• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

No excuse for not testing for explosives

dommyboysinjapan said:
It's funny how you conveniently leave out the other two, particularly Flight 93 which reportedly landed in such soft land that the majority of the 95% of the aircraft that was reportedly recovered was said to have been found underground. Guess those titanium and reinforced steel data recorders were much more delicate than the dna that was reportedly recovered.
(cue the eye rolls)
Click to expand...

Flight data recorders mass about 8-10 kg, contain electronics, and are armored by a steel shell of only 6mm in thickness. It is rated for about a thousand g's shock load, duration in the millisecond range.

DNA is a molecule. As part of its preparation it is routinely subjected to extended periods of 10,000 g's or even more. As far as shock, impact, and dynamic forces are concerned, DNA is vastly tougher.

Leave the science to scientists, please?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
It's funny how you conveniently leave out the other two, particularly Flight 93 which reportedly landed in such soft land that the majority of the 95% of the aircraft that was reportedly recovered was said to have been found underground. Guess those titanium and reinforced steel data recorders were much more delicate than the dna that was reportedly recovered.
(cue the eye rolls)
Click to expand...

First, thanks for using the quote button. At least now we know you are capable of learning new stuff.

Second, how come we are now talking about UA93 or AA77? Again shifting goal posts.

Now let's focus again on the WTC and explosives. Why should the investigators have tested for explosives? Just because people used similes in describing the collapse of the buildings? Why were there no tests to determine if trains were used then?

Finally, as BigAl asked, are you a no-planer? (cue the eye rolls)
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
ElMondoHummus,



Yes it was. It was found in the dust by an independent investigator. It was confirmed by several other scientists.
Click to expand...

Jones, Harrit et al are not independent. Their paper is flawed. It was published in a pay to publish vanity journal. A journal that accepted a computer generated nonsense article for publication.

By whom was their research confirmed?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
It's funny how you conveniently leave out the other two, particularly Flight 93 which reportedly landed in such soft land that the majority of the 95% of the aircraft that was reportedly recovered was said to have been found underground. Guess those titanium and reinforced steel data recorders were much more delicate than the dna that was reportedly recovered.
(cue the eye rolls)
Click to expand...
Holy cow.

Uh yes Flight 93's flight data recorders were recovered.
:boggled:

And yes boxes are occasionally destroyed in accidents.
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
ElMondoHummus,

Yes it was.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It was not found. Read the links. I do not put them there to recolor the text I post.

Until you address the argument refuting Jones' findings, there is nothing more to say about this.

dommyboysinjapan said:
It was found in the dust by an independent investigator.
Click to expand...

No it was not. He found a kaolin-containing compound that better fit the data he provided, including the data that contradicted the possibility of thermite.

dommyboysinjapan said:
It was confirmed by several other scientists.
Click to expand...

No, Harrit, Legge, and the others are all part of the same team. That is not an independent confirmation.

--------


I repeat:
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
Yes it was. It was found in the dust by an independent investigator. It was confirmed by several other scientists.
Click to expand...


This is a lie. Its presence has been confirmed by no one at all.

The only "independent" analysis whatsoever was samples mailed to Dr. Henri-Couannier in France, who is not an analytical chemist and is a Truther. He could not even confirm the gross order behavior of the chips, let alone the presence of nanothermite.

Naturally, Dr. Henri-Couannier concluded that some ninja intercepted the package en route. :rolleyes:

Even for a Truther, you are clueless.
 
Dommy, this thread is about "testing for explosives".

Please present a comprehensive hypothesis involving explosives, and suggest a test that can be run to test that hypothesis.

If you are a scholar, you know that this is the scientific way to go, and the time to present this hypothesis is NOW.

If there is no hypothesis, do you agree that we therefore do not have anything to test for?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Hmmm where should I start? How about the nonsense that the black boxes were never recovered. Please tell me any aircraft crash scene where none of the blck boxes are recovered (no fdr or cvr).
Click to expand...

Please state your evidence that it is 100% physically impossible to ever, under any circumstances, to destroy a CVR or a FDR. Test results from the manufacturer will do.

El Al Flight 1862 crashed into an apartment building in Amsterdam in 1992. The CVR was never found. The FDR was located, but heavily damaged and the recording tape fractured into several pieces. And that was just from a collision with an 11 story building. 100 extra floors were involved with flights 11 and 175.

Any other arguments from incredulity you care to make?
 
twinstead,

the contributers to the NIST report alone represent pretty much the cream of the engineering crop of the US.
Click to expand...

NIST is a US government funded organization. They are all honest people I am sure but none of them want to pursue other legitimate theories if it puts their jobs at risk. No-one wants to lose their job.

Are all those other experts wrong, and your little band of 1000 are right? Is that really what you think?
Click to expand...

No. Not entirely. I really think that the vast majority of scientists that YOU feel support the mainstream explanation even after learning more details about building 7 are too fearful of losing their jobs (or worse) to speak out. Still an even greater number have been so inundated with the mainstream theories that they have never even heard the alternative ones or had time to research the events of 9/11 in detail.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
No. Not entirely. I really think that the vast majority of scientists that YOU feel support the mainstream explanation even after learning more details about building 7 are too fearful of losing their jobs (or worse) to speak out. Still an even greater number have been so inundated with the mainstream theories that they have never even heard the alternative ones or had time to research the events of 9/11 in detail.
Click to expand...

Look at the publication record. A scientist who publishes research is not just an ignoramus who hasn't thought about the problem. How do you explain that every paper is consistent with the offical story?

Including those not from government workers?

Including those not from the US?

Including those from countries that aren't even US allies?

How do you explain that there are none -- zero -- bupkis that support the Truth Movement? Not even from Iran?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
twinstead,



NIST is a US government funded organization. They are all honest people I am sure but none of them want to pursue other legitimate theories if it puts their jobs at risk. No-one wants to lose their job.



No. Not entirely. I really think that the vast majority of scientists that YOU feel support the mainstream explanation even after learning more details about building 7 are too fearful of losing their jobs (or worse) to speak out. Still an even greater number have been so inundated with the mainstream theories that they have never even heard the alternative ones or had time to research the events of 9/11 in detail.
Click to expand...

You potentially accuse thousands of honourable people of a serious crime (obstruction of justice, accessory to murder...)

You better bring evidence. NOW.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
I wonder if you are aware that thermite can be mixed with explosive materials to make explosives that are considerably quieter than RDX or C4.
Sabrina said:
Care to cite that claim, Dommy?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm intrigued as well. I would imagine if this was the case then Thermite mixed with C4 of RDX would be a common demolition tool. Citation please. ;)
 
Can I quote Einstein?

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein :D
(this will become a part of my signature when I reach 50 posts)

Just a thought about AE911truth, what do architects and engineers actually know about controlled demolition? (particularly the architects)
I have heard that no demolition experts at all believe in the CD theory.
They are experts with demolition, and know what they are talking about.
That's good enough for me (even without looking at any other evidence).
 
The only "independent" analysis whatsoever was samples mailed to Dr. Henri-Couannier in France, who is not an analytical chemist and is a Truther. He could not even confirm the gross order behavior of the chips, let alone the presence of nanothermite.
Click to expand...

Did you forget about dr. Neils Harrit?
 
Someone wake me when he brings a firm argument. So far, "thermite" was his only real shot; everything else has been an attempt to refute the Twin Towers narrative via incorrect trivia.

When he can actually address the state of the steel in NCSTAR 1-3C, then we'll start having a real conversation.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
twinstead,

Still an even greater number have been so inundated with the mainstream theories that they have never even heard the alternative ones or had time to research the events of 9/11 in detail.
Click to expand...

It seems clear that this in fact applies to yourself in reverse. As shown by your posts you have clearly not looked at the counterpoints to your often repeated claims.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Did you forget about dr. Neils Harrit?
Click to expand...

Niels Harrit is a co-author of the inept and not-really-peer revied pay-to-publish garbage paper that feigned to prove that nanothermite was found but actually proved that what they analysed could not possibly have been any kind of thermite.

Don't try to sell him as independent confirmation. His work is the one that is in urgent need of confirmation (and never will get any, because it failed).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom