The Great 9/11 Challenge.

Hookah

Undergod wrote: »

Worst secret agents ever.

Agreed. Sloppy work, letting their emotions get the better of them.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Agreed. Sloppy work, letting their emotions get the better of them.

And so their emotion was getting the better of them when they went on TV and admitted everything in front of a camera?
I suppose their superiors were having the day off that day.

So things you've not been able to show:
Any reports actually stating out right they were set up and record before the attacks.
What they actually said on TV in full and in context.
A plausible reason why the Israelis even sent out these incompetent agents in the first place.

Hookah

What are peoples thoughts on the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust at Ground Zero?

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/07/interview-with-dr-niels-harrit-on-discovery-of-nano-thermite-in-wtc-dust/

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

What are peoples thoughts on the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust at Ground Zero?

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/07/interview-with-dr-niels-harrit-on-discovery-of-nano-thermite-in-wtc-dust/

A very dodgy paper with very questionable science published in a less-than-reputable vanity journal under some very suspect circumstances.

And then even if you ignore those points about the paper, there's still the fact thermite (of any kind) has never ever once been used to demolish a building, therefore you can't claim that the building's collapse looks like a regular demolition.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

A very dodgy paper with very questionable science published in a less-than-reputable vanity journal under some very suspect circumstances.

Cheers for your opinion.

And then even if you ignore those points about the paper, there's still the fact thermite (of any kind) has never ever once been used to demolish a building,

It has been experimented with, by the military, since the early nineties, according to wikipedia.

Is it possible that 9/11 was it's first public use, on buildings?

therefore you can't claim that the building's collapse looks like a regular demolition.

That's exactly what it looks like, hence the raging controversy.

Hookah

A little info on the science...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

What are peoples thoughts on the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust at Ground Zero?

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/07/interview-with-dr-niels-harrit-on-discovery-of-nano-thermite-in-wtc-dust/

The credentials of the journal were called into question immediately by the good scientists at the JREF with good cause, several scientists who the journal claimed were peer reviewing the paper, did nothing of the sort.

Then there's the science of the paper. Nano Thermite does not exist.

And yes the chain of evidence is called into question, the "nano thermate" are iron mircospheres, found in the apartment of a truther near ground zero after the attacks. It forgets to mention that the iron micro spheres, can be found after metal is cut, like the cutting that went on during the rescue and clean up operation. Oh and the apartment was shared with a sculptor who also worked in metal work.

It's incredibly weak.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Cheers for your opinion.

Not my opinion. That's all fact.
You really should question these cranks as much as you say you question other stuff.
Especially when this guy is talking about silent explosives.

Hookah wrote: »

It has been experimented with, by the military, since the early nineties, according to wikipedia.

Is it possible that 9/11 was it's first public use, on buildings?

As I've said, thermite has never been used to demolish a building.

Hookah wrote: »

That's exactly what it looks like, hence the raging controversy.

But if they were using a totally new, untried and unique method of demolition, how can it also look like a regular demolition?

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

The credentials of the journal were called into question immediately by the good scientists at the JREF with good cause, several scientists who the journal claimed were peer reviewing the paper, did nothing of the sort.

Then there's the science of the paper. Nano Thermite does not exist.

And yes the chain of evidence is called into question, the "nano thermate" are iron mircospheres, found in the apartment of a truther near ground zero after the attacks. It forgets to mention that the iron micro spheres, can be found after metal is cut, like the cutting that went on during the rescue and clean up operation. Oh and the apartment was shared with a sculptor who also worked in metal work.

It's incredibly weak.

This thread? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153478&page=21

Has there been a scientific paper debunking these claims, as opposed to the opinions of posters on forums?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Not my opinion. That's all fact. So it's fact
You really should question these cranks as much as you say you question other stuff.
Especially when this guy is talking about silent explosives.

So the science has been proven dodgy?

And it's fact that the paper is less-than reputable, and the paper was published under suspect circumstances?

Ok.

As I've said, thermite has never been used to demolish a building.

Is it possible this was it's first outing?

But if they were using a totally new, untried and unique method of demolition, how can it also look like a regular demolition?

How many ways can a building collapse into it's own footprint?

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

So the science has been proven dodgy?

Yes, in the paper itself.
Among other problems the samples used were collected years after the attacks.
And then there's even shenanigans about when these samples were collected.

Hookah wrote: »

And it's fact that the paper is less-than reputable, and the paper was published under suspect circumstances?

Ok.

Yup. It's a vanity journal you pay to get published and pick your own review board.
After the paper was published someone in charge (an editor AFIAR) resigned.

Hookah wrote: »

Is it possible this was it's first outing?

How many ways can a building collapse into it's own footprint?

