Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[chrismohr]

Hi Bill,

Your comments in italics:

1. To lever something upwards you must depress the other end of the lever over a fulcrum or pivot point. To lever something downwards you must raise the other end of the lever. Where is the fulcrum for the downwards leverage ?

Look again at my design in video 18 (hand-drawn by me). The pivot on the left is somewhere either inside the building or along a different wall, and is either holding still or falling more slowly than the north perimeter wall for a couple seconds. The beam or floor also is attached to the north perimeter wall. In between is some kind of weight. I don't have an art degree either so the weight looks like some kind of punching bag, but in reality probably looked like more beams, columns or floors. The weight of the collapsing "punching bag" is leveraged downwards by the piviot on the left holding steadier and the perimeter wall on the right being yanked down.

2. In WTC1 and WTC2 I think some selected hollow core columns were filled with nanothermite incendiary.In WTC7 I think that collars of thermate (which is just thermite with added sulphur for the enhanced burning of steel) were put on the core columns and thickly covered in fireproofing (which makes excellent lightproofing by the way)


Richard Gage said something like that too, and at first hiding the light would be possible because thermate is not particularly explosive. And yes, it can definitely melt through steel. The problem though, as I said, is that when the building undergoes its rapid and catastrophic collapse, the still-burning thermate would be exposed. Certainly once it burns THROUGH a hollow column and there is no hollow column any more, the light will shine for at least another 20 seconds after total collapse. It didn't.

3. Nanothermite ignites very quickly so I guess that nanothermate would not be much different.

Richard gage says (and the videos on YouTube confirm) that nanothermite burns quickly and can in fact be used as a low-to-medium grade explosive... as in VERY fast. Thermate, by contrast, does its work almost exclusively by heating up, and it works on steel beams slowly (six or seven seconds to work through even a small beam). Gage believes there was less lateral ejection and squibs as a result. No one has ever used the term nanothermate before, to my knowledge.

FEMA statement. and other info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAndcg8MZaM

In a private email Jonathan Barnett listed possible sources of the sulfur, like acid rain, sulfur dioxide from burning gypsum, etc. He did not list thermitics. He would like to see more research on the sulfidized steel so that we can better understand then threat posed by sulfidation of steel in a normal office fire.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Clayton,

I'm sorry I don't have the 235 reasons except in the PowerPoint presentation used for the YouTube videos. If you just say video #1 reason 20 and quote it, we can get the idea. It would take many hours otherwise.


Sounds like the dreaded telephone tag times 235. U can 235 without me.


I don't understand the grocery store dominoes youtube's purpose, nor do I understand why discussing CD tech based on what is known is to the detriment of both sides.

Think about both. It seems most take a while to catch on and up.

 

[bill smith]

Hi Bill,

Your comments in italics:

1. To lever something upwards you must depress the other end of the lever over a fulcrum or pivot point. To lever something downwards you must raise the other end of the lever. Where is the fulcrum for the downwards leverage ?

Look again at my design in video 18 (hand-drawn by me). The pivot on the left is somewhere either inside the building or along a different wall, and is either holding still or falling more slowly than the north perimeter wall for a couple seconds. The beam or floor also is attached to the north perimeter wall. In between is some kind of weight. I don't have an art degree either so the weight looks like some kind of punching bag, but in reality probably looked like more beams, columns or floors. The weight of the collapsing "punching bag" is leveraged downwards by the piviot on the left holding steadier and the perimeter wall on the right being yanked down.

2. In WTC1 and WTC2 I think some selected hollow core columns were filled with nanothermite incendiary.In WTC7 I think that collars of thermate (which is just thermite with added sulphur for the enhanced burning of steel) were put on the core columns and thickly covered in fireproofing (which makes excellent lightproofing by the way)


Richard Gage said something like that too, and at first hiding the light would be possible because thermate is not particularly explosive. And yes, it can definitely melt through steel. The problem though, as I said, is that when the building undergoes its rapid and catastrophic collapse, the still-burning thermate would be exposed. Certainly once it burns THROUGH a hollow column and there is no hollow column any more, the light will shine for at least another 20 seconds after total collapse. It didn't.

3. Nanothermite ignites very quickly so I guess that nanothermate would not be much different.

Richard gage says (and the videos on YouTube confirm) that nanothermite burns quickly and can in fact be used as a low-to-medium grade explosive... as in VERY fast. Thermate, by contrast, does its work almost exclusively by heating up, and it works on steel beams slowly (six or seven seconds to work through even a small beam). Gage believes there was less lateral ejection and squibs as a result. No one has ever used the term nanothermate before, to my knowledge.

FEMA statement. and other info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAndcg8MZaM

In a private email Jonathan Barnett listed possible sources of the sulfur, like acid rain, sulfur dioxide from burning gypsum, etc. He did not list thermitics. He would like to see more research on the sulfidized steel so that we can better understand then threat posed by sulfidation of steel in a normal office fire.

I am no expert in leverage so I will leave it to others to analyse your leverage system. Maybe MrKinnies could have a look if he wants to..
In WTC7 the core columns were not box columns as far as I know so the solid columns would not be filled with nanothermite. They would have had collars of thermate which would make clean cuts as in normal demolition or they could have melted larger sections of the columns in one go to bring the building down clean. They couldn't afford too much molten steel in WTC7 beacause there was a Con-Ed station under the building.
Nanothermite is an incendiary that is non-explosive in it's basic form. A pure incediary that produces no gas. But advanced polymers can be added to it that release a lot of gas very fast which turns the compound into an explosive.
Thermate is just thermite with added sulphur.

 

[Marokkaan]

As I said in video 18, I used my journalistic skills to uncover the fallacies in 9/11 CD reasoning. 235 reasons. Everything I say is backed by experts. Trust me, Ozeco and Tri and Ryan Mackey and Oystein and the two Daves and tfk and countless others would tell me if I was reporting their side so inaccurately as to be useless. And I would drop the whole project if I got that kind of feedback from the experts I used to develop these videos. To say my lack of a physics degree means I should not be taken seriously is like saying a journalist who uncovers financial fraud in a small-town mayor's office should be ignored because he doesn't have a CPA. I've uncovered 235 serious problems with CD and very few have been answered with scientifically meaningful responses, just more question and demands. I've made mistakes and corrected them but I have no respect for anyone who says I am unqualified to present these rebuttals. Even Richard Gage himself totally disagrees with me but has never gone down that road. I'm honest, I know my limits, I'm no scientist but I'm a hell of a good journalist when I want to be. Argue my points but I'm not budging on the question of my worthiness to discuss these things. I am more than worthy, I've done a great job, I'm patient with my opponents and have interviewed them as well as my allies, I started out skeptical but open and could have been convinced of CD if there were just any credible science there, and I'm proud as hell of my work.

Tell me what do you think about TRi, he claims he has more respect for murderers than erik lawyer (firefighter)

I'm no scientist but I'm a hell of a good journalist when I want to be

Than use your expertise wisely, interview the people with expertise, or be the narrator of their researches/findings.

And i really dont understand why you dont reply at my quote....

 

[Marokkaan]

Bill, you got the "system" wrong again, just like Chandler!

The "system" in the case of Building 7 is the roofline of Building 7, the only part of the Building whose collapse speed was precisely measured. In video 18 I suggested a hypothesis (which is unprovable because no one saw or videotaped the inside collapse sequence... which is why NIST calls it a likely collapse scenario): more than two forces acting on the collapsing building, not just gravity and resistance but ALSO localized leveraging from outside the north roofline "system." I tell you that is possible. Do you say leveraging is impossible?

I also tell you that CD is very very nearly impossible. As a few of my 235 reasons, after talking personally with Richard Gage, he believes nanothermites were used on the Twin Towers and thermate on Building 7.

yes you can prove it. By doing experiments and calculations.

1) thermate burns very very bright for 45 seconds or so and hundreds of tons of it would have been blindlingly bright. Even if it could be covered at first, 20 seconds into the collapse the whole world would have seen a blindingly bright rubble pile for another 25 seconds or so. There is NO covering up that much burning thermate in an utterkly destroyed building.

Who said to you hundreds of tons? watch the experiment of jon cole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

2) The chemical signature for burned thermate is not there.

Tell me whats the chemical signature for burned thermate. and why its not the chemical signature

3) Thermate can burn through steel, as 9/11 truth researchers have proven on YouTube, but there is no way it can burn fast enough to create such a quick and relatively precise collapse.[/B]

Its very easy, but your lack of knowledge about controlled demolition is the problem. You dont know how they did it, so speculating is not the smartest thing to do.

But im glad you admit its a relatively precise collapse, so a natural collapse is almost impossible. Or at the lease not the first thing you would expect for the collapse of the wtc towers.

 

[triforcharity]

Tell me what do you think about TRi, he claims he has more respect for murderers than erik lawyer (firefighter)

I do. Very much so. He is a disgrace to firefighters everywhere. Even his own department doesn't stand by him. Feel free to email them.

He works for the Seattle Fire Department.

I'm no scientist but I'm a hell of a good journalist when I want to be

Than use your expertise wisely, interview the people with expertise, or be the narrator of their researches/findings.

He did. Hence, why he interviewed physicists, firefighters, structural engineers, fire protection engineers, etc.

Unlike you, who spouts bull feces from Theologians. LOL!!

Oh, that's right, you've go me on ignore. Cool.

 

[chrismohr]

yes you can prove it. By doing experiments and calculations.




Who said to you hundreds of tons? watch the experiment of jon cole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g




Tell me whats the chemical signature for burned thermate. and why its not the chemical signature


Its very easy, but your lack of knowledge about controlled demolition is the problem. You dont know how they did it, so speculating is not the smartest thing to do.

But im glad you admit its a relatively precise collapse, so a natural collapse is almost impossible. Or at the lease not the first thing you would expect for the collapse of the wtc towers.

I got the hundreds of tons of thermitics from the Harrit experiment which as I recall claimed 0.1% of the WTC dust was thermitic. That's hundreds of tons, unless I carried the decimal point wrong.

And you're right, the relatively clean collapse of Building 7 is not the first thing you would expect. But ultimately, I believe the evidence points to natural collapse.

Anyone want to review again what's missing from the Harrit spectograph that would have to be there if there were thermitics in the dust? It's late and I'm not goping to research it right now.

I'd lay low for awhile on my lack of knowledge please. Don't want to keep going down that road. Thermate burns slowly, that is a fact, it's not like an explosive that blows a column apart, and Ryan Mackey and others have explained to me that you need faster-acting explosives for a precise collapse.

 

[Marokkaan]

I got the hundreds of tons of thermitics from the Harrit experiment which as I recall claimed 0.1% of the WTC dust was thermitic. That's hundreds of tons, unless I carried the decimal point wrong.

Yes you are right, he said this.
Did you watched the experiment?

And you're right, the relatively clean collapse of Building 7 is not the first thing you would expect. But ultimately, I believe the evidence points to natural collapse.

Than why they did not first looked to the cd theory, and searched for explosives. Even when they think they can not find evidence.

I'd lay low for awhile on my lack of knowledge please. Don't want to keep going down that road. Thermate burns slowly, that is a fact, it's not like an explosive that blows a column apart, and Ryan Mackey and others have explained to me that you need faster-acting explosives for a precise collapse.[/

Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft......

 

[Oystein]

...
Anyone want to review again what's missing from the Harrit spectograph that would have to be there if there were thermitics in the dust? It's late and I'm not goping to research it right now.
...

Maybe I am missing context here - I only read this post now. Here is the short answer:

Nothing is "missing from the Harrit spectograph that would have to be there if there were thermitics in the dust". At a minimum, you'd need to find the chemical elements iron, aluminium and oxygen in the spectra, and they are there.

One real problem is that there is plenty of other stuff that does not belong there, most notably as much silicium as there is aluminium. Silicium plays no role at all in any kind of thermite, and Harrit has no explanation for it.

Second real problem is that he really has not proven that aluminium is present in elemental form, rather than as oxide or aluminiumilicates. This is confounded by the clear presence of aluminiumsilicates: They show as stacks of platelike crystals - that's an aluminiumsilicate called Kaolinite. Kaolinite contains the same number of Al and Si atoms - exactly what Harrit's spectra showed.

