Molten Steel

[funk de fino]

There's a recently released British 9/11 movie called 'The elephant in the Room' in which Scott Forbes speaks at greater length.I've heard what he said but I can't remember if there was anything new. I think there will be a streaming site somewhere.

He is a liar.

 

[MikeW]

Do you have a link showing his reference to the Bush signing off document thing ?

I was going from memory, and looking back that might have been an inference rather than a direct Hilton statement. Here's the closest thing I can find in a quick search:

Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East.
http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonInterview.shtml

So perhaps I was wrong, this need not necessarily be as simple as saying there's a document where Bush signed off on 9/11 (although that is one possible interpretation). I'll withdraw that comment for now.

The rest of what I'm saying remains, though. Hilton says he has "very incriminating documents" showing that Bush ordered 9/11; yet he never told us what he had, and from what I can tell he's not provided any new evidence at all.

Also, Abel Ashes has a tiny bit more on his time with Stanley Hilton on this page.

 

[funk de fino]

Whenever someone gets something wrong you call them a liar. It makes me sad to see so much misplaced anger. You do that a lot. I guess it's because you see in others what you are yourself.

Just what is it you think I am lying about?


I clicked on the first link and followed it to your post about Richard Gage. Referring to the corroded beams in the FEMA C report he said: "It's nowhere to be found in the NIST report."
You noted that they were in the NCSTAR 1-3C report so I checked it out.

It seems you were a bit disingenuous yourself when you said:
" [FONT=&quot]Not only did NIST discuss that, the report spends several pages on it, and NIST did an independent analysis of the samples[/FONT]"

and:

[FONT=&quot]Not only are these strangely-eroded pieces discussed for several pages in NCSTAR 1-3C, but NIST did their own analysis that resulted in several different conclusions from FEMA's analysis. [/FONT]

As it turns out, only Sample #2 was analyzed. Sample #1 from WTC 7 was not. The descriptions of the corrosion were different for the two samples but I don't know if that is important or not. NIST did not analyize Sample #1 for the Final WTC 7 report nor did they mention it.

If someone else said "NIST did an independent analysis of the samples" and only one piece was analyzed, you would call them a liar.

I'm just going to say you are wrong.

So when you said this

NIST has not explained the molten metal or the erroded beam.

Were you lying or just wrong?

 

[bill smith]

So now you have to shift into overdrive on the political lies and biased fantasy because you have been called on the NIST explanation of the beam.

Off topic and reported.

Yes, I did mention further back that we were drifting off topic. That will happen in the cut-and-hrust of argument. We're nicely brack on track now though. Good to know you are helping the mods to keep order.

 

[bill smith]

I was going from memory, and looking back that might have been an inference rather than a direct Hilton statement. Here's the closest thing I can find in a quick search:



So perhaps I was wrong, this need not necessarily be as simple as saying there's a document where Bush signed off on 9/11 (although that is one possible interpretation). I'll withdraw that comment for now.

The rest of what I'm saying remains, though. Hilton says he has "very incriminating documents" showing that Bush ordered 9/11; yet he never told us what he had, and from what I can tell he's not provided any new evidence at all.

Also, Abel Ashes has a tiny bit more on his time with Stanley Hilton on this page.

hhanks for clearing that up. his exerpt is from the interview Iheard. Why do you think Bush did not counter-sue for extreme libel and slander ? Maybe you better not answer that as it's off topic.

 

[MikeW]

hhanks for clearing that up. his exerpt is from the interview Iheard. Why do you think Bush did not counter-sue for extreme libel and slander ? Maybe you better not answer that as it's off topic.

Actually I withdraw my withdrawal - here's another quote from Hilton:

This was a government ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/130904hiltontranscript.htm

So Hilton's saying he has some kind of Presidential document ordering 9/11.

Why should he sue? What would be the point? Millions of people make actionable statements regarding politicians every single day, that's just the way it is. And actually this is one of those "have it both ways" arguments, isn't it: he doesn't sue, you ask us to wonder why; if he did sue, people would say he wants to lean on Hilton to shut him up so "there must be something in it".

Another critical truther page on Hilton is at http://www.oilempire.us/hilton.html

 

[bill smith]

Actually I withdraw my withdrawal - here's another quote from Hilton:



So Hilton's saying he has some kind of Presidential document ordering 9/11.

Why should he sue? What would be the point? Millions of people make actionable statements regarding politicians every single day, that's just the way it is. And actually this is one of those "have it both ways" arguments, isn't it: he doesn't sue, you ask us to wonder why; if he did sue, people would say he wants to lean on Hilton to shut him up so "there must be something in it".

Another critical truther page on Hilton is at http://www.oilempire.us/hilton.html

This doesn't change anything. He did not mention presidential documents. He said only 'incriminating documents'.

The President being accused of murder s not the same as some small town nolitician. He should have sued just to clear the name of the Presidency. The truth is that he did not dare risk cross examination and publicity.

Now we better go back on topic or somebody will lreport us.

