9/11 Conspiracy

[irosie91]

thermite is nothing but oxidized iron

 

[daws101]

I make no apologies if you consider yourself a Republican. I am a registered Independent and have voted Republican at various levels of government, but the current crop of Republicans at the national level are off the reservation. To call them bat shit crazy would be an insult to bat shit.

I have never voted republican in my life-----when Kerry ran----
I simply refused to vote. I went to the polls-----but as a reached
out to pass the lever RIGHT------I got a sharp pain in my right
shoulder------so I left

I could give a shit what political party you're in..

you could? who would want your shit?

it appears you to you keep asking for it!

 

[daws101]

I am a firefighter. I serve with firefighters who were there that day.

How long have you been a firefighter?

jackass in the box has never said.

 

[daws101]

Read the below excerpt you posted. I even made certain parts red to help out. Tell me how ANYONE reading that can come up with any other conclusion other than "The red layer of red/gray chips extracted from piles of WTC dust using a magnet is an active thermitic material".

There is no other criteria for further separation of red/gray chips chosen for testing. That's a fact. They separated their chips, ran the series of tests listed in the paper on those separated chips, and concluded that the red layer was thermitic.

So, directly from the paper, under the subheading "2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination", we read:

"The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). ..."

From there, we need only consult an excerpt from the Abstract to see the remaining necessary steps:

"The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.[Bold emphasis mine]"

Furthermore, if the DSC test was so damn important in determining that chips from each dust pile sample contained an active thermitic material, why were the Delassio DSC test results left out of the paper? Let me guess. Just because Harrit left it out, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

I've seen plenty of speculation and innuendo as to why the DSC results from the four chips reported in the paper came from only 3 of the 4 dust samples, but my guess is that the results from the Delassio/Breidenbach sample were indicative of that particular chip's inactivity.

Having said that, there's really no need for me to justify the Harrit group's decisions as to what they reported and what they may have withheld, because what they reported suffienctly proves the premise of their paper, namely that active thermitic material was found in the WTC dust, yes, even if only 3 of the 4 samples yielded active thermitic chips for testing in the DSC device.

...Prior to doing a DSC test, you think they positively identified a thermitic material? Can you explain why you think that? ...

They'd observed and identified known thermitic components, as well as the uniformity of their relative positions within their common matrix, and had further proven the presence of elemental aluminum. The only thing left to test at that point would have been the question as to whether any the thermitic chips were still active.

...If they had proof that there was thermitic material present, why would proving the existence ACTIVE thermitic material be more convincing?

People like to see explosions?

In any case, such testing would have been necessary to support both the paper's conclusion and its title.

An excerpt from Harrit's paper regarding the DSC testing.

3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry

Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C.

Notice that he says that ALL ignited in the range of 415-435 °C. So your assumption that some chips may have failed to ignite and that Harrit just didn't report has been proven false.

The phrase "all ignited" is clearly in reference to the red/gray chips on which the data in Fig. (19) was based, more specifically, to the reported DSC results on those particular chips. In no way does the statement entail the conclusion that all of the group's DSC testing results were reported in the paper.

In fact, given Harrit's statement in one of the videos you posted earlier - something to the effect that dead chips had been found in the samples, possibly indicating a 'shelf-life' or some other means of degradation (he mentioned the torrential rainfall in the days that followed 9/11), it's reasonable to conclude that not quite all of the heat-testing results were reported in the paper.

FOUR CHIPS heres a little primer on how much thermite would have to be used per column



the point being, that if thermite was used there should be a whole shit load in the dust not 4 chips.

 

[Gamolon]

They'd observed and identified known thermitic components, as well as the uniformity of their relative positions within their common matrix, and had further proven the presence of elemental aluminum. The only thing left to test at that point would have been the question as to whether any the thermitic chips were still active.

Explain two things to me.

Why does Fig. (14) show an XEDS spectrum markedly different from red layers from chips (a) thru (d) in Fig. (7)? I thought all the red layers they tested were the same? They say possible contamination, but never do any tests to prove it.

What's even funnier is that Steven Jones, during one of his presentations, shows a slide with the XEDS spectrum of a paint chip scraped from a salvaged column. Have a look at the video here: . The slide is at 150. Why does that spectrum shown in the slide almost exactly match Fig. (14) in the paper? Isn't Fig. (14) supposed to be thermitic material?

 

[Capstone]

Why does Fig. (14) show an XEDS spectrum markedly different from red layers from chips (a) thru (d) in Fig. (7)? I thought all the red layers they tested were the same? ...

The red layers they tested were the same; the tests (and testing methods) conducted for the results reported in Fig. (7) and Fig. (14) respectively ...were not the same. As stated in the paper, "X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6,7)." (emphasis mine). Those "cross-sections" provided cleaner surfaces for direct compositional analysis. Accordingly, the XEDS results actually support the supposition that certain elements found via the acetone treatment were likely due to surface contamination, because the very nature of the MEK test didn't allow for the pre-isolation of cross-sections. As stated in the paper, "Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination with wallboard material.".

It's also important, BTW, to make note of what wasn't found by any of the tests, specifically magnesium, which should have been present in relatively high volumes if the red layers were nothing more than primer paint.

What's even funnier is that Steven Jones, during one of his presentations, shows a slide with the XEDS spectrum of a paint chip scraped from a salvaged column. Have a look at the video here: . The slide is at 150. Why does that spectrum shown in the slide almost exactly match Fig. (14) in the paper? Isn't Fig. (14) supposed to be thermitic material?

They do not "almost exactly match", Gamster! There are MAJOR differences between Fig.(14)'s trace amounts of zinc and chromium and no magnesium whatsoever vs. the paint chip's prominent spikes in all three of those elements (with its second spike of zinc nearly shooting off the chart).

How's about a little honesty from you for a change?

 

[SAYIT]

I am a firefighter. I serve with firefighters who were there that day.

How long have you been a firefighter?

jackass in the box has never said.

Nor does he seem to give any credence to what the firefighters WHO WERE THERE on 9/11 said about what they saw and heard. Apparently HIS experience is all he needs to form his conclusions.

 

[Capstone]

The following video excerpt from Harrit's exposition at the Toronto Hearings describes the method for 'prepar[ing]' the 'cross sections' for XEDS analysis and why the results of that analysis differed from the contamination-laden MEK results (between 3:30 and 5:06):

 

[daws101]

can you say meaningless minutia ...I k

The following video excerpt from Harrit's exposition at the Toronto Hearings describes the method for 'prepar[ing]' the 'cross sections' for XEDS analysis and why the results of that analysis differed from the contamination-laden MEK results (between 3:30 and 5:06):

can you say meaningless minutia, I knew you could.

 

[daws101]

can you say meaningless minutia ...I k

The following video excerpt from Harrit's exposition at the Toronto Hearings describes the method for 'prepar[ing]' the 'cross sections' for XEDS analysis and why the results of that analysis differed from the contamination-laden MEK results (between 3:30 and 5:06):

can you say meaningless minutia, I knew you could.

 

[Capstone]

can you say meaningless minutia, ...

Almost as easily as I can say "direct response" to the following question that was asked several days ago by the now conspicuously absent Gameltoe:

. . .Why does Fig. (14) show an XEDS spectrum markedly different from red layers from chips (a) thru (d) in Fig. (7)? ...

But then, English has always been one of my strong suits.

 

[daws101]

can you say meaningless minutia, ...

Almost as easily as I can say "direct response" to the following question that was asked several days ago by the now conspicuously absent Gameltoe:

. . .Why does Fig. (14) show an XEDS spectrum markedly different from red layers from chips (a) thru (d) in Fig. (7)? ...

But then, English has always been one of my strong suits.

I would say that gamelon's non response is a direct answer.

 

[Capstone]

I would say that gamelon's non response is a direct answer.

To the question as to whether or not he or she could even partially support the laughable statement about the evidence cited in Griffin's essay? I couldn't agree more!

 

[Capstone]

In all seriousness, I haven't given up on Gamolon yet. Occasional brief hiatuses aren't aways indicative of people running off with their tails between their legs. I've had more than a few myself during my time on this board.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Nor does he seem to give any credence to what the firefighters WHO WERE THERE on 9/11 said about what they saw and heard. Apparently HIS experience is all he needs to form his conclusions.

My chief was there. His brother was killed. I have been a FF on and off since just after 9/11.

 

[SAYIT]

Nor does he seem to give any credence to what the firefighters WHO WERE THERE on 9/11 said about what they saw and heard. Apparently HIS experience is all he needs to form his conclusions.

My chief was there. His brother was killed. I have been a FF on and off since just after 9/11.

I have posted the interviews with the firefighters WHO WERE THERE on 9/11. For some inexplicable reason you have ignored them and continue to spew your baseless conclusions. Do you have something which contradicts what the saw and what they said they did that day?

 

[Jackinthebox]

Nor does he seem to give any credence to what the firefighters WHO WERE THERE on 9/11 said about what they saw and heard. Apparently HIS experience is all he needs to form his conclusions.

My chief was there. His brother was killed. I have been a FF on and off since just after 9/11.

I have posted the interviews with the firefighters WHO WERE THERE on 9/11. For some inexplicable reason you have ignored them and continue to spew your baseless conclusions. Do you have something which contradicts what the saw and what they said they did that day?

"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics]

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times]

CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."

The statement by Silverstein Properties and the US Department of State also contends that no deaths occurred in WTC 7 because "pull it" was an evacuation order. This is factually incorrect:

Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed. [Congressional Record]

 

[Jackinthebox]

Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti describes resistance to the evacuation by firefighters who wanted to fight the fires in Building 7:

Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out?
...
At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there.
...
There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance

 

[daws101]

David Ray Griffin is a former philosophy and theology professor (specifically, emeritus at Claremont School of Theology in California) and current moonbat conspiracy theorist. He wrote a load of theology texts in his pre-truther days, mostly dealing with theology and postmodernism. He claims to have evidence of a government conspiracy regarding the 9/11 tragedy and Osama bin Laden's death, and he has written several books on the subject.
His first and most famous work of trutherism is The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Naturally, it's a book-length just asking questions session (indeed, he never explains how the conspiracy would work in toto, but merely attempts to poke holes in the "official account" like most other conspiracy theorists), replete with the standard post hoc cui bono reasoning and citations of other cranks as "experts." All the old truther chestnuts are there as well, including WTC7, the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile, the PNAC, and a number of the other greatest hits.
He has also written some material shoehorning Christian theology into trutherism (namely, Christian Faith and

 

[daws101]

right! Alex jones TV YOU AND SPAMMY SHOULD GET A PLACE !