Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[TruthersLie]

All I said in the debate about it was that I would like to know why energetic material was found in the WTC dust and made mention of a couple things which are in the paper written by people who actually did the analysis and are experts in nano chemistry.

Have you read the paper?

I think one would have to consider scott.in.taiwan a pseudo-name if that is what you are referring to in this comment.

What energetic material tony?

oh ... you mean the paint chips which were not texted in an inert atmosphere... mixed with rust. It is rather amazing that oxidized paint will burn in an oxygen rich environment isn't it?

Do us a favor, get a REAL paper published which uses REAL science and then come on back and talk about nanothermite.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I just love proving Truther experts wrong.

Nano-thermite found in dust, red/grey chips are "evidence" of nano-thermite.

U.S. Army demolition experts would detect nano-thermite if Truthers give dust samples to confirm it. Truthers fault for not presenting their samples to the right people.

Red/grey chips are paint chips that were from the columns with lead based red paint as a rust preventative. Any painter can tell the difference!

Simple logic Truthers! Use it, don't abuse it!

 

[Dave Rogers]

There is no evidence of a dynamic load. You need velocity loss to show there was one and there is no velocity loss observed, the upper block of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

As I've pointed out many times before, there was no reason to expect any negative acceleration. At an angle of 4º or greater, the columns fail sequentially rather than simultaneously at each level. At no point is there an upward force as large as mg exerted on the upper block, because at no time are as many as one third of the columns resisting the collapse, so at no point is the resultant force upwards. In fact, assuming the force exerted by the columns remains at the ultimate strength up to a reduction in length of 20%, and using a factor of safety of three, I still find that there is continuous acceleration throughout the descent. Since this uses an overestimate of the as-built strength of the building, neglects the known damage below the level of collapse initiation, and assumes a geometrically impossible best-case impact scenario, I'm confident that it represents an absolute lower bound on the downward acceleration considering structural resistance. In short, no jolt is expected for a collapse that resembles the one actually observed.

Dave

 

[911kongen]

---

Gary is also busily adding subtitles to the second show. I hope this helps improve the presentation. We work with what we have.

That is great news! Then I will watch it again!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As I've pointed out many times before, there was no reason to expect any negative acceleration. At an angle of 4º or greater, the columns fail sequentially rather than simultaneously at each level. At no point is there an upward force as large as mg exerted on the upper block, because at no time are as many as one third of the columns resisting the collapse, so at no point is the resultant force upwards. In fact, assuming the force exerted by the columns remains at the ultimate strength up to a reduction in length of 20%, and using a factor of safety of three, I still find that there is continuous acceleration throughout the descent. Since this uses an overestimate of the as-built strength of the building, neglects the known damage below the level of collapse initiation, and assumes a geometrically impossible best-case impact scenario, I'm confident that it represents an absolute lower bound on the downward acceleration considering structural resistance. In short, no jolt is expected for a collapse that resembles the one actually observed.

Dave

Dave, if you think what you are saying here is truly what happened and has merit then you should do the calculations and show the work to the world, by writing a paper and salvaging the current official explanation, which presently has no standing as it has been shown to not conform to observation.

You should get ahold of Dr. Bazant who I am sure would help with the calculations and would have the incentive to do so to salvage his own reputation.

 

[bill smith]

What energetic material tony?

oh ... you mean the paint chips which were not texted in an inert atmosphere... mixed with rust. It is rather amazing that oxidized paint will burn in an oxygen rich environment isn't it?

Do us a favor, get a REAL paper published which uses REAL science and then come on back and talk about nanothermite.

When Steven Jones announced the finding of the nano-thermite in the dust of the WTC in Boston in december of 2007 we all waited with bated breath or a confirmatory analysis from one of the major institutes. Personally I became highly suspicious of Jones after 6 months had elapsed without any word of progress on the independent-testing front.

But with a little thought it is plain to see why he did not approach Princeton or any of the well knnwn others.

Science is no longer free to speak it's mind and damn the consequences Science and espectaly it's institutions have been subverted by government into mere mouthpieces for policy support.Look up the thousands of scientists in 'the union of Concerned Scientists' for a snapshot of how big this problem has become. Take NIST for one example, or Purdue for another...

Jones at that time could not risk an institution like Princeton saying outright 'No, there was no trace of nano thermite in the WTC dust' which they certainly would have done after a simple call from the Whitehouse. At that time Jones would never have recpvered from that. Now it is rather different with the peer review process having been completed. You may whine about this but just the fact that Bentham is still in business peer reviewing documents is enough to tell even the casual observer that they are a fully legititimate institution of their own.

