Featured What's The Difference?

Again, I don't have to prove what happened, who done it and how. For some reason you keep missing that point.

All I have to prove is it couldn't have happened the way we were told. I did that. I also proved or rather you did that you can't even begin to prove it happened the way we were told it happened.

"I saw it with my own eyes" only proves you saw something with your own eyes it doesn't explain what you saw happening.

Did you see with your own eyes the third building (WTC 7) that wasn't hit with a plane collapse at free fall speed displaying the 11 characteristics one would expect to see in a controlled demolition as it fell? I did.

You can choose to believe what you want, I choose to believe Newton's laws of inertia, gravity and motion that have been proven to be scientifically accurate and sound since the 1600's could not have been suspended on one day in history by 19 box cutter armed hijackers as the government including NIST and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe.

For those who may have forgotten this is the "official story" . . .

"19 hijackers who conspired with Osama Bin Laden armed with box cutters who hated our freedom were somehow able to suspend Newton's laws of inertia, gravity and motion by flying airplanes into two skyscrapers in NYC which caused the sudden and complete collapse of three buildings at or near free fall speed including one that wasn't hit by an airplane to pull off the most spectacular terror attack in the history of the United States and we knew all this was so before any investigation took place and before any evidence was allegedly found and before the first of the three buildings suddenly and completely collapsed straight down accelerating as it went showing no sign of resistance from the massive steel structures designed to withstand several hits from fully loaded 707 jet airliners traveling at top speed."

To me it sounds more like a fairy tail than a workable hypothesis. But if you want to go on believing it more power to you. All you have to do is keep denying that Sir Issac Newton knew what he was talking about like the experts working for a government agency called "NIST" have been doing for years.

 

Hey, what happened to Walguy? I was looking forward to seeing him completely debunk the "thermite theory" point by point. He said it was easy enough to do. So why hasn't he done it already?

Where'd ya go Walguy?

Carpro tried but failed miserably to "end the story" by showing us how three buildings were able to collapse at or near free fall speed while defying the laws of physics as they fell without the use of explosives so it looks like you're up next. Let's see what you got.

In the meantime let's look at . . .

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” NIST Responses to FAQs,

August 2006 The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.

One of the most intriguing aspects of NIST’s diversionary posture has been their total lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators (Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.

The extensive evidence that explosives were used at the WTC includes witness testimony (MacQueen 2006), overwhelming physical evidence (Griffin 2005, Hoffman et al 2005, Jones and Legge et al 2008) and simple common sense (Legge 2007). There is also substantial evidence that aluminothermic (thermite) materials were present at the WTC (Jones 2007), and the presence of such materials can explain the existence of intense fire where it would not otherwise have existed. Additionally, despite agreement from all parties that the assumed availability of fuel allowed for the fires in any given location of each of the WTC buildings to last only twenty minutes (NIST 2007), the fires lasted much longer and produced extreme temperatures (Jones and Farrer et al 2008).

< snip >

Here are the top ten reasons why nano-thermites, and nano-thermite coatings, should have come to mind quickly for the NIST WTC investigators.

1. NIST was working with LLNL to test and characterize these sol-gel nanothermites, at least as early as 1999 (Tillitson et al 1999).

2. Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NIST’s advisory committee, and the most prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics, is an expert on the deflagration of energetic materials and the “ignition of porous energetic materials”(Margolis and Williams 1996, Telengator et al 1998, Margolis and Williams 1999). Nano-thermites are porous energetic materials. Additionally, Williams’ research partner, Stephen Margolis, has presented at conferences where nano-energetics are the focus (Gordon 1999). Some of Williams’ other colleagues at the University of California San Diego, like David J. Benson, are also experts on nano-thermite materials (Choi et al 2005, Jordan et al 2007).

3. Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive links to nano-thermites, developing and judging nano-thermite research proposals for the military and other military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007). SAIC’s subsidiary Applied Ordnance Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with lasers (Howard et al 2005). In an interesting coincidence, SAIC was the firm that investigated the 1993 WTC bombing, boasting that -- “After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible (SAIC 2004).” And the coincidences with this company don’t stop there, as SAIC was responsible for evaluating the WTC for terrorism risks in 1986 as well (CRHC 2008). SAIC is also linked to the late 1990s security upgrades at the WTC, the Rudy Giuliani administration, and the anthrax incidents after 9/11, through former employees Jerome Hauer and Steven Hatfill.

4. Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and materials who was nominated as director of NIST by President George W. Bush in October 2001, was former deputy secretary of defense, former director of DARPA’s office of materials science, and former executive at TRW.

Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders in the production and use of nanothermites (Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005). And military and aerospace contractor TRW has had a long collaboration with NASA laboratories in the development of energetic materials that are components of advanced propellants, like nano-gelled explosive materials (NASA 2001). TRW Aeronautics also made fireproof composites and high performance elastomer formulations, and worked with NASA to make energetic aerogels.