 

[MikeW]

This doesn't change anything. He did not mention presidential documents. He said only 'incriminating documents'.

Okay, my last words.

If it's a document signed by the President as part of a government plan then I'd say it's a Presidential document. But that really doesn't matter - Hilton's produced precisely nothing, whatever you want to call them.

Re: suing people, I might as well ask why Hilton hasn't sued the people saying he's a fraud. I don't think it's hard to work out why.

 

[bill smith]

Okay, my last words.

If it's a document signed by the President as part of a government plan then I'd say it's a Presidential document. But that really doesn't matter - Hilton's produced precisely nothing, whatever you want to call them.

Re: suing people, I might as well ask why Hilton hasn't sued the people saying he's a fraud. I don't think it's hard to work out why.

Nobody ever said it was a document signed by Bush. Hilton did not represent the Presidency like Bush did. The Presidency was brought into disrepute requiring Bush to take legal action on behalf of the office of President of the United States of America.. .

 

[Sunstealer]

This gives the gist though the video has gaphs and so on.

If you spray water from an vapouriser you get a fine mist of droplets. If you look at the droplets under a microscope they show up as tiny spheres as we have all seen on TV at one time or another, If steel is vaporised by extreme temperatures (way above what you need to melt steel) you get exactly the same tiny spheres, except that these harden and stay as tiny spheres. The dust from the WTC has these tiny balls of steel in abundance. Now Professor Stephen jones says he has recovered trace amounts of UNREACTED Thermite from the dust and steel sphere samples. He can even make these live traces 'flare' or 'flash' when he subjects them to a directed and concentrated heat source. This really is evidence that Thermite was used at the WTC on 9/11

This is hilarious! Firstly you have committed the "Jones Fallacy". i.e. quoting Jones. Jones is wrong. It has been shown numerous times why.

Jones uses a SEM to do qualitative analysis and then makes the leap to thermite instead of doing a quantitative analysis.

eg: take FeO, Fe₂O₃, Fe₃O₄ powder in equal ratios by weight. Put them in a SEM. Run EDX/EDS - what do you find? Calculate the ratio of each oxide by looking at the peaks.

You can't do it without running additional software - modern SEMs have this but Jones never uses it - I wonder why?

That is why Jones is wrong - he just looks at what is coming up on the spectra and makes the leap to thermite, because that's his agenda. Secondly his spectra do not share the same constituents with thermite.

I have already linked to pages that show very similar spectra to what Jones claims is a thermite speck - it's red paint. Honestly why are you so enamoured by Jones? He's a fraud. The problem is you are bamboozled. You see the word SEM and the spectra and think science is being done yet you have no experience of such machinery let alone know what it's capable of yet when people here who have experience of such matters you dismiss what they have to say and cling desperatly to Jones's coat tails like a small child.

Your wish to believe Jones is shown when you say "He can even make these live traces 'flare' or 'flash' when he subjects them to a directed and concentrated heat source." It's no evidence of thermite because if you take a blow torch to most materials they will flare because they are burning! Red paint will do exactly that, only Jones claims it's thermite and people with no understanding believe him.

Stop committing the Jones fallacy and do some research, link to non-truther pages to back up truther claims.

P.S. And please stop saying steel vaporized! Read the link and understand what the word means. If steel had become a vapour (which needs extreme temperature) then it wouldn't form a sphere it would be a gas. This shows you don't even have the rudimentary knowledge of solid/liquid/gas you just spout what you have read without understanding. It's the hallmark of a truther.

 

[bill smith]

Okay, my last words.

If it's a document signed by the President as part of a government plan then I'd say it's a Presidential document. But that really doesn't matter - Hilton's produced precisely nothing, whatever you want to call them.

Re: suing people, I might as well ask why Hilton hasn't sued the people saying he's a fraud. I don't think it's hard to work out why.

This is hilarious! Firstly you have committed the "Jones Fallacy". i.e. quoting Jones. Jones is wrong. It has been shown numerous times why.

Jones uses a SEM to do qualitative analysis and then makes the leap to thermite instead of doing a quantitative analysis.

eg: take FeO, Fe₂O₃, Fe₃O₄ powder in equal ratios by weight. Put them in a SEM. Run EDX/EDS - what do you find? Calculate the ratio of each oxide by looking at the peaks.

You can't do it without running additional software - modern SEMs have this but Jones never uses it - I wonder why?

That is why Jones is wrong - he just looks at what is coming up on the spectra and makes the leap to thermite, because that's his agenda. Secondly his spectra do not share the same constituents with thermite.

I have already linked to pages that show very similar spectra to what Jones claims is a thermite speck - it's red paint. Honestly why are you so enamoured by Jones? He's a fraud. The problem is you are bamboozled. You see the word SEM and the spectra and think science is being done yet you have no experience of such machinery let alone know what it's capable of yet when people here who have experience of such matters you dismiss what they have to say and cling desperatly to Jones's coat tails like a small child.