In other words....nano thermite has been proven at the WTC on 9/11 and until the government proves otherwwise there is no doubt whose court the ball is in.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, if you think what you are saying here is truly what happened and has merit then you should do the calculations and show the work to the world, by writing a paper and salvaging the current official explanation, which presently has no standing as it has been shown to not conform to observation.

This is, I think, what Ryan Mackey would describe as your irreducible delusion. In fact, the generally accepted explanation, understood by the overwhelming majority of the population of the world and backed up by calculations, numerous published papers in peer reviewed journals, political and criminal investigation, insurance settlements and just about any other source you care to mension, is that the towers fell as a result of impact and fire damage. Your belief is that this explanation has in some way been discredited, and your belief has no basis in reality. And, of course, you have no alternative explanation which conforms to observation; if you had, there's nothing to stop you from publishing a complete, detailed account of how you believe the collapse occurred; what type of initiation mechanism was used, where and how, backed up by reference to the observed characteristics of the collapse. In particular, you won't have to get it past a neutral peer review, since the Journal of 9/11 Studies only reviews conclusions. And yet, despite not even having to play on a level field, none of you have even attempted to develop a hypothesis in anything remotely approaching the detail of the NIST analysis and Bazant's papers. You're not trying to add to human knowledge; you're trying to subtract from it. And that's the worst thing about your whole movement.

I have no interest in spending the time writing a paper that will tell the vast majority of the world something that's this obvious.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

In other words....nano thermite has been proven at the WTC on 9/11 until the government proves otherwwise. There is no doubt whose court the ball is in.

This would be why court proceedings against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have currently been suspended pending a new criminal investigation into 9/11, right?

Oh, wait. They haven't.

Dave

 

[NutCracker]

Dave, if you think what you are saying here is truly what happened and has merit then you should do the calculations and show the work to the world, by writing a paper and salvaging the current official explanation, which presently has no standing as it has been shown to not conform to observation.

You should get ahold of Dr. Bazant who I am sure would help with the calculations and would have the incentive to do so to salvage his own reputation.

The onus is on you to prove your controlled demo theory. If you believe NIST's hypothesis and computer simulations are not valid, write a paper detailing the why's and how's and have it published in a real peer reviewed paper.

Good luck!

 

[TruthersLie]

When Steven Jones announced the finding of the nano-thermite in the dust of the WTC in Boston in december of 2007 we all waited with bated breath or a confirmatory analysis from one of the major institutes. Personally I became highly suspicious of Jones after 6 months had elapsed without any word of progress on the independent-testing front.

But with a little thought it is plain to see why he did not approach Princeton or any of the well knnwn others.

Science is no longer free to speak it's mind and damn the consequences Science and espectaly it's institutions have been subverted by government into mere mouthpieces for policy support.Look up the thousands of scientists in 'the union of Concerned Scientists' for a snapshot of how big this problem has become. Take NIST for one example, or Purdue for another...

Jones at that time could not risk an institution like Princeton saying outright 'No, there was no trace of nano thermite in the WTC dust' which they certainly would have done after a simple call from the Whitehouse. At that time Jones would never have recpvered from that. Now it is rather different with the peer review process having been completed. You may whine about this but just the fact that Bentham is still in business peer reviewing documents is enough to tell even the casual observer that they are a fully legititimate institution of their own.

In other words....nano thermite has been proven at the WTC on 9/11 and until the government proves otherwwise there is no doubt whose court the ball is in.

<snicker> <snort> <LOL>

Oh bill. Some days you do make me laugh. Yes, we have a claim which is not backed up BY ANYONE based on bad science. But instead of looking at the 20 methodological ERRORS (yes they are errors) in that "paper" <snicker> and trying to actually do GOOD science, you handwave and say, "see we proved it now prove us wrong."

Really bill?

HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION
I make the claim that generic truther #1's mother is a crack whore who gives $5 bj's and has aids. PROVE ME WRONG. Oh wait. I can't make that claim. Why? because 1. I don't have proof that she is hypothetical truther #1's mother. 2. I don't have proof that she is a whore. 3. I don't have proof that she is addicted to crack. 4. I dont' have proof that she only charges $5 for a bj. 5. I don't have proof that she has aids.
Since I don't have that proof, I can't say that about your hypothetical truther #1's mother. Unless I have the PROOF, I can't then tell you to PROVE ME WRONG.

nice try billy. try again.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Thanks for the rational comments Scott and it is good to know your real name.