Additionally, Bement was a professor at Purdue and MIT. Purdue has a thriving program for nano-thermites (Son 2008). And interestingly, at MIT’s Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology, we find Martin Z. Bazant, son of notable “conspiracy debunker” Zdenek P. Bazant (MIT 2008), who does research on granular flows, and the electrochemical interactions of silicon. Zdenek P. Bazant is interested in nanocomposites as well (Northwestern 2008), and how they relate to naval warfare (ONR 2008). MIT was represented at nano-energetics conferences as early as 1998 (Gordon 1998).

Bement was also a director at both Battelle and the Lord Corporation. Battelle (where the anthrax was made) is an organization of “experts in fundamental technologies from the five National Laboratories we manage or co-manage for the US DOE.” Battelle advertises their specialization in nanocomposite coatings (Battelle 2008). The Lord Corporation also makes high-tech coatings for military applications (Lord 2008). In 1999, Lord Corp was working with the Army and NASA on “advanced polymer composites, advanced metals, and multifunctional materials” (Army 1999).

5. Hratch Semerjian, long-time director of NIST’s chemical division, was promoted to acting director of NIST in November 2004, and took over the WTC investigation until the completion of the report on the towers. Semerjian is closely linked to former NIST employee Michael Zachariah, perhaps the world’s most prominent expert on nano-thermites (Zachariah 2008). In fact, Semerjian and Zachariah co-authored ten papers that focus on nano-particles made of silica, ceramics and refractory particles. Zachariah was a major player in the Defense University Research Initiative on Nanotechnology (DURINT), a groundbreaking research effort for nano-thermites.

Continue . . . http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

 

In any case, it is important for those seeking the truth about 9/11 to consider what organizations and people had access to the technologies that were used to accomplish the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It is also important to recognize the links between those who had access to the technologies, those who had access to the buildings, and those who produced the clearly false official reports.

To that end we should note that NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites, both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long afterward at Ground Zero. This fact would not be inexplicable, of course, if those managing the NIST investigation knew to not look, or test, for such materials.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

 

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" is a 5 hour documentary that summarizes 12 years of public debate on 9/11. While aimed primarily at a general, uninformed audience, the film also contains some new findings that may be of interest to advanced researchers.

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167

 

No I don't think you do

And what have you proved in this thread, that you can ridicule and call me names. Wow, that really takes some deep thought on your part.

No I just have to prove that you are unable to prove your theory is correct. Mission accomplished.

I couldn't have done it without you.

And what do you have besides all the standard insults, ridicule, name calling and shaming?

Nothing. With a capital N. Thinking people understand that throwing around insults and accusations only proves you can throw around insults and accusations and it doesn't take an Einstein or even a PHD to figure that out.

Gee that's a well articulated argument that further proves you have Nothing but insults, ridicule, name calling and shaming to defend your theory. One has to wonder how sound you feel your theory is to have to defend it in such a manner.

Spoken like a true Popular Mechanics debunker.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html

That's nice, sounds just like something you would say. I imagine that's why you picked these two sentences out of all the available "debunker sites" on the internet and the whole Popular Mechanics book rather than choosing some of the "debunker's" claims that can be shown to be spurious with retaliative ease.

All your samo samo Alisnky tricks get old real fast Carpro. Take some time to cool down then come on back after you've had time to form a rational argument.

BTW, If I were you I wouldn't watch the last set of videos I posted. You might lose all your faith in the great Popular Mechanics debunkers.

Okay, now that Carpro has had his chance to blow his usual hot air around is there anyone here willing to take up the challenge to (rationally) debunk the "thermite theory" completely point by point?

There has to be someone that has actually read the Popular Mechanics book or visited some other internet "debunker" sites that's able to post some of their arguements to see if they can really stand up to scrutiny as well as they claim. (Hint: Carpro already provided a link to one of the uh, respected "debunker" sites on the internet.) They do make a lot of claims, pick one or two.

Any volunteers?

 

Well of course it was their conclusion.

I love Michael Shermer Carpro! He talks a whole lot but doesn't really say anything.

How many words does it take to say "conspiracy theorists are nuts"? I mean c'mon he hasn't debunked anything in this video you can do better than this and if you can't I'll do it for you.

Here's an article Mr. Shermer wrote for Scientific American. I'll give you a chance to read it before I show you how un - scientific Mr. Shermer's approach to "debunking" 9/11 truth is.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fahrenheit-2777/

 

I know all about this article I read it right after it was written. The "senior researcher" for that article was 22 year old Benjamin Chertoff cousin to Michael Chertoff . You remember Michael Chertoff right? He became the head of the DHS which of course owes it's formation to the belief in the "official story".

Coincidence? Maybe.


Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man

by Jim Hoffman February 9, 2005

The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.

The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials,obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.

(sounds like you're kind of author Carpro)

More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.

"The Lies Are Out There"

This article has a page of Editor's Notes, "The Lies Are Out There," written by James Meigs, whose previous columns have praised military technology (such as the UAVs used in Fallujah). Meigs places outside of society anyone who questions the official version of events of 9/11/01:

"We as a society accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us. ... Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists."

Meigs throws a series of insults at the "conspiracy theorists," saying they ignore the facts and engage in "elaborate, shadowy theorizing," and concludes his diatribe by saying:

"[T]hose who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth -- and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day."

Besides trashing the skeptics, and conflating "this country" with its corrupt leaders, Meig's piece attempts to legitimate PM's "investigation." It reads:

"We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by the conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood, or deliberately falsified."

This sounds impressive, but the article provides no evidence to back up these claims. It provides no footnotes to source its many assertions, and despite the scores of experts listed in its final section, the article cites only a few "experts," who would themselves likely be suspects if normal criminal justice procedures were used to investigate the crime.

Moreover, glaring errors in the article -- such as the assertion that there was only a single interception in the decade before 9/11/01 -- don't inspire confidence in PM's "professional fact checkers." It echoes the discredited assertions of official reports such as the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study and the 9/11 Commission Report, and provides no evidence that it is anything but a well-orchestrated hit piece to perpetuate the 9/11 cover-up.

"9/11: DEBUNKING the MYTHS"

Continue . . . http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

That was easy enough now I'll get back to showing you how un - scientific Michael Shermer's approach to "debunking" 9/11 tuth is.

 

Do you have any articles that don't start out by demonizing 9/11 skeptics?

This is to easy Carpro. Try to make it more of a challenge . . . please.

This is false. If you watch any of the videos I have posted you'll notice that it's not the bending but the symmetry.

That's called a "demolition ring" by real demolition experts. Luckily for this "debunker" he left out the fact that "squibs" were appearing 20 to 40 floors lower than the "demolition ring".

He, prof Steven Jones only made that claim because he and others did find explosive residue along with iron spheres and un-ignited nano - thermite in the WTC dust. This is a classic 9/11 "debunker" tactic "if you can't debunk the evidence ignore it or claim it doesn't exist". You should know this as it does seem to be your favorite"debunker" tactic.

Wonder how these "experts missed all the videos on youtube showing buildings being brought down in controlled demolitions from the top and middle? I guess if you really want to miss them you can. I mean gee golly wow man you seemed to have missed them even after I provided links to them in this thread.

You remember that high school physics teacher, David Chandler that froced NIST to change it's story on WTC 7 by using a free software to show the NIST "experts" where they made their mistake in calculating the speed building 7 fell? No? Well, I told you about it earlier but anyway this high school physics teacher also calculated the amount of energy it would take to hurl a heavy piece of the steel outer box columns 600 feet. He calculated it would take the same amount of of energy to send a 200 Lb canon ball three miles.

Long story short that amount of energy couldn't be produced by a gravity induced collapse. But why look at the science when it's easier to ignore it?

Do you even read what I post or watch the videos? This has all been explained. Page one I think. C'mon man this is boring having to re debunk everything I've already debunked. Can't you make it more interesting? Please?

This is two classic "debunker" tactics in one. The first is to over simplify the demolition hypothesis presented by Richard Gage and AE9/11Truth and the second is to ignore the facts and evidence that don't support the "official story".

Nice touch but the fact is what Larry Silverstein said or meant doesn't matter one way or the other.

That's NIST's story but one would think if it was "fact" their models would have ended up looking like the collapse. The first one didn't and neither did the second. And how does the author know this is a "fact" when NIST refuses to release the data it used to create it's model so other researchers can review it? I'm no expert but I think that's called "peer review".

To conspiracy "debunkers", the facts and physics just don't matter. It's all about the "official story".

Dude you need to come up something that hasn't already been debunked. This is getting real boring.

Well that's enough for me tonight. It's about your turn to do some "debunking" isn't it?

Debunk this . . . http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167

Happy New Year!

 

There's only one problem with all that. It isn't true.

Debunk this . . . http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167







You know what they say "no guts no glory".

 

These types of "9/11 debunker " hit pieces you keep posting must really turn you on huh Carpro?

One can't help but notice they all share the same attributes, name calling, ridicule, personal attacks, guilt by association, misrepresentations and ignoring facts they can't refute.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -- Socrates

 

One thing you'll never see me doing is siding with government apologists that wave the flag while dancing in the blood of the victims of a tragedy to shame their opponents into silence and acquiescence to a corrupt authoritarian government system.

Believe it or not some of us would rather be loyal to our country and the principles it was founded on than a political party or a president.

It's not the popular position to take these days to be sure but it doesn't require we sell out our own countrymen just so we can imagine ourselves being on the "winning team" for a little while.