Your wish to believe Jones is shown when you say "He can even make these live traces 'flare' or 'flash' when he subjects them to a directed and concentrated heat source." It's no evidence of thermite because if you take a blow torch to most materials they will flare because they are burning! Red paint will do exactly that, only Jones claims it's thermite and people with no understanding believe him.

Stop committing the Jones fallacy and do some research, link to non-truther pages to back up truther claims.

P.S. And please stop saying steel vaporized! Read the link and understand what the word means. If steel had become a vapour (which needs extreme temperature) then it wouldn't form a sphere it would be a gas. This shows you don't even have the rudimentary knowledge of solid/liquid/gas you just spout what you have read without understanding. It's the hallmark of a truther.

Vapour.n,....def [A visible suspension in the air of particles of some substance]

Gas.n,.........def [The state of matter distinguished from the solid and liquid states by: relatively low density and viscosity]

 

[Sunstealer]

Vapour.n,....def [A visible suspension in the air of particles of some substance]

Gas.n,.........def [The state of matter distinguished from the solid and liquid states by: relatively low density and viscosity]

Care to comment on the other part of my post?

 

[bill smith]

Care to comment on the other part of my post?

It's probably possible to come up with other possibilitis for the spectra Jones found but considering that he was speciically looking for that signature- and found it is fairly convincing. That makes the other possibilities less likely. Thre was not only one chip of unreacted thermite-there were thouands evenly distrubuted throughout the dust.

Jones illustrated the 'flare' or 'flash' by making a 'poof' noise which sounds like a pretty energetic reaction perhaps somewhat more than you might expect from a paint chip.

To be clear, I will not be convinced by Jones until we see the independent test results and I am very unhappy that it's taking so long. I didn't say suspicious you will note.

 

[T.A.M.]

Background sources of the microspheres will have a typical density on other areas of New York unaffected by the attacks. If their density in the dust of ground zero deviates grossly from the mean that will be enough.

Not really, as the pile was a compression of 2 110 storey buildings, and superconcentration of "dustified" wallboard, and some extremely fine concrete sediment. As a result of this concentration, I would expect a concentration within the dust of many chemicals and elements. His logic is flawed.

However, if he has another sample taken from the dust of 2 110 storey buildings that collapsed, but not the WTCs, and then the dust differs significantly, then he might have something.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

It's probably possible to come up with other possibilitis for the spectra Jones found but considering that he was speciically looking for that signature- and found it is fairly convincing. That makes the other possibilities less likely. Thre was not only one chip of unreacted thermite-there were thouands evenly distrubuted throughout the dust.

Jones illustrated the 'flare' or 'flash' by making a 'poof' noise which sounds like a pretty energetic reaction perhaps somewhat more than you might expect from a paint chip.

To be clear, I will not be convinced by Jones until we see the independent test results and I am very unhappy that it's taking so long. I didn't say suspicious you will note.

Wrong again. Given there is NO OTHER EVIDENCE even remotely supporting thermite, and given there are other possibilities for the spectral signature, more common, more expected to be found in that pile, thermite should be, if he were an HONEST, UNBIAS SCIENTIST WITHOUT AN AGENDA, at the bottom of his list.

He went in looking for thermite, why? with no evidence prior to his search to support it, why? I will tell you why, because he is dishonest, and had an agenda from the outset of his so called "investigation".

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Form a sphere? Did our recent new truther bring up Jones's microspheres argument again?

Good grief... Jones never, ever establishes the origin of the spherules as being on September 11th, and other surveys indicate that the spheres were present long before that. There are multiple potential sources of such particles, and thermite is one of the last such sources. Any building that's had welding done to it, contains gypsum wallboard, and is exposed for years to diesel engine exhaust, brake dust from thousands upon thousands of vehicles, and been in the general vicinity of any construction equipment as well as any machinery with steel parts will have a concentration of microspheres.

Thermite is ruled out for other reasons, not the least of which is the presence of the eutectic ereosion. Yes, the presence; as Mackey pointed out, the "swiss cheese" degredation that was noted contradicts the presence of such an agent. Previous threads have mentioned why.

On top of that, were the paint chips mentioned again? Christ on a cracker, someone needs to use the search function and look at some historical threads here. There's nothing new or convincing about that argumentative line.

 

[Sunstealer]

XRD analysis would take less than a morning to do. Why is it taking so long? Honestly, anyone worth their salt would be able to get an analysis done inside a week.

 

[bill smith]

XRD analysis would take less than a morning to do. Why is it taking so long? Honestly, anyone worth their salt would be able to get an analysis done inside a week.

I have to confess that I am in a quandary about that too, and have been for over six months.

 

[funk de fino]

I have to confess that I am in a quandary about that too, and have been for over six months.

Hope fully your quandary will lead you to see he is a fraud. A moment of clarity shall we say?

 

[Porkpie Hat]

XRD analysis would take less than a morning to do. Why is it taking so long? Honestly, anyone worth their salt would be able to get an analysis done inside a week.

Why do it in a morning when you can string the "bill smiths" of the world along forever.