science that has not been refuted by any peer reviewed scientist. Here it is again, so you can't try to slip away.

There certainly are lots of lawyers who are incredible liars, aren't there, Rue? 

You all have gone from deny nanothermite ever existed to this latest dog and pony show. 

Quote

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2 , Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4 , Frank M. Legge5 , Daniel Farnsworth2 , Gregg Roberts6 , James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/bentham_open/ActiveThermitic_Harrit_Bentham2009.pdf

Here is Dr Steven Jones explaining why you don't know what you are talking about, Rue. 

"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."

That's you, Rue, and you are a total non debunker. Just read your screed. There is no science offered, never any science offered, just Rue the lawyer shouting, "look a squirrel, oh there's another one over there, hey three more there, ... !"

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

 

 

Quote

 

Millette study fails to refute crucial findings by Harrit et al

 

What the thermite deniers got right - and why they have ultimately lost the debate

The "debunkers" turned out to be correct on one issue: their "paint chips" hypothesis, as demonstrated in the section below on Laclede primer paint. The evidence shows that the red/gray chips discovered by Dr. Steven Jones consist of a layer of red primer paint attached to a layer of mill scale, which is an outer oxidized layer of ~50 microns thickness found on structural steel. It is mostly comprised of magnetite, and is formed as the steel is rolled to produce the required shapes. Yet iron-rich spheres with Fe:O ratios up to 4:1 were found in the residue after these chips were heated up to 700 °C; none of the spheres were observed prior to heating. That is not possible from paint chips, unless there had been a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics (or probability)!

Those iron-rich spheres, evidence for a thermite reaction, are corroborated by elemental aluminum found in the red/gray chip that was soaked in MEK (see below). Iron oxide, which was contained in at least two types of primer paint at the WTC, does not reduce to iron without a chemical reaction such as a thermite reaction. And iron or Fe₂O₃ particles with a diameter of microns or larger do not melt at temperatures significantly lower than their bulk melting temperatures of 1,538 °C and 1,565 °C respectively. If Fe₂O₃ dissociates into magnetite and oxygen at 1,388 °C, then the melting point of magnetite is even higher at 1,597 °C. Moreover, the elemental aluminum - at least, some of it - must be nano-sized in order to ignite at 500 to 700 °C to create those spheres in a thermite reaction, and therefore was clearly created in a laboratory - e.g., a military lab. But thermite was only one of the accelerants employed at the WTC. Much of the physical evidence points to thermite or thermate, which was used at WTC2 and WTC7. Many of the red/gray chips, as we shall see, are from floors 94-98 of WTC1, for which we can be certain that powdered aluminum was applied as an accelerant, but the principal oxidizer was probably not Fe₂O₃. Since 100 nm diameter Fe₂O₃ was present as a pigment in the red primer paint, this could have reacted with nano-Al to produce the observed iron-rich spheres.

And it is established beyond all doubt that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory of "nineteen Arabs" with "box cutters" is a myth, believable only by infants, ignoramuses, halfwits, and those who are afraid to examine the evidence because their ego will not allow them to entertain the fact that they were wrong for more than a decade. Although the truth movement has not got everything right about 9/11, it is right about nearly everything, whereas the "debunkers" have got almost everything wrong. So much, in fact, that as Anthony Lawson so aptly remarks, it "either demonstrates a level of ignorance almost beyond belief, or something far worse".

http://www.takeourworldback.com/millettepaintchips.htm#ThermiteDeniers

 

 

 

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, Rue said:

In response to

 

Still, not a lick of science from Rue. But you are doing a grand "Oh look, a squirrel!" routine.

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎30 at 10:30 PM, hot enough said:

Omni has never provided any evidence, nor has Michael, Rue, Wilber, OftenWrong, ... .

 

We did and you then stated you disagreed with it. You now claim because you disagreed with it, it was not presented. That is illogical. It was presented. You simply continue to disagree with it. Disagreeing with something does not mean it does not exist,

Again you not only engage in a complete lack of logic but you show when you disagree with something you try make it disappear so you don't have to deal with its possibilities. The moment someone challenges you with a theory you disagree with you engage in fiction that they haven't because you don't agree with them.

Children do that.. When children can't handle a message other than what they want to hear they stuck their fingers in their ears, make silly loud noises to try drown out the words they won't want to hear.  Doesn't make the boogy man go away.

The simple term for the exercise you engage in is called denial.

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, Rue said:

The fact people disagree with your subjective theories does not mean they reject science. That is illogical. It is illogical to assume your theories are as you refer to them

"science". You have yet to provide a scientific methodological process to establish the foundation for even one theory you have presented. What you do is reprint speculative

theories that even their writers claim are only that.

Still no science from Rue. Rue won't even address the science put forward. You are one in a long line of folks who have never provided one speck of evidence in a thread designed expressly for that purpose. 

 

[hot enough]

14 minutes ago, Rue said:

The moment someone challenges you with a theory

There's been nothing, Rue. And still, nothing. If there was, you wouldn't have wasted all your breath whining, ..., no, I take that back, you love to whine and it is all you do. Note, still no science. 

You haven't even had time to go over the Harrit et al, the Steven Jones, and the paper that refutes Millette  in Post 279, but here you are whining, whining whining about a bunch of nothing!

Edited July 2, 2017 by hot enough

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎30 at 1:05 PM, hot enough said:

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.

 

Nothing in what you presented has shown the components that were found at the site were not paint chips and could only be proof of nanothermites.

So your inference, your assumption that the components found can only be nano thermites continues to remain unproven. You can quote all the alleged scientists you want, it doesn't make what they speculate a fact.

You use the word "scientific" as if it renders theories objective if you call the theories scientific. That is illogical. What turns something into a fact , is a scientific methodological process which provens them not simply calling them scientific.

In fact if you used the word properly you would know you have turned the word "scientific" into an adjective you then try use to suggest it turns a theory into a fact. That is neither scientific or logical.

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, Rue said:

Nothing in what you presented has shown the components that were found at the site were not paint chips and could only be proof of nanothermites.

Mark Basile is the scientist, Rue, you are not one nor are you remotely close to one. 

In these videos, which you are obviously too frightened to view, you can see and hear described how they are thermitic reactions, described by scientists, which you are not. 

The paint chips do not ignite. The unreacted particles of nanothermite do. Leaving the by products of thermitic reactions and the chemical signature of said reactions. 

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by hot enough

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, Rue said:

We did and you then stated you disagreed with it. You now claim because you disagreed with it, it was not presented.

Hence the previous "whack a mole" All the info presented that refutes his conspiracy theory is basically ignored. I guess when you're in that deep there's no turning back.

[hot enough]

Here is the lead scientist on the Harrit et al paper, Neils Harrit, describing the nanothermite they found in WTC dust samples.

 

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

All the info presented that refutes his conspiracy theory is basically ignored.

You have never ever provided any. Not a speck. Some wild assed, totally unsubstantiated, non-sourced drivel you have provided but you always flee right after.

[hot enough]

Mark Basile, further describing the nanothermite he has tested. 

 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You have never ever provided any. Not a speck. Some wild assed, totally unsubstantiated, non-sourced drivel you have provided but you always flee right after.

There you go again. Study up about paint chips.

[Rue]

26 minutes ago, hot enough said:

There's been nothing, Rue. And still, nothing. If there was, you wouldn't have wasted all your breath whining, ..., no, I take that back, you love to whine and it is all you do. Note, still no science. 

You haven't even had time to go over the Harrit et al, the Steven Jones, and the paper that refutes Millette  in Post 279, but here you are whining, whining whining about a bunch of nothing!

In fact I and others presented responses that repudiated the very people you  keep quoting. Saying we didn't doesn't make them vanish.

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

There you go again. Study up about paint chips.

To this day, never a speck of evidence offered by any one of the science denying, anti-truther US government conspiracy theory supporting crowd. 

1. Only subterranean high explosives could have made the seismic signals recorded at LDEO. The timing of these seismic signals matches perfectly with the explosive events described by two eyewitnesses.

2. US nanothermite in WTC dust

3. Molten/vaporized steel at all WTC sites.

4. Free fall for WTC7.

5. Accelerating collapses for the twin towers.

6. ... 

So many impossibilities for the USGOCT and still people cling desperately to their delusions. 

[Rue]

10 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Mark Basile, further describing the nanothermite he has tested. 

 

He has never proven what he found could only have been nano thermites and not paint chips and so until he does what you present from him is a speculated theory not a proven fact. He can not and has never denied that what he found could have been paint chips.

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Rue said:

In fact I and others presented responses that repudiated the very people you  keep quoting. Saying we didn't doesn't make them vanish.

Continually yapping about them and always keeping them hidden has made them vanish. And severely tarnished your reputation. 

[Rue]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

To this day, never a speck of evidence offered by any one of the science denying, anti-truther US government conspiracy theory supporting crowd. 

1. Only subterranean high explosives could have made the seismic signals recorded at LDEO. The timing of these seismic signals matches perfectly with the explosive events described by two eyewitnesses.

2. US nanothermite in WTC dust

3. Molten/vaporized steel at all WTC sites.

4. Free fall for WTC7.

5. Accelerating collapses for the twin towers.

6. ... 

So many impossibilities for the USGOCT and still people cling desperately to their delusions. 

The past posts show all the above was directly responded to and in fact repudiated. The fact you disagreed with what was placed on this forum won't malke it vanish simply because you disagree with it.