Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[Christopher7]

You posted a picture of metallic spheres. I'm very proud of you. Where is the proof that nanothermite was used to create the metallic spheres

That is the proof.

and that it's the only mechanism that can do so? Such a paper shouldn't be hard to find for someone of your immense intelligence.

Again you ignore what I said and go on as if I had not said it.

Google nano-thermite paper.

Iron microspheres are produced by other means but not in the abundance found in the WTC dust. The background dust contained about .04% iron microspheres.

 

[Christopher7]

Don't forget that you have to use explosives that "hurl the exterior beams" out of the building at a whopping "60 miles per hour." (26.8 Meters per Second)

You claim this was due to gravity which is absurd.

 

[excaza]

That is the proof.

That's not circular at all.

Again you ignore what I said and go on as if I had not said it.

What papers, specifically, did you use to come to your conclusion that nanothermite is the only process capable of producing metallic spheres on 9/11?

 

[uke2se]

That is the proof.

No, it's not. It's proof that metallic spheres were present in the WTC dust on 9/11. It's not proof that nano-thermite was present. To prove that, you need to prove that nothing other than nano-thermite could cause these spheres, which would be rather hard given the fact that there are metallic spheres with different chemical compositions, indicating more than one source.

Again you ignore what I said and go on as if I had not said it.

You told him to "google nano-thermite paper". That's not proof that nano-thermite caused the spheres, Chris.

 

[Christopher7]

Just to keep C7 from running in circles, he now claims it was explosives as well as nano thermite. Unless he wants to claim that nano thermite has a sound muffling effect on top of all other magic characteristics C7 ascribes to it, we can now get back to discussing the complete absence of barotrauma, flashes and sounds of demolition charges. Thermite in any of its forms is thus academic until C7 explains why none of the above are present at 9/11.

You all are denying in circles.
The witness statements have been posted many times. Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust. The iron spheres have no other explanation.

 

[uke2se]

You claim this was due to gravity which is absurd.

You claim this was due to explosives, which is absurd.

 

[uke2se]

You all are denying in circles.

No, that would be you projecting. However, I believe you have given up completely and are just trolling now. You're not even trying anymore.

The witness statements have been posted many times.

People witnessed nano-thermite in the dust? No, that hasn't been posted.

Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust.

No, metallic spheres were found in the dust. It's up to you to prove that they came from nano-thermite. This hasn't been done.

The iron spheres have no other explanation.

You need to understand that something isn't true just because you say it is, nor is it true just because you really really want it to be. You need to back up your assertions with evidence. Can you?

As for the fact that your response to my post completely ignored the contents, I'll just chalk that up to you dodging again.

For those of us with critical thinking skills, by dodging the contents of my post, C7 has demonstrated that he can't explain why his alleged explosives would leave no traces, such as sound, flashes or barotraumatic injuries.

 

[Christopher7]

It's not a vacant question. Why would they make it so complex? How did they use both? Why would they use both? You defeat the purpose of the thermite (no telltale detonations) by using explosives.

Your question is vacant because you are asking me how and why when you know that I could not possibly know how and why. As I have said many times, I don't know how or why they did what they did but I can look at the results and see that:

1) There are over 100 first responders and videos of numerous survivors who reported explosions.

2) There are numerous qualified people who reported molten steel.

3) Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust

4) The USGS and RJ Lee group found an abundance of iron microspheres in the WTC dust. Nano-thermite is the only known explanation for these spheres.

 

[funk de fino]

You have no idea what prople heard so stop making that claim.

Many demolition experts were a few hundred feet from WTC7 when it collapsed know what they heard. They deny it was a CD.

 

[funk de fino]

1) There are over 100 first responders and videos of numerous survivors who reported explosions.

And a large portion of them were interviewed by NIST again. None of them claim bombs or CD.

 

[uke2se]

1) There are over 100 first responders and videos of numerous survivors who reported explosions.

But none that reported demolition charges.

2) There are numerous qualified people who reported molten steel.

But none that can prove it.

3) Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust

Outright lie.

4) The USGS and RJ Lee group found an abundance of iron microspheres in the WTC dust.

And claimed it was an expected finding.

Nano-thermite is the only known explanation for these spheres.

Outright lie.

 

[funk de fino]

2) There are numerous qualified people who reported molten steel.

There is no actual evidence of rivers of molten steel. Just some second hand claims by some people who now deny saying it.

 

[Disbelief]

Your question is vacant because you are asking me how and why when you know that I could not possibly know how and why.

That has not kept you from your speculations before. you have no idea about military thermite, but you know it was used.

As I have said many times, I don't know how or why they did what they did but I can look at the results and see that:

1) There are over 100 first responders and videos of numerous survivors who reported explosions.

So. Explosions would be expected in intense fires.

2) There are numerous qualified people who reported molten steel.

No, you have hearsay reports. Please post direct quotes.

3) Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust

Still no. You have not even come close to proving this.

4) The USGS and RJ Lee group found an abundance of iron microspheres in the WTC dust. Nano-thermite is the only known explanation for these spheres.

Still no. There are multiple explanations which you handwave away.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

1) There are over 100 first responders and videos of numerous survivors who reported explosions.

2) There are numerous qualified people who reported molten steel.

3) Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust

4) The USGS and RJ Lee group found an abundance of iron microspheres in the WTC dust. Nano-thermite is the only known explanation for these spheres.

1) But none of them ever said that they were caused by explosives. Plus you mine quote alot of their statements which makes you out to be the liar.

2) Molten Steel wouldn't be found because Iron Workers didn't find any nor did anyone else in the 8 months that they worked on the site. Another lie based on mine quoting!

3) Rust is the only thing that was found, it doesn't constitute for any type of thermite being used.

4) Iron Oxide (rust) is the only explaination. But you wouldn't know anything about rust now would you?

 

[Christopher7]

No, that would be you projecting. However, I believe you have given up completely and are just trolling now. You're not even trying anymore.

You are talking about yourself

People witnessed nano-thermite in the dust? No, that hasn't been posted.

No, The witnesses reported explosions.

Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust.

No, metallic spheres were found in the dust.

Denial.

The iron spheres have no other explanation.

For those of us with critical thinking skills,

by dodging the contents of my post,

False

C7 has demonstrated that he can't explain why his alleged explosives would leave no traces, such as sound, flashes or barotraumatic injuries.

Pure denial of the over 100 witnesses that reported explosions that I have posted.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Pure denial of the over 100 witnesses that reported explosions that I have posted.

So says the man who has no evidence to support the thermite or explosive theories.

You don't have any evidence on your behalf, then you are in complete denial.

You choose to ignore the evidence brought on by CD experts that they never did find anything resembling a CD, then you are in complete denial.

You quote mine the witness statements to fit your perverted world about 9/11, then you're a liar.

 

[Christopher7]

1) But none of them ever said that they were caused by explosives.

Therefore, the explosions were not caused by explosives. Idiotic.
Actually, some of the first responders said it looked like a CD.

Plus you mine quote alot of their statements which makes you out to be the liar.

This is a violation of rule ?. The excessively biased moderation lets these statements go but removes some of my posts for far less.

2) Molten Steel wouldn't be found because Iron Workers didn't find any nor did anyone else in the 8 months that they worked on the site. Another lie based on mine quoting!

Utterly false - pure denial.

3) Rust is the only thing that was found, it doesn't constitute for any type of thermite being used.

Utterly false. Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust.

4) Iron Oxide (rust) is the only explaination. But you wouldn't know anything about rust now would you?

Nano particles of iron oxide and aluminum that can only be created and mixed in a high tech lab.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Therefore, the explosions were not caused by explosives. Idiotic.
Actually, some of the first responders said it looked like a CD.

This is a violation of rule ?. The excessively biased moderation lets these statement go but removes some of my posts for far less.

Utterly false - pure denial.

Utterly false. Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust.

Nano particles of iron oxide and aluminum that can only be created and mixed in a high tech lab.

Just because some of them said that it LOOKED LIKE (similie) doesn't constitute them as being explosives.

Oh did I hurt your feelings about calling you a liar? Well you are a liar so put up with it!

Not false, the truth, which you completely deny!

A lie! Rust was found, not nano-thermite.

No they can't! I can find rust on anything that has iron oxide (rust) on them.

How come nothing you said is made true? You claim that there's iron spheres, alright. Then where's the aluminum spheres that go with the iron ones??

 

[Christopher7]

There is no actual evidence of rivers of molten steel. Just some second hand claims by some people who now deny saying it.

False.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

Leslie Robertson later denied he said this but the others have not. They are qualified to say there was molten steel and you are not qualified to say they don't know what they are talking about. Your denial is just that, denial.

 

[beachnut]

False.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

Leslie Robertson later denied he said this but the others have not. They are qualified to say there was molten steel and you are not qualified to say they don't know what they are talking about. Your denial is just that, denial.

Robertson never said it. Please provide the exact quote.

You are now spreading lies. Why?

Gage was telling a lie, the quote he posted was not Robertson. Wow, you posted a bunch of hearsay. Which ones saw flowing steel? One said red hot. Not melted. You know the meaning of molten?

Please provide the Robertson quote; Source.


Since you never provide reality based sources, or the truth I will give you the source of Robertson's non-quote.

James Williams,

SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001, page

3, ​

​

http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf. The words appear without quotes, so they might be Williams’ paraphrase.​

From Gage's own paper, he knows he is telling a lie when he says Robertson said it! Liar Gage has fooled you! Why are you so gullible?

Robertson did not say it! It was not a quote, it was the SEAUNews messing up and spewing nonsense backed up with nothing.

Gage knows the quote was not Robertson's, but he says it was in his paper. How do I know Gage knows he is a liar; this is his source above!

Note, Gage knows the words are not from Robertson since they are not quotes as the author of the work is only talking and can't source the flowing steel.​

​

​