Scientists find active 'super-thermite' in WTC dust

CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Just to bring this back to the topic...

Risus said:
Why is it some people just can't believe evidence?
Click to expand...
Yes, good question Risus, why is that? Is it because you don't understand so of the information, facts and evidence put forword and have taken the wrong persons interpretation of it, now to save face, you refuse to accept the research of actual qualified scientists?

There has never been a 'steel' building collapse from a fire which burned at the temperature which could be generated by an oxygen starved fire such as this.
Click to expand...
This is an absolute truth, undisputable and unshakable. But, there has never been an event of this magnitude take place on a super structure of this type. Exoskeletal in design, the WTC is a unique building design, in that it has a structure that consists of a tubular exo frame, joined by spanning floor beams. This was to increase floor space and maximise occupancy. Then you have the elevator banks, which were esentially, free a standing standing structure, within the other.

Have you ever stepped on a pop can, centering your weight? It's neat to try, not the most scientific equevelant, one you can do at home and see roughly why the building fell as it did.

Now, I have a question for you. Have you ever wandered the street of NY?

Toronto?

Or any major city?

Ever notice the winds at street level?

Multiply that by 10 as you reach the level, at which the planes struck the building. It was like blowing or stoking a fire in a box. Creating far more intensity then you give it credit. That's not BS, that's a simple fact of nature.

The jet fuel would have disappeared in the original fireball.
Click to expand...
Again, quite true...well...Not really. Though the bulk of the fuel would have been burned off in the initial blast. Much of it was forced and sprayed down, up, in, under and around several levels of the building. If you've ever checked a welded tank with rubbing alcohol, you'ld know that it seeps like a mofo. Aviation fuel and rubbing alcohol are similar in fluidity. Not to mention, the impact ripped the fire retardant off of every thing.

The ramaining fire was oxygen starved as indicated by the black smoke.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. Burning plastics and other petroleum based materials produce a deep grey or black smoke, consistantly. I have yet to see anyone accomplish burning said materials without producing what I just decribed. This too is a simple test you can confirm in your own backyard. Although I wouldn't recomend doing it without a fire extinguisher and some knowledge of fire supression.

Here in my little town, the Fire Dept. puts on exhibitions in the summer. If yours does, I suggest you go. They oft produce simulated fire scenerios to inform the public as to what different fires do and under what conditions. My favourite last year was the carbon fire in the old 45 gallon drum, which turned red hot and began to sag. Funny how all the C/T sites say that that is impossible. Call your local Fire Hall Risus, not 911, but the actual Hall. Ask a Fire Fighter if its possible. I bet you're surprised.

Well maybe not, he might be in on the conspiracy. ;-)

Pretty simple. Something else caused the collapse.
Click to expand...
Yes, humans did. People with an agenda, people who believed they would enter the Kingdom of Allah as martyrs.

Based on an ideology...

As are most of the foundations of the theories put forth by C/T's. As Ironsides pointed out. Most are left leaning and more importantly, nuts.

Try looking at the evidence, not the opinion of the evidence. You can even ignore the NIST report and judge the evidence and reports of various accredited scientists who's fields of research are in these areas. Like the seismologists I posted. Try starting there, I found them both to be open and quite honest with me. All though a little timely in their responses. But I gather they have busy lives, performing research in their chosen fields and having lives to boot.
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Here's a great article all C/T's should read, then go back and analyze all the opinion and subjective crap they've bought into...

Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

Robert L. Park, Ph.D

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is investing close to a million dollars in an obscure Russian scientist's antigravity machine, although it has failed every test and would violate the most fundamental laws of nature. The Patent and Trademark Office recently issued Patent 6,362,718 for a physically impossible motionless electromagnetic generator, which is supposed to snatch free energy from a vacuum. And major power companies have sunk tens of millions of dollars into a scheme to produce energy by putting hydrogen atoms into a state below their ground state, a feat equivalent to mounting an expedition to explore the region south of the South Pole.
There is, alas, no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it. And many such claims end up in a court of law after they have cost some gullible person or corporation a lot of money. How are juries to evaluate them?
Before 1993, court cases that hinged on the validity of scientific claims were usually decided simply by which expert witness the jury found more credible. Expert testimony often consisted of tortured theoretical speculation with little or no supporting evidence. Jurors were bamboozled by technical gibberish they could not hope to follow, delivered by experts whose credentials they could not evaluate.
In 1993, however, with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the situation began to change. The case involved Bendectin, the only morning-sickness medication ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It had been used by millions of women, and more than 30 published studies had found no evidence that it caused birth defects. Yet eight so-called experts were willing to testify, in exchange for a fee from the Daubert family, that Bendectin might indeed cause birth defects.
In ruling that such testimony was not credible because of lack of supporting evidence, the court instructed federal judges to serve as "gatekeepers," screening juries from testimony based on scientific nonsense. Recognizing that judges are not scientists, the court invited judges to experiment with ways to fulfill their gatekeeper responsibility.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer encouraged trial judges to appoint independent experts to help them. He noted that courts can turn to scientific organizations, like the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, to identify neutral experts who could preview questionable scientific testimony and advise a judge on whether a jury should be exposed to it. Judges are still concerned about meeting their responsibilities under the Daubert decision, and a group of them asked me how to recognize questionable scientific claims.
What are the warning signs? I have identified seven indicators that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse. Of course, they are only warning signs—even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate.
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.
One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion—a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. (Ian Wilmut's announcement that he had successfully cloned a sheep was just as public as Pons and Fleischmann's claim, but in the case of cloning, abundant scientific details allowed scientists to judge the work's validity.)
Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.
Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.
Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
I began this list of warning signs to help federal judges detect scientific nonsense. But as I finished the list, I realized that in our increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop.
Dr. Park is a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and director of public information for the American Physical Society. He is also the author of Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud (Oxford University Press, 2002). This article was originally published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan 31, 2003.
This article was posted on Match 5, 2003.
Click to expand...
Although this article is geared towords the Medical field, it can easily be applied to the so called scientists that prop up the unfounded opinion and conjecture C/T's believe is actual science.

