Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[grandmastershek]

I am content with just WTC7. We will work it back to the Towers I can assure you.

translation: Its not convenient to my beliefs so I pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[grandmastershek]

They all seem to be 2001 or 2002 Tri. Surprising that nobody technical seems to be writing stuff to support the government story since then. Bar NIST of course who are to all intents and purposes the government.
Not much confidence out there any more I think. We will no doubt revisit the subject with the authors come the day.

Stop lying BS, you know its not true. There are dozens of peer reviewed papers supporting/corroborating NIST.

 

[Edx]

Stop lying BS, you know its not true. There are dozens of peer reviewed papers supporting/corroborating NIST.

WAY more than dozens

 

[Clayton Moore]

WAY more than dozens

Yeah the first clue that official 9/11 story was nonsense was when the explanations of 9/11 came from Popular Mechanics and National Geographic.

 

[grandmastershek]

Yeah the first clue that official 9/11 story was nonsense was when the explanations of 9/11 came from Popular Mechanics and National Geographic.

Ahh yes ad hom. Always a good sign.

 

[Marokkaan]

Sure. Here you go. A BIG list.

Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

etcetera....

So they are the thousands or millions of experts (the so called big majority of independent experts

You see even reports without a name hehe.


But ok. I see this argument has been earlier used. So i take one reaction, where a poster has read all those papers and comment about it.



It's their list of articles attempting to portray "scientific consensus" regarding the progressive collapse theory of the WTC, as espoused by NIST and Bazant. The briefest perusal shows that 90% of it is fluff. Not that the articles aren't scientific or peer-reviewed. It's just that very few of them are actual discussions and confirmations of the collapse scenario supposedly supported by the "vast majority" of the world's scientists.

See how many you can find that specifically corroborate NIST's/Bazant's findings. I found somewhere in the range of three to four:

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001 Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal
- An article about fire safety


World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

- Does this sound like an article reviewing and corroborating the NIST findings?


A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
- Quintiere, who later went on to criticize NIST for a poorly conducted investigation that included serious omissions.


"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

- Does this sound like an article reviewing and corroborating the NIST findings?


Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

- Dr. Seffen's been debunked by several different authors.


Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421
- This was research used in the NIST report itself. It is not a corroboration.



Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s
- This was research used in the NIST report itself. It is not a corroboration.


The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

- Written by one of the original NIST investigators. This is not an outside corroboration.


Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

- Does this sound like an article reviewing and corroborating the Bazant/NIST findings?


The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8
- Overview of the NIST investigation by NIST investigators. Not an outside corroboration.


Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425
- An annotated bibliography on technical discussion of the "under-researched" and apparently rather rare phenomenon of "progressive collapse". Does this sound like a review and corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse model?


A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254
- An article by NIST fire researchers about the fireball created by the jet impacts. This is not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse model.


Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072
- An analysis of the jet impact. Is it a review and corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse model? No. It isn't.


High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671
- Very interesting, but not a review and corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse model. In fact it doesn't look like it's about the WTC at all.


Collapses of the world trade center towers [No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

- Can't find this article anywhere, except on this very list which has been spammed across forums. Did find this though, which includes this gem:




Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report [No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34
- You mean there was fireproofing and staircases in the World Trade Center?? That explains everything!

Funnily enough we have

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing" ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.


September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26
- Where does the author reference, and support, the Bazant/NIST model of the WTC collapses?


Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15
-


Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058
- Investigating the impacts on emergency services; transportation; information and communications; electric power; banking and finance; gas and oil production, storage and transportation; water supply; and government.

Utterly bogus entry. Unrelated to anything being discussed here.

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187
- Zhou co-wrote the original Bazant paper. In any case, has nothing to do with an analysis of Bazant/NIST. Another bogus entry.


Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85
- An article attempting to validate the recently discovered phenom of "progressive collapse" which takes the notion of progressive collapse as a given.


Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78
- Does not reference Bazant or NIST. Therefore, cannot possible be assessing the current collapse explanation.



Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370
- Does not reference Bazant or NIST. Ditto.


World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392



- Um, how is this an analysis and corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse scenario?


How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533




- Authored in 2003. May have been influential in the later NIST reports, but not a corroboration of NIST findings.


Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551
- Yes? And?...


Brannigan, F.L. "WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

-Self-described "brain pickings" from a fire engineer. Cute, but not a peer-reviewd paper. Sorry.


but...
Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing" ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.


Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

- Authored in 2003. This doesn't look like it's a review and corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse model.


Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
- No reference to Bazant or NIST.


"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
- Not a peer-reviewed paper. No reference to Bazant or NIST.


Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. "Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf) Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
- Bazant supporting his own analysis? How shocking!


Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
- Not a peer-reviewed paper, and no reference to the Bazant/NIST model.


"Dissecting the Collapses" Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
- A summary of the FEMA report. Not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis.


Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
- Famous for his statement that the towers could fall "no other way but down" (since that was such a controversy at the time ) Not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis.


Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (also available on-line)
- Not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis.


Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A. "Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

- Probably an interesting article, but not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis.


"Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

- An analysis mostly of firefighting and evacuation. Not a review or corroboration of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis. Does not belong on this list. But they do say:





Marechaux, T.G. "TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
- This is a description of presentations at a symposium, including Chris Musso, and Thomas Eagar (see above). Not a peer-reviewed paper. Not an analysis of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis. Bogus entry.


Monahan, B. "World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
-


Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D. "Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?" Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
- Authored 2002. Is it an analysis of the Bazant/NIST model?


National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center” Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
- A statement at congressional hearings by a director of NIST. How is this an outside peer-reviewed paper?


Pinsker, Lisa, M. "Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site" Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). The print copy has 3-D images.

- WTF? Has absolutely no relevance to any discussion of the collapses. Probably an interesting article. Not a peer-reviewed paper. About anything.


Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
- The famous NOVA video describing pancake collapse which fails to explain how the core disintegrates. Debunked.


Post, N.M. "No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report" ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.



- Obviously a rousing affirmation of the Bazant/NIST hypothesis.


The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects. A resource site.
- A "resource" site. Not a peer-reviewed paper.


"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives" ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
- Yes, the buildings held up well to the airplane impacts. What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Marokkaan]

But you see, he did consult the experts. There are quite a few of us here at the JREF. Ryan Mackey is a rocket surgeon or some other crazy **** like that, Sunstealer is a metal dude, Dave Rogers and Dave Thomas are physicists, there are countless engineers here (I believe DGM is one, sheeplesandshills IIRC is one) I have a masters in fire science, plus many other relevant fields are represented here.

Gage has "landscape architects" on his "team".

Oh yeah, and not one single peer-reviewed paper between the entire lot of 'em showing NIST or Bazant wrong. I wonder why that is?

Thats a great thing to hear.

Maybe its time to start beginning write a peer reviewed article(s), instead of wasting time on a forum, discussing about the subjects.

 

[Marokkaan]

You are not listening - where have I said it's primer paint specifically tnemec red? I have stated that samples a-d are paint (not primer paint) and the sample that was subjected to MEK is tnemec red primer paint.

the chip that soaked in MEK is not primer paint. It does not contain magnesium.

One of the incompetences of the paper is that in Fig 14 they never labelled all the peaks - they left out the Mg k-alpha peak at 1.26KeV.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=876[/qimg]

I showed that on 13th April 2009

I later showed that it is a match for tnemec red using Jones' own video where he has an EDX spectrum of tnemec red primer paint. See below.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=4378[/qimg]

Well ok thats your opinion.

But why you ignore the fact, that there is no more signs of zinc and Ca after soaking it with MEK

Look at figure 16, 17 and 18 of the paper. You see no sign of zinc or Ca

And i just like to repeat, noone of the independent experts like mark basile had noticed magnesium. So youre argument about primer paint is nutcase.

Now onto kaolinite. see here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4659658&postcount=157 and here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

I've shown that the most likely material that those hexagonal alumino-silicate platelets in the sample are kaolin. So you can't just scream "liar!" like a petulant child can you? No one has ever managed to rebut my findings - even Jones can't do it, he obfuscates and misleads on the issue. What say you now?

Yes you'll ignore it all - infact I bet you don't even bother to read the links

.

Well, i see no kaolinite its just your fantasy.

And if u really see kaolinite, than i say to u, Write a peer reviewed article about it. Instead of shouting it is kaolinite.

And dont worry i read your links.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No i dont discuss with u about an peer reviewed article. The only thing u can convince with it, is to place a link of a peer reviewed article, that refutes the article.

Then take it to court. I'm sure you can dream up some pretext to sue the US government. If nobody can deny the validity of the paper without a peer-reviewed article refuting it, then the court will have to accept it as fact, and you can't possibly lose.

