A few debunking links

The last sentence says it all there junior. It so happens that I find much fault with what passes for Judaism these days. That's a cute phrase for saying, "I don't like Jews." Which means, anti-semite. No matter how you sugar coat it, and all of your posts have been anti-Jew. Every single one of them.

Care to prove that. I mean, if you're asking me for sources.

And the buildings collapsed with more energy than you can even imagine. In fact, it was WAY more powerful than the airplane impacts. The bones were fragmented, you stated it yourself. They could fit in test tubes, that's what the power of 100,000 tons of steel can do when it acts as a grinder on humans.

Anything to prove that? Do you have a source as to what bodies recovered from building collapses are found like?

According to truthers, thermite can be made into ANYTHING! However, it has never been used as an explosive before, the flash would blind everyone looking at the building, and the amount it would take would be stupid. Impossible to "sneak" in.

There you go. It's easier to link to the JREF thread. It has all the methods of the study, along with all the processes used. A full report was presented at the American Association of Forensic Scientists 2012. You'll find a full chain of custody for the dusts, and anything else you could possibly want. The stuff Harrit found...it was Tnemac Primer. The study was financed by a mixture of debunkers and truthers. Funds were collected by Chris Mohr, and completed by Dr. James Millette.

As quoted by beachnut:

I'm telling you right now, no it wasn't. There was no thermite or thermitic material of any nature found in the dust at all. None, zero, zilch, nada. Your incredulity won't change that.

Tons, literally. If I had to guess, probably about 12 tons. I don't have the time right this instant, but I can definitely find you a closer number in a little bit.

There was an independent investigation. Can you even tell me what you want investigated? What specific part? What would you call into question?

Would you like me to sit here and quote all the times you did the things you listed above? I like your self righteousness, but I wouldn't be throwing rocks when you live in a glass house.

I don't care if anyone here buys what you're peddling. That's what you guys really don't seem to get, I do this because 9/11, as an event intrigues me. I have friends that lost people in that event, and I wanted to know more about it. I learned as much as I could, I read truther sites, debunker sites, and gathered up every (*)(*)(*)(*) thing I could find. In the end, the truthers don't add up. Everything you believe about 9/11, who did it, and why is wrong. There's no other way to say it.

You'll never read it. That link is too a great article by a man who will forget more than I will ever know. That's why this is all so funny, you guys think we're shills. In all honesty, it's just for fun.

 

Before I delve into this I would like to make an observation or two. First I would like to emphasize that a strong case for controlled demolitions can be made even without proving that thermitic material was found in the WTC dust.

Those who have very compelling reasons to want to remove all doubts about the official (Kosher) version of 9/11 and controlled demolitions, would prefer to focus on whether there is sufficient chemical evidence to prove unequivocally that thermate was found or insist that proof be given in terms of the physics involved in the collapse itself. There are a couple of reasons for this.

The first one is the question of what constitutes incontrovertible truth. One can always contrive an argument that would cast doubt on the most solid evidence provided one could either find someone gullible enough to accept it or who would demand a rigor of proof that ordinarily isn't expected of anything.

By ignoring all extraneous evidence which requires little more than common sense to comprehend, automatically excludes most of the circumstantial evidence available which points to a conspiracy, and effectively bars the majority of people from the debate, since few people have the requisite knowledge to follow a detailed chemical or physical analysis, especially when it is is laden with higher mathematics.

This move effectively narrows the field to a contest of "expert" analysts, many of whom may have a vested interest in seeing the question decided in one direction or another. This may well boil down to a consensus of opinion based on which faction has the most resources to bring to bear upon it. In the case of 9/11 this puts the panel of 9/11 experts at a disadvantage due to the immense social pressure which is impressed upon anyone who questions the "authorities". Dr Jones's forced retirement is a clear case of just how such forces can be employed in a climate in which academic freedom is being suppressed for all except those who express politically correct opinions.

In regular courtroom trials one often sees the defense call in experts in one field or another. Likewise the prosecution can enlist the support of experts. When the testimonies of experts conflict the jurors must depend upon their own judgement as to which set of experts they trust the most.

So while the technical arguments continue between people with various degrees of experience, it is not prudent to simply ignore or dismiss the abundance of circumstantial evidence available which corroborates the controlled demolition theory. As a juror I would certainly weigh all of this in the balance as I strived to determine as best I could to understand what ever physical evidence was available, ie all that which has been made accessible and has not been destroyed.

Immediately we encounter the problem that most of the forensic evidence was destroyed, against standard protocol, which was an illegal act. This ought to raise a flag in anyone's mind who understands the reasons why those rules were made in the first place.


To begin with, using common sense anyone can see that the collapse of all three buildings looked like controlled demolition. Countless people noticed that right away, including many news reporters. One of the world's foremost demolitions experts was shown the films of the collapses and asked to give his professional opinion. He expressed no doubt whatsoever that what he saw was a controlled demolition.

Anytime an expert gives an opinion which confirms the use of controlled demolition, their assessments are immediately dismissed by the "debunkers", most of whom do so with hand waving and epithets. With the exception of the one link you provided above, that's all you have done up until now. These are most often people who are not well versed enough to present the types of scientific arguments which those who have PhDs are capable of producing.

So let it be understood from the outset that the work you are referencing is no more yours than Jones and Harrit's is of mine. Therefore it remains to be seen how much of either work you understand any more than I do. You may type as many words for "none" as you can conjure, but a million such expressions are no better than one so far as truth is concerned.
If you are truly interested in pursuing this course then you will allow ample time for me to study the material you have submitted.



I ask you, how much thermate would be needed to bring a building down, in what quantities should it be found, and how should it be distributed throughout the dust.

When gathering samples for statistical purposes it is important how the samples are collected and where they are gathered from. I know where Jones got his samples from. At least one such sample was obtained from a piece of metal taken from the wreckage which had been subsequently put on exhibit as a 9/11 memorial.

You are insisting either that Dr Jones and company are either lying, are incompetent, or simply mistaken. In the light of all the other things I have learned about 9/11, I cannot accept either of these pronouncements.

Without referring to them in the derogatory terms that people like yourself prefer, I must insist that the same rigorous standards be applied to anyone's work that you submit to counter Dr Jones claims. Fair enough?

But while we are attempting to sort through all of this, let us never lose site of the circumstantial evidence. It doesn't just disappear because you claim to have proof that controlled demolitions were impossible and therefore must be ruled out with 100% certainty. You must prove that to me. Until then, I am convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt that controlled demolitions were used.!

If one considers all of the circumstantial evidence at once and tries to estimate the probability that all of those anomalies could occur by chance such that it only appeared controlled demolitions were used, I believe the odds against all of those events coinciding in such a way would be so high that common sense would force one to the conclusion that more than just a few Arabs were involved.


You insist that this isn't so. You also insist that anyone who thinks so does so only because they are stupid or something worse, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is equally as stupid. I strongly disagree.

Unlike you, I will not call you stupid, but I will call you disingenuous. And that is putting it mildly.


I've had about all of the "You're an anti-semite" crap that I care to respond to. I can only hope that any interested reader will be able to see through this smoke for himself. He should be able to provided he doesn't have his head stuck up the end where you are blowing it.
If I dislike you, it is NOT because you are a Jew. It may well be because you are a JEWISH SUPREMACIST, or a self seeking arrogant prick. Your physical features have nothing to do with it. How could they? I cannot see you. I admit I do not like liars of any stripe, particularly those who accuse me of things I am not guilty of. If people want to call that "anti-Semitic", I am not fooled by it.

I will also admit that I am against the inordinate amount of power that the Jews exert over the government and via media control and the financial institutions.

Furthermore, if I identify members of a criminal Cabal who happen to be Jewish, I am not to blame for any crimes they commit or unethical behavior they engage in. Nor am I wrong in identifying them as Jews. I am only calling them by the title they give themselves.

So between you and me, we will just have to admit that we are at logger heads on this point. You must also admit that your personal dislike for me has no bearing on the case for 9/11 truth whatsoever. So all your railing against me personally is to no avail.
I reject the notion that Jews are entitled to special privileges or favored status either here or abroad. I object to Jewish rule and I will resist it by any means available. I will not accept it. If that makes us enemies, the fault lies with YOU.

 

The two samples mentioned which were examined earlier:

2. Lioy, P.J, Weisel, C.P., Millette, J.R., Eisenreich, S., Vallero, D., Offenberg, J., Buckley, B., Turpin, B., Zhong, M., Cohen, M.D., Prophete, C., Yang, I., Stiles, R., Chee, G., Johnson, W., Porcja, R., Alimokhtari, S., Hale, R.C., Weschler, C., and Chen, L.C., "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001", Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 110, No. 7, 703-714, July 2002.
3. Millette, J.R., Boltin, R., Few, P. and Turner, Jr., W., "Microscopical Studies of World Trade Center Disaster Dust Particles", Microscope, 50(1): 29-35, 2002.

It is important to know who the investigators are. who commissioned them, and where and how the samples were selected.

It is well known that evidence was suppressed, omitted, and the investigation of 9/11 was impeded. I posted the statements of people who were on the original commission to that effect.

It is also a fact that all submissions required the approval of the chief Zionist, Zelikow who was in charge of the 9/11 Commission.

http://rense.com/general78/rapestory.htm

As I said previously, one does not hire the fox to determine who raided the hen house.

The fact that your selected investigator here is hailing from Atlanta, a city with a large infestation of Jews (Zionists , aren't they all?) and who is MOHR affiliated with?



The map illustrating where the samples were derived was not given on the JREF post.

You have not demonstrated, and neither did the paper that you cited, that ALL samples of dust should contain unactivated or partially activated thermitic material. Nor is it clear to me that anyone with an agenda could not be selective about which samples they chose to report. It is known that the NIST investigators chose certain samples from "the kill yards" to study and that others were kept off limits and out of sight.

Who can say that this same form of cherry picking did not occur here? Shall I take your word for it? I guess I just don't have the implicit faith in ZOG that you do.

Of course one can find magnetic particles in the dust which are not thermite.
1. All dust samples are not homogenous.

2. Steel is attracted to magnets because it contains iron.
No one is saying that every particle of steel contained iron that was derived from any form of thermite.
Never once has Jones or anyone else said that nothing in the rubble could be magnetic unless it was thermitic.

I guess you are expecting everyone to believe that no one could stoop so low as to falsify evidence or mislead the public. Mr Mohr doesn't think that way. He admits that government officials can lie. I suppose the only people in the world who cannot are Jews.

What we want explained are the little iron rich spheres which result upon ignition of the samples and which are intimately associated with them ie They bubbled out of them on ignition!

Neither the paint nor the primer used during construction should ignite since they those materials were supposed to be fire resistant.


No one is contesting the fact that both ordinary thermite and some forms of paint contain essential ingredients which are the same. Lots of things contain aluminum and rust.

It is the arrangement, the molecular forms and the relative amounts of these substances which are important.


Since two of these samples were studied as early as 2002, why was it not decided that the case was closed way back then?

Earlier, one of you stated that the definitive test for thermite would be to ignite it in an inert oxygen free environment.

This is not done in this test.

Others have claimed that powdered x-ray spectroscopy would do the trick. I'm waiting on all of these tests.

If they are ever performed, I need assurance that ALL possible forms of thermite have been eliminated as possibilities including any that could have been manufactured in the former USSR and shipped to the USA.

REMEMBER. The circumstantial evidence stands regardless. The only way to dismiss all of that is to PROVE that thermite/ate could not have been used.


You said that you estimated that tons of thermite would be needed to bring the building down.

Why do you think that is so, since you emphatically believe that NONE was needed?

You do attribute the collapse only to jet fuel and mechanical damage don't you?


Did the original architects who designed the buildings to withstand the impact of one, or even several fully loaded 707s not take any of this into consideration? Or were they liars or incompetent also?

You'll have to show me. I'm from Missouri and I don't see it.

 

I'm not finished with the report. Not by a long shot.

I just don't want people to lose interest by dwelling to long on boring details filled with lots of obscure terminology, serial numbers, and obscure references. A person could side tracked on those for days and days. And at the end of it, all you would be left with is a bunch of legalistic looking gobbledidgook, filled with possible red herrings couched in scientific language that few people would care to look at anyway.

 

http://aneta.org/theories/ChrisMohr/skeptic/index.htm

 

Only if they could see through walls. (That's where the columns and beams were, behind walls, in the interior.)

Flashes were seen. But these were probably detonations, not thermate.

There was lots of work been done to those buildings. Getting the materials in would be no problem at all for someone who had command of the building.
This is where speculation leads to accusations of "anti-semitism". Anyone who dares to speculate cannot possibly avoid the charge because it all points in one general direction.

Oh would I. That would take up volumes. Not that anyone would need to go on indefinitely. After a while you've seen so much of it, that it becomes more of a surprise to find areas where it can't be found.

 

http://rense.com/general78/rapestory.htm


In 1998, Zelikow actually wrote Catastrophic Terrorism about imagining "the transformative event" three years before 9/11. Here are Zelikow's 1998 words;

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm

 

[video=youtube;C02dE5VKeck]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck[/video]

 

[video=youtube;JZekosYOmXc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc&mode=related&search[/video]

 

Video removed.

 

Precisely. I guess it's one of those things that NBC would rather people not see.

 

http://stj911.org/blog/325/why-the-redgray-chips-are-not-primer-paint/

 

You've been shown this report several times now. You've failed miserably at even addressing the report, much less debunking it. Yet you insist on pretending Harrit actually found something in the red / gray chips. The fact you can't respond to this report or show any flaw in this report goes a long way in exposing the fact you are not looking for the truth but actively peddling lies to push your agendas.

 

Everybody's 'in on it'.

 

Is this the report you are referring to?

The link was provided once. Above is a duplicate of my first response. I am awaiting a reply.

 

Yes. And your absolutely retarded claim that the report was false because Atlanta is a hotbed of Jews is as pathetic of an excuse as they come. Could you refute the content of the report? No. Could you refute the fact that it was paid for by both debunkers and truthers? No.

Not to mention the idea of thermitic paint is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retarded to begin with. Thermite of any kind relies on the particles being as close as possible to one another. That is why nano thermite is more effective than regular thermite. The smaller the particles, the closer the particles are to one another. Mix them in ANYTHING else and you end up with a reaction that won't even start because now there is crap between the particles.

Second issue is that a thin layer of paint isn't going to do (*)(*)(*)(*) to a column except maybe heat it up a couple degrees on the surface. You can't alter the laws of physics. Steel heats up at a constant rate and there is no way thermite paint could heat up the steel much before it burned itself out and that is if you could get the stuff lit to begin with.

In other words, your entire claim of thermite is as (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up as all your whining about Jews. We get it. You are scared (*)(*)(*)(*)less of Jews and consider your white manhood threatened by everyone who doesn't think like you. That is why you automatically label everyone else a Jew. It is fun watching pathetic losers having panic attacks because they think the Jews are out to get them.

 

No. Far from it.

The goal here is to identify those who were in on it and use them to set an example of what should be done with people who are complicit with mass murder for political expediency or profit or any other reason.

If it so happens that the leading faction of those parties turn out to be predominately of Jewish persuasion, there is still no reason for other Jews to hinder this revelation because they are fearful of how the outcome might affect them personally.

That is IF they are truly as dedicated to truth and justice as they purport to be.

The Zionist faction expects the gentile population to trust their judgement implicitly. The gentile population has every right to expect the same from them. Racial, ethnic, religious, or political differences should not interfere with the administration of the law or the pursuit of justice.

Even if I were a bigot as YOU keep insisting, that still would not have anything to do with the truth about 9/11.

Given the dominance of Jewish influence as a political entity, it is unreasonable to require that no one make mention of it as such in any open political discussion.

You cannot have an ADL, an AIPAC, a Bnai Brith, a World Jewish Congress, and a thousand other such establishments be recognized and then disallow anyone to speak of them at the same time.

What happens when their critics do speak? They are accused of "anti-semitism" !

These Jewish organizations couldn't ask for a better shield against opposition, unless it would be the accessibility to untold funds supplied to them from untold sources.

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Fig. 24: "Spheres formed during ignition of commercial thermite,
with corresponding typical XDS spectrum"










Fig. 27 and 28: "Spheres extracted from WTC dust" and
"XEDS spectrum from a sphere found in the WTC dust"

 

Question:

Does paint or paint primer contain these tiny iron rich spheres?

Does paint or paint primer ignite or show the same thermogenic properties as the red gray chips found in the WTC dust?

 

Question:

Does paint or paint primer contain these tiny iron rich spheres?

Does paint or paint primer ignite or show the same thermogenic properties as the red gray chips found in the WTC dust?

Question:

Does paint or paint primer contain these tiny iron rich spheres?

Does paint or paint primer ignite or show the same thermogenic properties as the red gray chips found in the WTC dust?

 

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

http://www.google.com/patents?id=MZoRAAAAEBAJ&dq=6679960