I do think that the present official explanations for the collapses of the towers are insufficient as we now know there was no impulsive load, and that there needs to be additional work in explaining the collapses.

As for the red/gray chips, I would very much like to see the U.S. government test the samples it has to put this controversy to bed. If several samples were tested by several chemists and found to be inert, and Steven Jones, Neils Harrit, and their colleagues shown the results I would accept that.

So this means you continue to insist the suggestion of 'energetic material' at the WTC is valid? What I said was that there has been no meaningful demonstration of this. You disagree? My point was, Tony, that without this, you sound reasonable. Perhaps wrong, but reasonable. With this, you lump yourself in the same category as the high school kids that make up We Are Change. As such, you make the choice to be ridiculous.

I am certain you know what I'm saying. You come across as too lucid to not understand this. In fact, I am sure you've thought of this already. So why do you want to make this choice? It's perfectly possible to make your arguments without appealing to this claim.

Or perhaps you don't know it. Perhaps you're hearing for the first time that your arguments sound legitmate but that, to informed people, this talk about 'energetic material' might as well be Judy Wood's space-based energy beam. Maybe that's important with AE911. Maybe there are other personal reasons you choice to act as though this claim has meaning. But claims about it make you come across like just another one of those 911 nut jobs - and you are not.

Are you sure you want to continue the discussion with this as meaningful evidence?

Scott Sommers.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So this means you continue to insist the suggestion of 'energetic material' at the WTC is valid? What I said was that there has been no meaningful demonstration of this. You disagree? My point was, Tony, that without this, you sound reasonable. Perhaps wrong, but reasonable. With this, you lump yourself in the same category as the high school kids that make up We Are Change. As such, you make the choice to be ridiculous.

I am certain you know what I'm saying. You come across as too lucid to not understand this. In fact, I am sure you've thought of this already. So why do you want to make this choice? It's perfectly possible to make your arguments without appealing to this claim.

Or perhaps you don't know it. Perhaps you're hearing for the first time that your arguments sound legitmate but that, to informed people, this talk about 'energetic material' might as well be Judy Wood's space-based energy beam. Maybe that's important with AE911. Maybe there are other personal reasons you choice to act as though this claim has meaning. But claims about it make you come across like just another one of those 911 nut jobs - and you are not.

Are you sure you want to continue the discussion with this as meaningful evidence?

Scott Sommers.

I am only saying that the issue has been raised by a published paper by several scientists and that there is an avenue to put the controversy to rest, as the U.S. government agency USGS has an abundance of the dust which could be tested in an unbiased way.

Wouldn't you want a definitive unbiased answer?

If you noticed I was not the one who brought it up in the debate. Ron Wieck brought it up and we discussed it for a couple of minutes. My point was essentially that if it is energetic material, as claimed by those who wrote the paper, then why was it there? I also brought up the fact that the USGS has an abundance of samples of the dust, which have a chain of custody, and could be tested to alleviate the controversy.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am only saying that the issue has been raised by a published paper by several scientists and that there is an avenue to put the controversy to rest, as the U.S. government agency USGS has an abundance of the dust which could be tested in an unbiased way.

So let's suppose the USGS, an agency of the US Government, which you suspect of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks, were to issue a report saying that they had tested the dust and found no evidence of nanothermite. Would you consider this to have put the controversy to rest, or would you argue that the USGS could not be considered an unbiased observer and that therefore its results could not be taken at face value? Would you then accept the result, or would you go on to devote all your efforts to casting doubt on its findings by any means you could conceive of?

Let me remind you that NIST, an agency of the US Government, has produced reports saying that they had studied the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 and found them to be due to impact and fire damage, and this doesn't seem to have 'put the controversy to rest' as far as you're concerned. What would be the point of anyone simply generating more material for you to ignore?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

What would be the point of anyone simply generating more material for you to ignore?

Indeed

 

[Scott Sommers]

I am only saying that the issue has been raised by a published paper by several scientists and that there is an avenue to put the controversy to rest, as the U.S. government agency USGS has an abundance of the dust which could be tested in an unbiased way.

Wouldn't you want a definitive unbiased answer?

No Tony, there has been no meaningful question raised. This is a point only believable to the high school students that make up We Are Change. There are other players that make up the scientific community outside of Steven Jones and the USGS. There has been no commentary about this from the thermite research community, nor has Steven Jones and his group sought out their opinion.

You know as well as anyone here that this document that gets called a 'published paper' was not published in any scientifically meaningful way. It was posted on the Internet for a fee. I can reproduce the proof of this if you want, but I doubt you need me to do so. Since it has never been presented in a scientifically meaningful venue and seems to have no support at all outside of a small group of researchers unable to attract the attention or interest of recognized experts in relevant fields, it is not a claim that needs to be addressed by anyone, much less the US Government and its representatives.

Virtually everything that gets presented as evidence of a CD at the WTC has been copied directly from Richard Gage's presentations. While this may serve as entertainment at local churchs and university clubs, they are in no sense presentable to a professional audience. As such, he has not sought out the opinion of such an audience.

Your arguments hold the appeal that they are original, informed, and do not necessarily rely on Gage's poorly received positions. They are the only thing new that alternative 911 positions have had to offer in almost a decade. You do them no justice by appealing to what is a pseudo science claim. I can not believe you see them as necessary for your argument - because they are not. I can only believe you continue to imply they have credibility because of your affiliation with those whose arguments logically need them to be true.

On the other hand, perhaps you do have some deep-rooted belief that armies of scientists and government agents are conspiring to murder citizens in the streets. Perhaps the presence of super secret compounds in the dust of WTC is important to your position in a very personal and private way. Then that leaves us all pretty much in the same position that we are with the legions of 911 crazies that posit everything from no planes to limited nuclear weapons. Because "the presence of energetic materials" is nothing more.

I don't think I need to, but here's the offer once again; Tony, would you like me prove why this so-called 'publication' has no scientific meaning at all?

Scott Sommers.

 

[bill smith]

Let USGS do their test and announce the result and we can go from there Dave. Maybe Jones would believe them if they said they had found nothing suspicious. Either way he would want a sample to test against his own.

It would help to remove the notion that they are afraid to become embroiled in something that might be the ruination of them. What else can we think ?

 

[DGM]

So let's suppose the USGS, an agency of the US Government, which you suspect of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks, were to issue a report saying that they had tested the dust and found no evidence of nanothermite. Would you consider this to have put the controversy to rest, or would you argue that the USGS could not be considered an unbiased observer and that therefore its results could not be taken at face value? Would you then accept the result, or would you go on to devote all your efforts to casting doubt on its findings by any means you could conceive of?

Let me remind you that NIST, an agency of the US Government, has produced reports saying that they had studied the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 and found them to be due to impact and fire damage, and this doesn't seem to have 'put the controversy to rest' as far as you're concerned. What would be the point of anyone simply generating more material for you to ignore?

Dave

Dave:
I think he means by "unbiased" is in a way that "supports our believes". I don't understand why they can't do the same thing with their samples, you know, independent (non-bias) evaluation. Perhaps a university study of their results.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I don't think I need to, but here's the offer once again; Tony, would you like me prove why this so-called 'publication' has no scientific meaning at all?

As I said I would like the USGS to do testing on the material they have and to show the results, chain of custody, and methodology used in the testing, to those who wrote the Bentham paper and then to the world at large.

I think testing the actual material will be far more explanatory than arguments from those of us without access to it.

If you consider that to be taking some sort of position on this then I would have to say you are exhibiting a bias here.

 

[Edx]

If you consider that to be taking some sort of position on this then I would have to say you are exhibiting a bias here.

Bias, Tony, is an inability to be critical of people like Richard Gage and Steven Jones's claims or be critical of the way their paper was published in Bentham.

If truthers really cared about being accurate they woulld try and make sure they would show that, but they wont.

You yourself have had the opportunity to say that Richard Gage's "indications of explosive demolition" are wrong, but you cant, you just cant admit that they are wrong. You know they cannot be defended. You have brought up Harrit and Jones' NanoThermite paper and yet are unable to admit that the way the paper was published leaves peer review most likely completely non existent and that their parading it around as being in a respectable journal with real peer review is disingenous. But you cant, you wont. That, Tony, is showing "bias".

If you want to give truthers more respectability, then start acting like you care about being accurate. In short, show you care about science, because for nearly a decade all of you have been acting like the Intelligent Design movement.

 

[Furcifer]

As I said I would like the USGS to do testing on the material they have and to show the results,

And I'd like it to be done live on TV in a 1 hour special hosted by Megan Fox. But that isn't going to happen unless you can prove the collapse was anomolous. No one has even come close to doing that.