You're really not seeing the flaw in you argument.
By saying they are using thermite, you are also saying it wasn't a typical demolition. But you are also saying it looked like a typical demolition.
These two things are not compatible with each other.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

This thread? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153478&page=21

Has there been a scientific paper debunking these claims, as opposed to the opinions of posters on forums?

Why would you need a scientific paper to debunk garage?

http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=Bentham+journals

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162996

Is thread to discuss how Steve Jones retracted his Nano Thermite claim.


What science paper is needed? A scientific paper to show Nano Thermite doesn't exist? Jones claimed it existed the onus is on him to prove it.



Oh and just the opinion of the posters?

Okay, I will. I am not a Chemist, but I have worked with optics since I rebuilt my first telescope at age 12. So I know a thing or two about spectral analysis. Below I have created a composite of the spectra from page 8 of Dr. Jones paper (Fig 7) for the red dust and the spectra for thermite.



The spectra for thermite extends only to 5 keV, so lets just talk about that segment shall we? Galileo, please show me the spectra signature for thermite in any of the four spectra presented by Dr. Jones. I am open to the evidence, but I simply don't see the 4.5 keV peak for titanium in any of the spectra above or elsewhere in his paper. Show me the thermite Galileo.

Perhaps Dr. Jones is talking another flavor of thermite. If so, please post the spectra for it so that we can compare.



Although there is similar spectra in the case of Fig 25 on page 18, the peaks are simply not proportionate. In thermite, titanium is 70% and aluminum around 25%. The 4.5 keV peak for titanium should be higher than the one for aluminum. That is not the case and as a matter of fact, the aluminum peak is significantly higher in Fig 25. I would think a more reasonable hypothesis is that the trace amount of titanium observed in the Fig 25 sample came from another source. I'm sure among the computers and other office equipment in the WTC, titanium was present somewhere.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4584589&postcount=74


The JREF is not your average webforum.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

How many ways can a building collapse into it's own footprint?

Which building collapsed into it's own footprint? And if this can be conclusively proven to be false will you reconsider your theories?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, in the paper itself.
Among other problems the samples used were collected years after the attacks.
And then there's even shenanigans about when these samples were collected.


Yup. It's a vanity journal you pay to get published and pick your own review board.
After the paper was published someone in charge (an editor AFIAR) resigned.

That appears to be the case.

You're really not seeing the flaw in you argument.
By saying they are using thermite, you are also saying it wasn't a typical demolition. But you are also saying it looked like a typical demolition.
These two things are not compatible with each other.

Why not?

Di0genes wrote: »

Why would you need a scientific paper to debunk garage?

http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=Bentham+journals

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162996

Is thread to discuss how Steve Jones retracted his Nano Thermite claim.

And the claims by Harrit, that started the thread?

Has anybody else tested the dust?

What science paper is needed? A scientific paper to show Nano Thermite doesn't exist? Jones claimed it existed the onus is on him to prove it.

They're finding traces of something that doesn't exist?

Oh and just the opinion of the posters?




http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4584589&postcount=74


The JREF is not your average webforum.

Back to Jones again. Or is it the same paper?

Di0genes wrote: »

Which building collapsed into it's own footprint? And if this can be conclusively proven to be false will you reconsider your theories?

"The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)

Di0genes

They're finding traces of something that doesn't exist?

They're claiming iron oxide and aluminium are proof of Nano Thermite.

Read your links.

Back to Jones again.

Harrit is quoting Jones research.

And the claims by Harrit, that started the thread?

Has anybody else tested the dust?

Tested the dust and found rust and aluminium? Gosh I wonder why they'd find...

"The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)

Thats from 2002. Would you like some better information?

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

That apperar to be the case.

So why do you think the paper is trustworthy?

Hookah wrote: »

Why not?

because you are claiming it looks like one thing, while also arguing that is not that thing, therefore your argument is self contradictory.

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

They're claiming iron oxide and aluminium are proof of Nano Thermite.

Read your links.

They seem to accept the existence of nano-thermite in that thread.

Harrit is quoting Jones research.

And in the 4 pages I've read so far, some opponents of the theory are saying the results are inconclusive.

Thats from 2002. Would you like some better information?

Sure. Go ahead.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

So why do you think the paper is trustworthy?

I've just read the thread provided and there appears to be issues.

because you are claiming it looks like one thing, while also arguing that is not that thing, therefore your argument is self contradictory.

You told me no building has ever been demolished using nano-thermite.

Then you're claiming that in a nano-thermite demolition, the building will collapse in a different formation.

How can you know this?

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

They seem to accept the existence of nano-thermite in that thread.

You're not reading it properly.

And in the 4 pages I've read so far, some opponents of the theory are saying the results are inconclusive.

Rust and Aluminium in skyscraper? What are the odds!

Sure. Go ahead.

That photo shows the building collapsed across the surrounding streets, therefore not in it's own footprint.

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

You're not reading it properly.

I can assure you I've read it properly.

Some of the non-conspiracy theorists accept the existence of nano-thermite, with one repeatedly asking if enough quantities existed at that time.

That photo shows the building collapsed across the surrounding streets, therefore not in it's own footprint.

Cheers.

The next time I'll be better armed and say the building almost fell into it's own footprint.

Has anybody else tested the dust, do you know?

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

I've just read the thread provided and there appears to be issues.

So do you think the paper is still valid or shows anything it claims to?

Hookah wrote: »

You told me no building has ever been demolished using nano-thermite.

Then you're claiming that in a nano-thermite demolition, the building will collapse in a different formation.

How can you know this?

That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm pointing out how your position is self contradictory.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

So do you think the paper is still valid or shows anything it claims to?

I don't know.

I'm asking if the paper's been debunked, and if any body else has conducted tests on the dust.

I'm pointing out how your position is self contradictory.

No, you're not.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

I don't know.

I'm asking if the paper's been debunked, and if any body else has conducted tests on the dust.

Why would it matter if someone else had tested the dust? Doesn't the fact the authors of the paper were dishonest, used sloppy science and were in general stupid, not debunk the paper?

Hookah wrote: »

No, you're not.

Again you are claiming it's not a typical demolition because they're using a new method that's never been used before. But you are also claiming that it looks like a typical demolition because you think there's signs that indicate a typical demolition.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

I can assure you I've read it properly.

Some of the non-conspiracy theorists accept the existence of nano-thermite, with one repeatedly asking if enough quantities existed at that time.

They've changed the substance over time.

The point is thermate isn't a explosive, and isn't used in demolition.

Cheers.

The next time I'll be better armed and say the building almost fell into it's own footprint.

Almost isn't the same as did. It collapsed across streets and into other buildings, it resembled nothing like a controlled demolition in the footprint of it's collapse.

Has anybody else tested the dust, do you know?

And found Rust and Aluminium?

The conspiracy theorist must provide the evidence to support the crime. Not claim nano thermate destroyed the towers, and the look around and ask does anyone else have proof for the theory?

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

No, you're not.

Yes he is.

You can't say the collapse resembles a classic Controlled Demolition, and then claim it was carried out using exotic demolition techniques.

If it was carried out using unusual methods, it cannot resemble a classic controlled demolition.

It's a oxymoron.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Again you are claiming it's not a typical demolition because they're using a new method that's never been used before. But you are also claiming that it looks like a typical demolition because you think there's signs that indicate a typical demolition.

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes he is.

You can't say the collapse resembles a classic Controlled Demolition, and then claim it was carried out using exotic demolition techniques.

If it was carried out using unusual methods, it cannot resemble a classic controlled demolition.

It's a oxymoron.

How does a building collapse, demolished using exotic methods, say nano-thermite, that is different from a conventional demolition?

You're both saying you've no idea what such an exotic demolition would look like, but it definitely doesn't look like a conventional demolition. Is that it?

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

How does a building collapse, demolished using exotic methods, say nano-thermite, that is different from a conventional demolition?

You're both saying you've no idea what such an exotic demolition would look like, but it definitely doesn't look like a conventional demolition. Is that it?

No it's not what we're saying at all. I believe you're being deliberately obtuse at this stage.

Shall we take it you've no longer any interest in discussing the many many flaws in the paper you started to discuss?
Shall we add it to the growing pile of topics you abandoned when you realised they were indefensible?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

No it's not what we're saying at all. I believe you're being deliberately obtuse at this stage.

What is you're saying then?

Shall we take it you've no longer any interest in discussing the many many flaws in the paper you started to discuss?
Shall we add it to the growing pile of topics you abandoned when you realised they were indefensible?

Take it whatever way you want.

I asked if there had been a scientific paper debunking Harrit's claims, or if anybody else had tested the dust.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

What is you're saying then?

I've repeated it three times. Look yourself.

Hookah wrote: »

Take it whatever way you want.

I asked if there had been a scientific paper debunking Harrit's claims,

Probably not. It's so easily debunked otherwise it's not really worth the paper.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

I've repeated it three times. Look yourself.

You appear to be saying that if nano-thermite is used to demolish a building, the building cannot possibly collapse in the way a traditional demolition would cause it to.

Is that correct?

Probably not. It's so easily debunked otherwise it's not really worth the paper.

Some of the 'debunkers' held Harrit's report to be inconclusive for the lack of one test.

I'm surprised nobody else would follow up such claims, even out of curiosity.