Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

[Galileo]

Sabrina,

I've mentioned to Galileo twice in as many days, that I demonstrated the safe and proper deployment of Thermite Grenades on more than two dozen separate occasions during my time as a training NCO in US Army, and not a single one ever exploded.

As you already know, Thermite is indeed an incendiary, not an explosive. I was rebuffed the first time with some drivel about nano-blah blah blah. The second time I was simply ignored. The fact that I have firsthand experience with Thermite means nothing. The truthers are so predictable. You just have to sit back and laugh. This so-called "movement" is a joke.

Thermite can cut through steel and take down the towers. It doesn't matter if you debate whether it is classified as an explosive or not.

The thermite actually found is nano-thermite and has explosive properties.

 

[Lupie]

Thermite can cut through steel and take down the towers. It doesn't matter if you debate whether it is classified as an explosive or not.

The thermite actually found is nano-thermite and has explosive properties.

Whatever you say sport, it's your theory.

 

[Galileo]

A discussion regarding the science of the paper, must include everything regarding the paper. Including the validity of the Journal, AND regarding chain of custody of the 'chips'.

The science they did was.. very poor. There is very little they would have to do to prove their findings.

They need to show that these chips can burn without the presence of oxygen. A nice vacuum chamber, devoid of atmosphere would do nicely.

They need to show proper and substantiated chain of custody of the chips. They tested the chips, they also need to show that they indeed came from ground 0. Otherwise, it is very poor investigating and science since the chips could have come from anywhere.

They need to show the source of the paint that they tested the chips against.

They also need to test the chips against paint actually used in the towers. This would go a long way towards solidifying their hypothesis regarding the use of Thermite in the collapse of the towers.

They also need to publish their findings in a proper and reputable journal. One that does its own peer review. Not a 'pay to publish' journal.

The above are fairly simple things used to validate their claims. Until they clean up, and actually use science, all they have are claims. They have proved nothing, other than they have red chips of something that contains some elements, and burns nicely in air.

The peer reviewerers already covered this before it was published.

 

[Galileo]

Whatever you say sport, it's your theory.

It's not a theory, they found it.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

The peer reviewerers already covered this before it was published.

Did you actually read the above list of problems with the article before you posted your response or has "the peer reviewers already covered this..." become your new knee jerk reaction?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

A discussion regarding the science of the paper, must include everything regarding the paper. Including the validity of the Journal, AND regarding chain of custody of the 'chips'.

and even more so because galileo is using the fact that the paper was published to prop up its findings

It's not a theory, they found it.

^case in point

 

[Dog Town]

The peer reviewerers already covered this before it was published.

You have shown NO proof of this. Say it again with out it, and you are a LIAR!

 

[Galileo]

You have shown NO proof of this.

You are the one who needs to prove your assertions.

If you can show me a peer reviewed paper that provides evidence for your assertions, please let us know.

 

[Dog Town]

You are the one who needs to prove your assertions.

Dodge noted!
It was your "assertion", now you are a LIAR!

 

[nicepants]

The peer reviewerers already covered this before it was published.

When/where is there documentation of the following tests?

-Test against the actual paint used in the wtc
-Test to see if the chips burn without the presence of oxygen

 

[Toke]

Sabrina,

I've mentioned to Galileo twice in as many days, that I demonstrated the safe and proper deployment of Thermite Grenades on more than two dozen separate occasions during my time as a training NCO in US Army, and not a single one ever exploded.

As you already know, Thermite is indeed an incendiary, not an explosive. I was rebuffed the first time with some drivel about nano-blah blah blah. The second time I was simply ignored. The fact that I have firsthand experience with Thermite means nothing. The truthers are so predictable. You just have to sit back and laugh. This so-called "movement" is a joke.

I think the problem is thermite GRENADE.

Even through it is nonexplosive and used for military arson and/or vandalism the term grenade will confuse truthers. Or give them an excuse to be confused.

I still havent gotten a coherent answer from galileo to burning/cooling times for my shipload of thermite.

 

[Galileo]

Dodge noted!
It was your "assertion", now you are a LIAR!

No, the paper was peer reviewed and published. You have cited no published literature that is relevant to this discussion.

You need to produce some real science, some peer reviewed science. I am not interested in what you read on some conspiracy website. There is no conspiracy here.

 

[Galileo]

When/where is there documentation of the following tests?

-Test against the actual paint used in the wtc
-Test to see if the chips burn without the presence of oxygen

These tests are not needed to find the thermite.

 

[Sabrina]

Sabrina,

I've mentioned to Galileo twice in as many days, that I demonstrated the safe and proper deployment of Thermite Grenades on more than two dozen separate occasions during my time as a training NCO in US Army, and not a single one ever exploded.

As you already know, Thermite is indeed an incendiary, not an explosive. I was rebuffed the first time with some drivel about nano-blah blah blah. The second time I was simply ignored. The fact that I have firsthand experience with Thermite means nothing. The truthers are so predictable. You just have to sit back and laugh. This so-called "movement" is a joke.

Not arguing with you there, Lupie. *LOL* But G over here (I'd rather not refer to him as Galileo, who was arguably one of the most notable minds of his time) seems to think it can be made to explode.

My question to him would be, HOW? It's an INCENDIARY COMPOUND! It sets fires, it doesn't explode! Care to explain that one, G? And don't haul out the stupid nano-thermite idiocy again; you have yet to prove that nano-thermite even EXISTS, much less is an explosive compound versus an incendiary one.

 

[Shalamar]

These tests are not needed to find the thermite.

Actually, they are. Otherwise they have failed to back their claims on what they have found.

The truthers should be the ones demanding a proper series of tests, since success adds to the evidence of CD. however, all they have are unverified claims.

 

[lapman]

No, the paper was peer reviewed and published. You have cited no published literature that is relevant to this discussion.

You need to produce some real science, some peer reviewed science. I am not interested in what you read on some conspiracy website. There is no conspiracy here.

As shown by Mackey, they accept anybody as a reviewer regardless of their specialty. The credibility of the review process is nil. So you can shout "peer-reviewed" all you want, it holds no water. The fact that the journal has a whole 12 articles proves how irrelevant it is. So, until it's peer-reviewed in an established journal, you have nothing.

 

[Thunder]

These tests are not needed to find the thermite.

do you want the truth...or not?

why are you afraid to test your samples with samples of regular old WTC paint chips????

hmmm????

 

[twinstead]

As shown by Mackey, they accept anybody as a reviewer regardless of their specialty. The credibility of the review process is nil. So you can shout "peer-reviewed" all you want, it holds no water. The fact that the journal has a whole 12 articles proves how irrelevant it is. So, until it's peer-reviewed in an established journal, you have nothing.

I'm curious as to how many scientists would have to cast doubt on that paper before Mr G would even consider actually thinking for himself and looking at it critically.

 

[nicepants]

When/where is there documentation of the following tests?

-Test against the actual paint used in the wtc
-Test to see if the chips burn without the presence of oxygen

These tests are not needed to find the thermite.

You stated that "The peer reviewerers already covered this before it was published. " Are you now retracting that claim?

If those tests were not performed, then there's no way to eliminate the WTC paint as a possible source of the chips.

 

[lapman]

I'm curious as to how many scientists would have to cast doubt on that paper before Mr G would even consider actually thinking for himself and looking at it critically.

Mr G will just continue with his "must be peer reviewed" mantra until one is published. He'll move the goal posts and come up with something else to avoid the issue that the paper is nothing but junk science in a junk journal.