Third real problem is that there is a lot of carbon in the mix, and no explanation for what the carbon is doing there. Harrit suspects, certainly correctly, that the minerals are in an organic matrix. Obviously, an organic matrix can burn in air (21% oxygen) if heated enough.

What could be missing? Well, some folks say that a variety of thermite was used that's called thermate. Thermate typically contains barium and sulfur, and those two are missing from Harrit's spectra.

...
Thermate burns slowly, that is a fact, it's not like an explosive that blows a column apart, and Ryan Mackey and others have explained to me that you need faster-acting explosives for a precise collapse.
...

This is not entirely true. Harrit claims to have found nano-thermite. Having the ingredients of thermite (or thermate) in nano-sized particles can in fact greatly speed up the burn rate, even to orders of magnitude that compare with explosives. But that doesn't make it an explosive. Explosives generate gasses, which means a great increase of volume, which causes a shockwave, that does the cracking of hard stuff. The products of thermite are solids at room temp or liquids at the temperature generated by the reaction, hence you get no serious explosion. The purpose of fast-reacting nano-thermite is different from that of explosives.
The only way that thermite (or thermate) attacks steel structures is through the heat of reaction - softening or melting the steel. Nanothermite might do that faster than regular thermite, but it would still take time on the order of seconds, rather than milliseconds as in the case of explosions: Heat propagates much slower than shockwaves. And that's why nano doesnt help you to get the timing precision normally needed for controlled demos.

 

[Oystein]

...
Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft......

Yes. If qualification of individuals beats the quality of their arguments, you should now tell us what you are.

 

[Reactor drone]

And you're right, the relatively clean collapse of Building 7 is not the first thing you would expect. But ultimately, I believe the evidence points to natural collapse.

Than why they did not first looked to the cd theory, and searched for explosives. Even when they think they can not find evidence.

A clean collapse isn't the first thing you expect because the collapse of a tall building is a very, very rare occurence. Most people's only experience with seeing a tall building collapse is from demolitions.

They also knew the building was on fire and had collapsed after showing signs of structural damage over the course of several hours. They knew there were no sounds of explosives on any of the video recordings of the collapse. They knew that none of the steel removed during the clean up operations showed signs of blast damage or cutting. They knew that there were no recovered remains of blasting caps, det cord or any other suspicious materials.

Given all that why would their first thought be to look for explosives? There are some things you can find easily without specifically looking for them.

 

[newton3376]

Its very easy, but your lack of knowledge about controlled demolition is the problem.

Exactly Marokkaan! You are starting to figure out why the worlds CD experts think you truthers are nuts....Now...go research and see how many professional papers/journal articles there are by Engineers, Scientists, or CD experts claiming the WTCs were brought down by CD....

Don't worry....there aren't any real papers or journal articles claiming this...you won't have to search long

You dont know how they did it, so speculating is not the smartest thing to do.

That's all you truthers DO is speculate..

Maybe it was mini nukes...

Maybe it was HAARP...

Maybe it was thermite...

Maybe it was super dooper secret nano thermite....

You claim it was "nano thermite" and that the material is some kind of classified substance....yet YOU know about it.

If something is CLASSIFIED then YOU wouldn't know about it...those of us who have to work with such material know this....

Also...you claim that Harrit and Jones found this stuff...yet their own paper doesn't properly test for it, doesn't identify the material, and doesn't properly explore other possible substances.

When we point out to you how the material in the paper EVEN IF IT IS NANO THERMITE cant be used in a practical sense to bring the buildings down you truthers say:

"BUT WE DONT KNOW WHAT KIND OF SOOPER SEKRIT TERMITE WAS USED!!! THERE COULD BE ENDLESS VARIANTS!!!!!!!!eleventy!!!!!!"


So here are the problems you are faced with....

1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...


All you guys do is conjecture....no proof....no evidence....just fantasy.