I found #2, #3 and #4 and oh hell they all seem to be quite fitting. #7 is the most important though. Those that follow proven science, laws of nature and fact, are those that do not fall victim to the C/T BS. While those that haven't clue one about science, or even how to find out about true science, are the ones that fall head first into the conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
Stretch

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark

Tags: 911
The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.
9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark | 911Blogger.com
 
RanchHand

RanchHand

Electoral Member
Feb 22, 2009
209
8
18
USA
Stretch said:
9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark

Tags: 911
The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.
9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark | 911Blogger.com
Click to expand...
"excellent work"
"very good media coverage"
"most respected Danish television channels"
"refreshing seriousness"

Holy crap. I can't wait to read the guy's blog. But why can't anyone come up with an explanation as to why no one involved has talked in all these years? How about the people who were approached with the plan but refused to participate? Where are they? I'm a simple guy. I need answers to simple questions.
 
darkbeaver

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
CDNBear said:
Also from that article...

No ****!!!

Really?

As someone that works with metal, let me assure you, you will find no one, and I mean no one that works with steel, wood, and even grain, that would argue with that statement.

Most dust, of various origin is combustive. Especially Aluminum and steel!

Stretch, don't you feel at all silly, being misinformed by a site called OpEdNews?

If you will recall, I've mentioned this before, Op/Ed pieces are not objective, not scientific and offer more of the authors opinion, then of the truth or facts.

In this case, it offers no facts, no truth, just more BS. Tonnington, a student of science and well rounded in the true practices of experimentation. Has already expressed the flaws with the research paper your OP presented in link.

Why can you not dig deeper? Why is it that the 'anti C/t' folk are the ones doing all the real digging?
Click to expand...

Shoveling, of course, thanks, we need all the bull**** we can get, it's gardening time.:smile:
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
RanchHand said:
"excellent work"
"very good media coverage"
"most respected Danish television channels"
"refreshing seriousness"

Holy crap. I can't wait to read the guy's blog. But why can't anyone come up with an explanation as to why no one involved has talked in all these years? How about the people who were approached with the plan but refused to participate? Where are they? I'm a simple guy. I need answers to simple questions.
Click to expand...

This is where you will be told to "Ask your government"

They have no answers... just magic dust and holograms.
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Stretch said:
9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark

Tags: 911
The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.
9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark | 911Blogger.com
Click to expand...
Wow, they're getting media coverage, therefore their idiocy must be real...:lol:

darkbeaver said:
Shoveling, of course, thanks, we need all the bull**** we can get, it's gardening time.:smile:
Click to expand...
Prove it! Prove me wrong DB...just once, just one measly little time, I'ld love to see you actually post a rebuttal, a retort, and refute or actually challenge my posts with some evidence. Instead of your asinine childish BS.

Just once, it would be so nice to see you actually show some thought...I know it's a stretch.
 
gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
CDNBear said:
Prove it! Prove me wrong DB...just once, just one measly little time, I'ld love to see you actually post a rebuttal, a retort, and refute or actually challenge my posts with some evidence. Instead of your asinine childish BS.

Just once, it would be so nice to see you actually show some thought...I know it's a stretch.
Click to expand...


Get real CB....... if you think that could/would happen.... then you also are a conspiracy nut..... here's your tinfoil hat.
 
Stretch

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
CDNBear said:
Wow, they're getting media coverage, therefore their idiocy must be real...:lol:

Prove it! Prove me wrong DB...just once, just one measly little time, I'ld love to see you actually post a rebuttal, a retort, and refute or actually challenge my posts with some evidence. Instead of your asinine childish BS.

Just once, it would be so nice to see you actually show some thought...I know it's a stretch.
Click to expand...
you seem to be under a lot of stress mate....whats the problem?
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
GET OUT! REALLY!

My mind has changed completely! I am surprised nobody else started a post about this.

As far as I am concerned it was an inside job and Bush DID IT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom