No Explosives Here?

[atavisms]

Wow. What a load of nonsense.

First of all the Niels Bohr Institute is the department of Physics and Astromony, and has nothing to do with the department of chemistry.

B: He is just an assistant professor at the department of chemistry and has no doctorate, the institute leader is called Mikael Bols.

III: The dean of natural science at KU is called Nils Andersen, and he resigned after the article had been published.

you call it a load of nonsense and then use screwloosechnage as a reference.
He doesnt have a doctorate? Would that impress you more if he did? (I think goebbels had one too)
plenty of others PhD's there I believe.

who gives a rat's ass if he has a doctorate!??
Try dealing with the facts of the issue.
The whole point of the post is that the study is not necessary to conclude the obvious.

if you wish to bring it up, well..point is, that he and 9 other scientists from different institutions (who have no reason in the world to lie and fabricate results, unlike NIST) found these material and confirmed their structure, elemental components, and ignition behavior.

re Niels Bohrs being a 'prestigious' institution -I was quoting from the NY Times.

That Anderson or Pileni quit in response to the paper is speculation
(as shown by your reference on the matter) but more importantly it is completely irrelevant either way.

What is relevant, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

"The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter "

First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here: cmm.nbi.ku.dk
*http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=619397


The critiques of harrit's paper (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017) are certainly not an explanation of what this material is. So do not confuse the two.

here is an informative well written essay directed at lay people.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

but like I said, my point was, that we dont need any scientific paper, or expert opinions in this case, because the tons factual evidence
(i.e. speed, symmetry, explosiveness, foreknowledge, admin's behavior, residual heat, NIST's failure to test for explosives* -etc, etc etc.. all speak for themselves.

*whatever Senor Mackey says, we have NIST saying they "did not test for the steel and dust explosive compounds."

In law, facts are called 'facts' because they can be verified by either side in a case.
Deal with the facts, quit with the fallacious appeals to authority and remember, it is well informed lay people who are given the seat of power on juries in this country

 

[Arus808]

could you join us in 2009. You know where Harris and Jones are considered idiots. They couldn't even get their "paper" into a respected journal. THEY had to pay to get their paper published

 

[DGM]

Wow, What a disjointed collection of crapola. Maybe you should read and organize your thoughts before posting (although I don't think it will help).

Sorry, copy and paste is not your strong suit.

 

[R.Mackey]

really?

Regardless, 'Appeal to authority' is on the list of logical fallacies bc you can find an expert to say anything. (ie. Thomas Eager's embarrassment of a paper!

I'm not appealing to authority. You said in your OP that NIST should have looked for signs of explosives. They did. You lied when you said that. Very simple.

You can say 'You're just wrong" but you cannot explain observed events with the gravity driven collapse hypothesis; only explosives can do that.

Yes I can. I've written hundreds of pages and made thousands of posts doing exactly that.

I see a lot of personal incredulity here in this forum, not to mention name calling, intolerance and just plain ignorance -

Then don't add to it.

As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.

The Truth Movement is particularly unpopular in New York City, which is understandable since the history the Truth Movement denies is theirs.

 

[TruthersLie]

you call it a load of nonsense and then use screwloosechnage as a reference.
He doesnt have a doctorate? Would that impress you more if he did? (I think goebbels had one too)

Goodwins law much?

plenty of others PhD's there I believe.

How many of them are structural engineers?

who gives a rat's ass if he has a doctorate!??
Try dealing with the facts of the issue.
The whole point of the post is that the study is not necessary to conclude the obvious.

GREAT then PROVE IT. Provide evidence, proof. Come on, it shouldn't be that hard.

if you wish to bring it up, well..point is, that he and 9 other scientists from different institutions (who have no reason in the world to lie and fabricate results, unlike NIST) found these material and confirmed their structure, elemental components, and ignition behavior.

Oh the nanothermite crap. yes. Too bad there are over 20 major methodological errors in said "paper" (snicker). yet you fall for it hook, line and sinker.
You might want to check about those "scientists."

re Niels Bohrs being a 'prestigious' institution -I was quoting from the NY Times.

Too bad Niels Harrit doesn't work for them...

That Anderson or Pileni quit in response to the paper is speculation
(as shown by your reference on the matter) but more importantly it is completely irrelevant either way.

Nice handwave. Too bad it is inaccurate.

What is relevant, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

No what is relevant is that there are 20 major methodological errors in that "study" (snicker). Why didn't they test it in an inert environment? It would conclusively show it is thermite.. try again.

"The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees.

what peer review? It would help if you had any idea what real peer review is. What we have found out about Bentham is that their peer review = "did the check clear?" try again.

The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter "

It is amazing that they got to choose which 4 people would peer review their article. I mean, I can find 4 folks who agree with me. Try again.

First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here: cmm.nbi.ku.dk
*http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=619397

Who now says that nanothermite was used to ignite up to 100 TONS of HE. Where are the explosions of those 100 TONS of HE?

The critiques of harrit's paper (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017) are certainly not an explanation of what this material is. So do not confuse the two.

here is an informative well written essay directed at lay people.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

ReallY? and you fell for it? OMG. Thanks for the laugh. Try some real chemistry. It will help you out. Maybe you should think about going back to school to finish that high school diploma.

but like I said, my point was, that we dont need any scientific paper, or expert opinions in this case, because the tons factual evidence
(i.e. speed, symmetry, explosiveness, foreknowledge, admin's behavior, residual heat, NIST's failure to test for explosives* -etc, etc etc.. all speak for themselves.

Nice handwave. IF you ahve FACTS, then present them.

NIST did the analysis and determined no CD could have been done w/out deafening everyone in a half mile. Where is the video with CD blasts? oh there are none.

Symmetry? You really should look up that word to figure out what it means.

But you are very right. It all speaks volumes... that you are uneducated and fall for crap.

In law, facts are called 'facts' because they can be verified by either side in a case.
Deal with the facts, quit with the fallacious appeals to authority and remember, it is well informed lay people who are given the seat of power on juries in this country

GREAT. PRESENT SOME FACTS.
we are still waiting for you to provide some.

 

[WildCat]

if you wish to bring it up, well..point is, that he and 9 other scientists from different institutions (who have no reason in the world to lie and fabricate results, unlike NIST) found these material and confirmed their structure, elemental components, and ignition behavior.

...What is relevant, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

Wow, that sounds real science-ey and everything! I wonder why they haven't submitted it to an actual peer-reviwed science journal?

"The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter "

 

[DGM]

Yes I can. I've written hundreds of pages and made thousands of posts doing exactly that.
.

Yeah, But can you do it standing on one foot, waving your hands and not using words with more then two syllables?

 

[MarkyX]

I stopped after the first picture. So his argument boils down to "debris fell this way, therefore bombs bought down the towers"

Amazing.

 

[Fjolle]

you call it a load of nonsense and then use screwloosechnage as a reference.

I could have used the original article, but you wouldnt have understood it...

He doesnt have a doctorate? Would that impress you more if he did? (I think goebbels had one too)
plenty of others PhD's there I believe.

godwins law

re Niels Bohrs being a 'prestigious' institution -I was quoting from the NY Times

It IS, but again, it has nothing to to with this subject, Harrit, or chemistry.

That Anderson or Pileni quit in response to the paper is speculation
(as shown by your reference on the matter) but more importantly it is completely irrelevant either way.

You think so?

What is relevant, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

Not the conclusion a lot of other people who read the paper had.

"The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter "

A real peer review might have suggested that they did an XDS, but my specialty is not chemistry, so you might want to talk to other people about this.

The critiques of harrit's paper (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017) are certainly not an explanation of what this material is. So do not confuse the two.[

here is an informative well written essay directed at lay people.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

Probably not, but they explain who it quite simply can not be thermite.

Other will probably go through this better than i'm capable of. And the post didn't really have anything to do with what i posted, so meh..

Edit: Beaten

 

[Thunder]

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?
.

i am confused as to why truthers are soo very desperate to convince us at JREF that 9-11 was an inside job, when we clearly do not believe so.

don't we have the right to our own opinions? don't we have the right to our own views on the subject matter?

its like Christian fundamentalists, who lay awake at night because they can't believe that there are folks out there who don't believe in Jesus, and won't be satisfied or confident with their own beliefs until the entire WORLD agreed with them.

Truther, you believe what you are gonna believe. We clearly can't convince you otherwise. Do us a favor and give us the same courtesy.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The whole point of the post is that the study is not necessary to conclude the obvious.

So the earth IS flat after all! I knew it!

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

Dear atavisms. Your post is both accurate, and relevant. Unfortunately, the parts that are accurate are not relevant. And the parts that are relevant are not accurate.

(Apologies to Dr. Johnson)

Meanwhile, HG Wells called from 2006. He wants his time-machine back.

 

[beachnut]

The photos and videos you supplied are clearly a gravity collapse. There were no blast effects on any WTC steel. And they studied and selected steel. No blast effects.

911 truth lies when they say the steel was not studied. Why do they lie?

No explosives. If you watch the video all the mass is moving down. In an explosion some mass moves close to the speed of sound in all directions for a short period. Stop action of a gravity collapse looks like an explosion to many of us, but carefully looking at the action the only thing going up is expelled air and smoke and some dust, the rest of the mass of the WTC is falling, not being exploded. Stop looking at the stills and posting junk ideas from web sites of lies.

The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

Why does Hoffman lie? People were still alive in the WTC, they did not virtually turn to dust. Liars are all you will find at the web sites you picked to form your delusions on 911.

Oops, there are big chunks of concrete, not dust. Hoffman never corrects his web site he keeps posting junk about 911. You can use Hoffman's own work to easily debunk all his failed moronic conclusions. If you can't then get some help from teachers, parents, and anyone who is a rational thinker. Avoid people on meth or people who look like Hoffman.

Explosives make the sound of explosives not sounds like explosives.

The energy of the WTC collapse, gravity collapse without explosives released over 150 TONS of TNT energy in each tower. This is why the destruction of the WTC looked the way it did. Just from gravity the WTC complex looked like 300 2,000 pound bombs had destroyed the site. If Hoffman understood physics instead of being a fringe conspiracy theorist manufacturing false information he would be able to be much more rational.

 

[McHrozni]

*whatever Senor Mackey says, we have NIST saying they "did not test for the steel and dust explosive compounds."

They also stated why, and they also looked for other distinguishing marks of explosives, which weren't there. Therefore, tests for explosive compounds would be both unnecessary and couldn't show anything meaningful anyway (see why they stated they didn't test for them).

McHrozni

 

[DavidJames]

So the earth IS flat after all! I knew it!

My personal favorite is the obvious visual evidence that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[HeyLeroy]

goebbels

BZZZZZT

GODWIN
FAIL​

 

[Hokulele]

My personal favorite is the obvious visual evidence that the sun revolves around the earth.

And whales are fish.

 

[Thunder]

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there is clearly a big face in the Moon, and that the stars revolve around the Earth, and that the sun is in fact a giant light bulb.

 

[Thunder]

The whole point of the post is that the study is not necessary to conclude the obvious.

The Earth is flat. Its obvious to everyone.

 

[Mangoose]

Atavisms thinks that buildings are blown up with explosives in controlled demolitions, that most of the destructive energy comes from the explosives (hence his 2006-vintage comments about the pulverization of concrete and body parts). The reality is that implosions are instances of gravity-driven collapse as well; the explosives only weaken the structure enough to precipitate gravity-driven collapse. The difference in the case of the WTC is that some other agent (fire) weakened the structure. Different agents but both leading to gravity-driven structural failure.