Keep up the Investi-Googling...at least its entertaining

 

[Animal]

Exactly Marokkaan! You are starting to figure out why the worlds CD experts think you truthers are nuts....Now...go research and see how many professional papers/journal articles there are by Engineers, Scientists, or CD experts claiming the WTCs were brought down by CD....

Don't worry....there aren't any real papers or journal articles claiming this...you won't have to search long




That's all you truthers DO is speculate..

Maybe it was mini nukes...

Maybe it was HAARP...

Maybe it was thermite...

Maybe it was super dooper secret nano thermite....

You claim it was "nano thermite" and that the material is some kind of classified substance....yet YOU know about it.

If something is CLASSIFIED then YOU wouldn't know about it...those of us who have to work with such material know this....

Also...you claim that Harrit and Jones found this stuff...yet their own paper doesn't properly test for it, doesn't identify the material, and doesn't properly explore other possible substances.

When we point out to you how the material in the paper EVEN IF IT IS NANO THERMITE cant be used in a practical sense to bring the buildings down you truthers say:

"BUT WE DONT KNOW WHAT KIND OF SOOPER SEKRIT TERMITE WAS USED!!! THERE COULD BE ENDLESS VARIANTS!!!!!!!!eleventy!!!!!!"


So here are the problems you are faced with....

1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...


All you guys do is conjecture....no proof....no evidence....just fantasy.

Keep up the Investi-Googling...at least its entertaining

Cue being put on "ignore" by marko for not being neutral in 5...4...3...2...1...

 

[chrismohr]

Maybe I am missing context here - I only read this post now. Here is the short answer:

Nothing is "missing from the Harrit spectograph that would have to be there if there were thermitics in the dust". At a minimum, you'd need to find the chemical elements iron, aluminium and oxygen in the spectra, and they are there.

One real problem is that there is plenty of other stuff that does not belong there, most notably as much silicium as there is aluminium. Silicium plays no role at all in any kind of thermite, and Harrit has no explanation for it.

Second real problem is that he really has not proven that aluminium is present in elemental form, rather than as oxide or aluminiumilicates. This is confounded by the clear presence of aluminiumsilicates: They show as stacks of platelike crystals - that's an aluminiumsilicate called Kaolinite. Kaolinite contains the same number of Al and Si atoms - exactly what Harrit's spectra showed.

Third real problem is that there is a lot of carbon in the mix, and no explanation for what the carbon is doing there. Harrit suspects, certainly correctly, that the minerals are in an organic matrix. Obviously, an organic matrix can burn in air (21% oxygen) if heated enough.

What could be missing? Well, some folks say that a variety of thermite was used that's called thermate. Thermate typically contains barium and sulfur, and those two are missing from Harrit's spectra.



This is not entirely true. Harrit claims to have found nano-thermite. Having the ingredients of thermite (or thermate) in nano-sized particles can in fact greatly speed up the burn rate, even to orders of magnitude that compare with explosives. But that doesn't make it an explosive. Explosives generate gasses, which means a great increase of volume, which causes a shockwave, that does the cracking of hard stuff. The products of thermite are solids at room temp or liquids at the temperature generated by the reaction, hence you get no serious explosion. The purpose of fast-reacting nano-thermite is different from that of explosives.
The only way that thermite (or thermate) attacks steel structures is through the heat of reaction - softening or melting the steel. Nanothermite might do that faster than regular thermite, but it would still take time on the order of seconds, rather than milliseconds as in the case of explosions: Heat propagates much slower than shockwaves. And that's why nano doesnt help you to get the timing precision normally needed for controlled demos.

Thanks for the clarifications and corrections Oystein. I should have said "thermate burns through steel much more slowly than an explosive would blow it apart." Anyway, 9/11 truth researchers, please acknowledge the truth of what Oystein and Reactor Drone said so we don't have to go over this again and again.

 

[Marokkaan]

Exactly Marokkaan! You are starting to figure out why the worlds CD experts think you truthers are nuts....Now...go research and see how many professional papers/journal articles there are by Engineers, Scientists, or CD experts claiming the WTCs were brought down by CD....

Don't worry....there aren't any real papers or journal articles claiming this...you won't have to search long




That's all you truthers DO is speculate..