In the real world, of course, it isn't a properly peer-reviewed paper, and peer review is the starting point, rather than the finishing point, for being taken seriously. And that's why you don't so anything but make idiotic claims on an internet forum; deep down, you know that the real world won't take you seriously.

Dave

 

[Marokkaan]

Then take it to court. I'm sure you can dream up some pretext to sue the US government. If nobody can deny the validity of the paper without a peer-reviewed article refuting it, then the court will have to accept it as fact, and you can't possibly lose.

In the real world, of course, it isn't a properly peer-reviewed paper, and peer review is the starting point, rather than the finishing point, for being taken seriously. And that's why you don't so anything but make idiotic claims on an internet forum; deep down, you know that the real world won't take you seriously.

Dave

In the real world, there would be a new investigation.

In the real world of science, scientists would not say they dont want to investigate because its not good for the taxpayer, or wasting time.

Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it
didn't look for evidence of explosives?” Neuman
[spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]:
"Right, because there was no evidence of that."
Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if
you don't look for it first? Neuman: "If you're
looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting
your time... and the taxpayers’ money.”

In the real world the paper about nano-thermite would be taken serious by every expert.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In the real world, there would be a new investigation.

There have been plenty of new investigations, and I have no problem with a near-bankrupt foreign country wasting what little money it has left on yet another one, but either it will follow the evidence, reach the obvious conclusion, and be rejected by truthers, or try to please every lunatic conspiracy theorist and end up failing to conclude anything coherent at all. But, no, you're clearly wrong; this is the real world, not the fantasy world truthers live in, and there won't be a new investigation.

In the real world of science, scientists would not say they dont want to investigate because its not good for the taxpayer, or wasting time.

Scientists, like everyone else, have to decide what to spend their time and money on in the real world. If a bunch of incompetent fools make up a load of nonsense, why should sensible people waste their time on it?

In the real world the paper about nano-thermite would be taken serious by every expert.

In the real world, experts are capable of reading the paper, understanding the absurd contradictions between the results and the conclusions, and dismissing it as incompetent rubbish. Several of the experts on this forum have already done so. Since nobody takes the Bentham journals seriously, there's little point on bothering to publish a refutation in a real journal, and none of us want to waste the money Bentham would charge to publish a comment in their pretend one.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

I'm not sure that it would be a good idea to officially convict the US and it's closest allies of complicity in or even creating 9/11 right now. The World is too unstable and who knows what other horrors they would unleash as a distraction if we pressed that issue too hard.
But we can certainly convict them in the court of people's minds. It's far better that people are finally awake and staring at the politicians. Now when an atrocity occurs the first place many people look is at government. This is as it should be for our own protection.
Just think how different this mind set is to the mind set of 10 short years ago at the end of the Clinton administration. Happy days. Even you debunkers should be dragging the politicians out of office and horsewhipping them.

 

[Marokkaan]

There have been plenty of new investigations, and I have no problem with a near-bankrupt foreign country wasting what little money it has left on yet another one, but either it will follow the evidence, reach the obvious conclusion, and be rejected by truthers, or try to please every lunatic conspiracy theorist and end up failing to conclude anything coherent at all. But, no, you're clearly wrong; this is the real world, not the fantasy world truthers live in, and there won't be a new investigation.

No, there have not been new investigations since the last report of NIST. Nist stopped and didnt want to go further.

Dont lie. The government stopped with investigating, even if a lot of experts are criticizing the NIST report.

If even a physicsteacher can change a NIST report.

What would be if NIST listen to all the other comments of experts.

Scientists, like everyone else, have to decide what to spend their time and money on in the real world. If a bunch of incompetent fools make up a load of nonsense, why should sensible people waste their time on it?

Are you crazy?? They spend 40 million dollars to investigate the bill clinton scandal. A lot more money than NIST would get from the government...

You think bill clinton is more important than 3000 citizens in new york and hundredthousands/maybe millions citizens of people in iraq and afghanistan???

In the real world, experts are capable of reading the paper, understanding the absurd contradictions between the results and the conclusions, and dismissing it as incompetent rubbish. Several of the experts on this forum have already done so. Since nobody takes the Bentham journals seriously, there's little point on bothering to publish a refutation in a real journal, and none of us want to waste the money Bentham would charge to publish a comment in their pretend one.

Experts on a forum, who dont have the time to write a peer reviwed article.

But they have time, to discuss with people about it on a forum LOL

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, there have not been new investigations since the last report of NIST. Nist stopped and didnt want to go further.

All you're saying is that there have been no investigations since the most recent investigation, which is a tautology. There has been the largest criminal investigation in the history of the FBI, there has been a review of the evidence by the 9/11 Commission, there have been engineering studies by NIST, Ove Arup and Purdue University, there have been independent investigations by the insurance companies, and there has been the trial of Moussaoui. All of them agreed. At some point, it's enough, and it passed that point long ago.

If even a physicsteacher can change a NIST report.

What would be if NIST listen to all the other comments of experts.

They did. It's called the peer review process, that you were pretending never happened. NIST invited comments from anyone and everyone on their findings, and added relevant comments to those findings, even if they came from people who disagreed with them. And this is the peer review process you're claiming never happened, despite the fact that you've pointed to one of its results. Compare that to the type of "peer review" practiced by truthers, which consists of inviting sycophantic and often irrelevant comments solely from people who aren't prepared to even consider disagreeing with their pre-formed conclusions, and concealing their work from the people responsible for assessing its accuracy. It's not flattering.

Experts on a forum, who dont have the time to write a peer reviwed article.

But they have time, to discuss with people about it on a forum LOL

You're right, it's a pointless waste of time discussing this stuff on an Internet forum. Remind me, could you, why you're here?

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Bill you asked me if I disagreed with aspects of the official story awhile back.

Yes:

1.) There is no official story of anything after collapse initiation. I was on my own to find credible explanations of lateral ejection, squibs, near freefall and actual freefall of buildings, etc. I woul have liked to see NIST do more research on all this.

2.) I agree with several scientists who assert that NIST's thermal expansion theory didn't also cover the fact that the sagging beams then contracted when they cooled after the fire moved on, and that subsequent thermal contraction may have been more of a factor than NIST thought it was.

3.) NIST people have told me that if Kevin Ryan et al submit their dust samples to an independent lab and they find thermites, there would still be a chain of custody issue. That is true, but if by some miracle thermites were found in Kevin Ryan's dust samples I would challenge NIST or RJ Lee to come up with a dust sample that had an ironclad chain of custody for another test.

4.) I wish real scientists would debate the top 9/11 researchers in their fields. I took on the debate but I used journalistic skills; I'm not a scientist.

Hope this helps.

After watching my videos with 235 reasons to doubt controlled demolition, did any of my arguments give you reason to doubt your position?

I didn't get to watch them all I'm afraid. Sorry about that...I know you put a lot of hard work in there. I also believe that you truly believe the government story. Can you reccommend one or two of your strongest clips so that I can have a look at those ? Links would be great.

 

[bill smith]

I didn't get to watch them all I'm afraid. Sorry about that...I know you put a lot of hard work in there. I also believe that you truly believe the government story. Can you reccommend one or two of your strongest clips so that I can have a look at those ? Links would be great.

By the way Chris- did NIST confirm that they also have pristine and validated WTC dust of their own ?

 

[Marokkaan]

All you're saying is that there have been no investigations since the most recent investigation, which is a tautology. There has been the largest criminal investigation in the history of the FBI, there has been a review of the evidence by the 9/11 Commission, there have been engineering studies by NIST, Ove Arup and Purdue University, there have been independent investigations by the insurance companies, and there has been the trial of Moussaoui. All of them agreed. At some point, it's enough, and it passed that point long ago.

Dont talk about 9/11 commission thats the biggeste mistake they ever maded.lol

But i'm now only talking about NIST. NIST stopped his research, while there is a lot open in there reports, they say it also.

If u respect science, u know that when there are gaps in a research its for sure u cant represent it as the truth.

So we want that a new scientific research, wich contains, new evidence, of eyewitness, experimenst and other results. including the improvements of the mistakes of the NIST reports.

They did. It's called the peer review process, that you were pretending never happened. NIST invited comments from anyone and everyone on their findings, and added relevant comments to those findings, even if they came from people who disagreed with them. And this is the peer review process you're claiming never happened, despite the fact that you've pointed to one of its results. Compare that to the type of "peer review" practiced by truthers, which consists of inviting sycophantic and often irrelevant comments solely from people who aren't prepared to even consider disagreeing with their pre-formed conclusions, and concealing their work from the people responsible for assessing its accuracy. It's not flattering.

No they did not listen, they dont spend time at the eye witnesses of explosions per example.

They dont spend time at the molten steel that was claimed by a lot of eye witnesses.

They dont listen to a lot of comments that were claimed by a lot of experts.

You're right, it's a pointless waste of time discussing this stuff on an Internet forum. Remind me, could you, why you're here?

Dave

Why you ignore the fact, that they payed 40 million to bill clinton and 16 million to all the reports of NIST?????

Im not an expert, i use material from experts to debate.

You say you are an expert, so you have the responsibility to use science.

And discussing and calling people by names or accuse them is not science.

 

[Sunstealer]

the chip that soaked in MEK is not primer paint. It does not contain magnesium.

Err it's right there buddy. There is a peak at 1.26KeV - that can only be the k-alpha peak of magnesium. It's black and white it is there. Just because your heroes made a mistake doesn't mean you can say it doesn't contain Mg when it's plainly obvious it does.

What is the peak at 1.26KeV? Show how you identify it.

Well ok thats your opinion.

But why you ignore the fact, that there is no more signs of zinc and Ca after soaking it with MEK

Look at figure 16, 17 and 18 of the paper. You see no sign of zinc or Ca

Well for starters there is an Mg peak in fig 17 so you need to have a look at that.

Secondly the figs 16-18 are spot probe scans of certain high concentration areas of the sample. There isn't any reason to expect to see Ca in those regions.

If you look at fig 18 they have labelled the 1 KeV peak as Na - where has this come from? There is overlap between Na and Zn at this point so it's important to label as both especially as Fig 14 does not differentiate.

The whole MEK soaking experiment is nonsense - it's inconclusive. Why didn't they use FTIR and XRD for identification instead?

one of the independent experts like mark basile had noticed magnesium. So youre argument about primer paint is nutcase.

Basile is not independent.

From Harrit et al paper

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Tom Breidenbach, Frank Delessio,
Jody Intermont, Janette MacKinlay, and Steve White
for dust samples acquired soon after the WTC 9/11 catastrophe.
We thank David Griscom, Mark Basile, David Allan,
Branton Campbell, Wes Lifferth, Crockett Grabbe, David
Ray Griffin, Mike Berger, Frank Carmen, Richard Gage,
Shane Geiger, Justin Keogh, Janice Matthews, John Parulis,
Phillipe Rivera, Allan South and Jared Stocksmith for elucidating
discussions and encouragement. Thanks to John Parulis
for gathering samples of residues from reacted commercial
thermite.

Oops seems you are a little gullible.

Basile can't read a EDX spectrum - Mg is right there in Fig 14.

Well, i see no kaolinite its just your fantasy.

Well of course you can't, it completely destroys your delusion and you don't want to part with it for some reason. I've shown with data that the most likely material that those platelets are is kaolinite. Why don't you argue about the shapes and the EDX spectra?

Care to come up with a process that produces hexagonal platelets like that with that composition? Why would you use that shape in nano-thermite? It's a stupid shape to use because the surface area is increased even further over a sphere and hence there would be even less aluminium to react because the majority of the particle would be Al2O3. It's pointless - a sphere is a far more efficient shape.

And if u really see kaolinite, than i say to u, Write a peer reviewed article about it. Instead of shouting it is kaolinite.

Why on earth would I write a paper about a paper that doesn't exist in the scientific community? The Harrit et al paper doesn't register except on truther forums and then on debunker skeptic sites. The paper is a joke - seriously. It is only cited by those who have zero understanding and are bamboozled by the shiny graphs.

And dont worry i read your links.

But you couldn't refute any of the work could you? Nope you just shouted about peer review.

 

[Sunstealer]

In the real world the paper about nano-thermite would be taken serious by every expert.

Why don't you or your truther buddies send that paper to some respected, independent people at universities and get some feedback from it?

You seem to think it's the best thing since sliced bread so it should wow anyone who reads it yeah?

 

[Edx]

Yeah the first clue that official 9/11 story was nonsense was when the explanations of 9/11 came from Popular Mechanics and National Geographic.

Do you read? With around hundred papers published in legitimate peer reviewed journals on 911 and plenty more professional commentary about the collapses there is ZERO professional support for your ideas and your fringe bunch of nobodies.