Maybe it was mini nukes... Maybe it was HAARP...Maybe it was thermite...

Maybe it was super dooper secret nano thermite....

You claim it was "nano thermite" and that the material is some kind of classified substance....yet YOU know about it.

If something is CLASSIFIED then YOU wouldn't know about it...those of us who have to work with such material know this....

Also...you claim that Harrit and Jones found this stuff...yet their own paper doesn't properly test for it, doesn't identify the material, and doesn't properly explore other possible substances.
When we point out to you how the material in the paper EVEN IF IT IS NANO THERMITE cant be used in a practical sense to bring the buildings down you truthers say:"BUT WE DONT KNOW WHAT KIND OF SOOPER SEKRIT TERMITE WAS USED!!! THERE COULD BE ENDLESS VARIANTS!!!!!!!!eleventy!!!!!!"


So here are the problems you are faced with....

1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...


All you guys do is conjecture....no proof....no evidence....just fantasy.

Keep up the Investi-Googling...at least its entertaining

Ow my god this is mind blowing



1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

You dont know how a cd works. Stop speculating

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

You dont know anything about thermite, stop speculating

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

If we use the logic of NIST and debunkers, the paper proves a 100 % the truth its nanothermite. Peer review we dont need, and experiments and errors we ignore.


4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

Watch the jon cole video on youtube: thermate debate.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...

You do know, in the most CD, to demolish the H-beams you need at least 2 different explosives.

But you dont know, ofcourse because you have not the expertise

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Who said to you hundreds of tons? watch the experiment of jon cole.

yes but you say that for there to be the freefall for eight floors then there has to be removal of all support over the whole width of the building for at least eight floors that's dozens of columns on each of the eight floors, each with its own charge, timers etc.......so yes hundreds of tons.........and somehow no-one spotted all that mess that would leave and not a single cut column.......

and thats not even counting the amount that would be necessary for the WTC towers........again with no evidence at all of it use......

Its very easy, but your lack of knowledge about controlled demolition is the problem. You dont know how they did it, so speculating is not the smartest thing to do.

But im glad you admit its a relatively precise collapse, so a natural collapse is almost impossible.

only "almost" now? we are making progress And I wouldn't describe it as remotely precise

Or at the lease not the first thing you would expect for the collapse of the wtc towers.

I didn't expect them to fall at all. Once I knew how they were constructed then the collapse is exactly as I would expect.

 

[tsig]

Tell me what do you think about TRi, he claims he has more respect for murderers than erik lawyer (firefighter)

I'm no scientist but I'm a hell of a good journalist when I want to be

Than use your expertise wisely, interview the people with expertise, or be the narrator of their researches/findings.

And i really dont understand why you dont reply at my quote....

It's better to show your abilities than brag about them.

 

[The Platypus]

Ow my god this is mind blowing



1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

You dont know how a cd works. Stop speculating

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

You dont know anything about thermite, stop speculating

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

If we use the logic of NIST and debunkers, the paper proves a 100 % the truth its nanothermite. Peer review we dont need, and experiments and errors we ignore.


4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

Watch the jon cole video on youtube: thermate debate.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...

You do know, in the most CD, to demolish the H-beams you need at least 2 different explosives.

But you dont know, ofcourse because you have not the expertise

You have a bad habit of trying to manipulate by flipping your own faults onto those that oppose your delusions.

Meanwhile you have no expertise, and all you do is recite the speculations of other 911 kooks...

No wonder 911 kooks are in the lunatic fringe of society.

 

[twinstead]

Marokkaan, so you are a CD expert?

 

[tsig]

Ow my god this is mind blowing



1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

You dont know how a cd works. Stop speculating

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

You dont know anything about thermite, stop speculating

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

If we use the logic of NIST and debunkers, the paper proves a 100 % the truth its nanothermite. Peer review we dont need, and experiments and errors we ignore.


4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

Watch the jon cole video on youtube: thermate debate.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...

You do know, in the most CD, to demolish the H-beams you need at least 2 different explosives.

But you dont know, ofcourse because you have not the expertise

In CD's you hear explosions just before the collapse. They do not occur minutes before the collapse nor after the collapse.