The great Truster & Truther 9/11 Debate July 2012
The great Truster & Truther | # | Truster (Mr. X) | Truther (Mr. Y) |
| 1 07/2012 |
You again avoid my 2 main proofs 9/11 involved explosives. 1. Tons of steel arching up and out 600 feet at 60 mph on WTC 1 (NIST gave no explanation) and 2. Concrete and steel crushing at free fall speed in all WTCs especially 2.4 sec. Confirmed by NIST |
|
| 2 07/2012 |
2. NIST avoided explaining this. More photos at |
|
| 3 07/2012 |
This is an unsubstantiated claim. You don't think the Fed Gov or society at large, investigators are going to ask you to provide proof for what you make up? AND, I did rebutt this. You just ignore it. | Your claim of "unsubstantiated" is itself unsubstantiated. The OCT is the biggest made up story in history. A guy in cave in Afghanistan defeated NORAD so buildings, which survived jet impacts for about 1 hour, fell primarily due to fire, when they never have before or since in history. The Federal Government cannot investigate itself objectively. Cheney still has too many friends on Capitol Hill. It may take bringing Cheney to an international war crimes court at the Hague. There is a independent international investigation going on now. You can be a part of it, or a spectator. The families of 9/11 victims deserve a New Investigation. |
| 4 07/2012 |
Look at all the surrounding windows. NONE are broken. | No broken windows, huh?
 |
| 5 07/2012 |
The amount of explosion required to blow steel beams is extraordinary and one directional, very different that a CD and producing a boom that would have been heard in Yonkers. | Yes there were explosives with extraordinary force - probably so advanced they were classified. MIT Review published an article about the latest nano-explosives. |
6 |
No boom. | There were abundant sounds of explosions. Here are some videos that include main stream (CNN, Fox) news clips with reporters remarking about sounds of explosions. www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_nJz3zUggg David Chandler www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak2MjMhST1Y Eric Lawyer, Fire Fighters You refused to listen to them, so yes, that is why you heard no boom. |
| 7 07/2012 |
No broken windows. |
Except all the windows that were broken. |
| 8 07/2012 |
No scattered debris, |
|
| 9 07/2012 |
but instead debris layed down in sequence as you'd expect if the side of the building collpased. |
|
| 10 07/2012 |
Dude, among intelligent people, just making shit up does not work | What are your credentials? Why no PhD? Using foul language shows lack of education and sophistication. |
| 11 07/2012 |
Look at your lack of press coverage. | Lack of main stream press coverage means little. There is abundant internet based press coverage of 9/11. Millions of links on Google for "9/11 inside job" |
| 12 07/2012 |
2. Concrete and steel crushing at free fall speed in all WTCs especially 2.4 sec. Confirmed by NIST | |
| 13 07/2012 |
So what? Freefall to me is proof that there could have been no explosion and the type of explosion in a CD does not produce downward momentum because the energy is going to break beam apart, very localized, very different. | Freefall speed, meaning that concrete collapsed just like air is not proof of explosions Your "explanation" makes no sense. Gravity provides the downward momentum. |
| 14 07/2012 |
You can't find a single civil engineering firm anywhere in America to support your claim? How goofy is that? Who takes shit like that seriously? SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE FOR THE CLAIM THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY A CIVIL ENGINEER. I can say "aliens live next door" but that does not make it so----except in your world. | There are over 1700 confirmed and verified Architects and Engineers who signed the petition at www.AE911Truth.org - including over 100 PhDs, over 100 PhDs, and over 100 specifically in the Civil Engineering field. Ctrl+F for "C.E." or "Civ.Eng." |
| 15 07/2012 |
NISTs report of WTC 1 and 2 anded ag the point of collapse they simply said was "inevitable" suspiciously avoiding explaining the arching steel. | |
| 16a 07/2012 |
Forget NIST. | Yes, NIST changed their story too many times, and are unreliable. They were caught red handed by David Chandler, trying to hide the free fall speed collapse of WTC 7. Finally NIST agreed there was 2.4 seconds of free fall. But the damage had been done. NIST was caught in a lie, and Dr. Sham Sunder and Dr. John Gross-liar cannot be trusted again. Anyone who "signed off" underneath them probably signed to keep their jobs. Tony Szamboti M.E. and others have thoroughly debunked the NIST reports. www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B7Yv17Poak www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3WdpzaA4o |
| 16b 07/2012 |
Read the ASCE science. It is make absolutely clear by every engineer who has written on the subject from the Frence expert Popular Mechanics hired to the engineers who have signed off on six papers, peer reviewed, that say the buildings came down from fire. To say nothing of the reports from five Universities. "Inevitable" and "suspeciously" are crap for those goofy girls you lecture to. Give me some facts, bro and stop blowing smoke. | ASCE never had contact with the actual steel at Ground Zero, so their study is meaningless. What 6 papers. Name them. What 5 universities. You have included the computer cartoons from Purdue in the past, and are probably still counting them. You have included MIT when Jeff Hill is from MIT and a major 9/11 truth advocate. You seem to think that if a university is named in any way for support, then the whole 100% of that university agrees. You went to a university (if you hare not blowing smoke) and know that students and faculty often debate and disagree What "goofy girls"? Girls generally do not like to talk about 9/11 Give me some facts supporting the OCT? Give me facts about how steel can fall up and out 600 feet. Give me facts about concrete that crushes like air. Give me facts about how NORAD can't intercept a plane in over an hour. |
| 17 07/2012 |
3. Also it is a preposterous insult to NORAD and the ANG that they cannot intercept sub mach 1 passener jets with supersonic F15s and F16s, especially getting to the Pentagon from Edwards AFB. | |
| 18 07/2012 |
Stop blowing smoke. What part of the NORAD transcript leads you to believe this? You can hear the frantic concern in everyone's voice as they try and figure out what to do, minute by minute. The insult to NORAD is you calling them all mass murderers. Have you bothered to speak to anybody from NORAD to get their side of what they did and didn't do? How do they find those jets in a sea of planes over thousands of square miles? The signals were all off. |
It is not smoke. It is very simple. |
07/2012 |
Again, you just name call the document without mentioning any specifics.
You show no signs that you read the Protec doc or Jim Hoffman's rebuttal.
|
| Point # | Paper and link | Rebuttal |
| 1 | mathematics from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE. | Bazant's paper has been debunked,
primarily because he assumes the existence of a heavy "pile driver" at the
top. But the WTC floors above were never heavier on 9/11/2001 than
they were in 1971 when they were constructed. For 30 years, they
held that weight, and were designed to hold many times the weight, as a
safety factor. It is like claiming that King Kong stomped on the top of WTC1 and 2, when he did not exist. No Pile Driver existed. The floors above the jet crash floors were lighter, if anything, not heavier. |
| 2a |
There is another paper I can send that is published at MIT
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/html/people/alumni_newsletters/sept_11/index.html
A new technology of redundancy
|
Alumni newsletter, even from MIT
is not a scientific journal. Article has statements that support Controlled Demolition. "Structural engineers are seeking for explanations of how the towers failed." ". The impact of the plane at one or several floors of the WTC: The building was designed for the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft, and the towers did indeed withstand the impact and the following explosion which may have destroyed one or more floors. This destruction should have locally reduced the resistance of the columns in the core (and eventually also at the perimeter) to buckling. Even so, the resistance was strong enough to carry the loads of the upper floors for approximately one hour." "Similar to a car smashing into a wall, the towers crashed into the ground with an almost free-fall velocity." 2. The plane was designed to withstand a jet plane, including fuel. See quote by builder Frank DeMartini http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU |
| 2b |
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/html/people/alumni_newsletters/sept_11/index.htmlInferno at the World Trade Center towersby Prof. Eduardo Kausel 1. statements question official story (see right side)
2." However, it would make eminent sense to retrofit at least some buildings, perhaps as part of an overall escape system overhaul, to ensure that load bearing elements have sufficient thermal protection and the buildings can survive a fierce fire for several hours." |
This article makes statements in
support of CD. Written within days of 9/11/2001 (no time for significant analysis.) "This structural redundancy enabled the WTC towers to withstand direct impacts by the planes and the subsequent explosions." (Yes they were very strong. ) "The towers were reportedly designed for the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft, the largest of its day. The takeoff weight of a fully loaded Boeing 707 320 is 336,000 lbs., including 23,000 gallons of jet fuel, while the maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 767-200 is some 395,000 lbs., with 24,000 gallons of fuel. (The fuel accounts for roughly half the weight of a fully loaded aircraft). Thus the 767 is not vastly larger than the 707, and it carries approximately the same fuel load. In addition, both ill-fated planes were only lightly loaded with passengers, so they did not carry their full takeoff weight." (So Frank DeMartinis is correct. The WTCs were too strong to come down the way they did.) "Still, both buildings did not give way for a remarkably long period of time after the crash" (Yes about 1 hour is too long. Something else, such as explosives, must have been involved.) 2. MIT recommends retrofitting buildings if they can come down so easily. Why has there been no such world wide retrofitting? Why? Because buildings don't need to be retrofitted. They were strong enough...unless they are to withstand explosives planted in the core column elevator shafts. |
| 3 |
Here is the paper by the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (JOM), a
respected engineering Journals.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/jomhome.asp
1. "Some guidelines for improvements in future structures are presented. " 2. "It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true. " 3. "The clean-up of the World Trade Center will take many months." |
That's the home page link.
The link is actually
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html 1. Why aren't the guidelines being implemented? Why? Because the WTCs already were strong enough, except for explosives. 2. This statement questions the Official Story, and supports CD. 3. This article was written in 2001, before evidence could be analyzed, or shipped off to China. Like the MIT Alumni article (#2a and #2b) this article questions the official story, if anything. |
| 4 |
Here is a structural engineering blog that describes how they collapsed
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007_05_27_archive.html
Massive Force of Blasts Triggered Towers' Collapse Paul Kelso and Tim Radford of The Guardian, September 12, 2001 "Until yesterday's devastating impacts reduced them to rubble" |
This is a Blog, not a peer
reviewed scientific research article. Article was written the day after
9/11/2001 |
| 5 | Presentation on WTC Collapse, Civil Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA (October 3, 2001). | October 3, 2001 is rather soon after 9/11/2001 for a conclusion |
| 6 | Steven Ashley: "When the Twin Towers Fell" (Scientific American, October 2001) | October 2001 is rather soon after 9/11/2001 for a conclusion |
| 7 | Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis" J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, (September 28, 2001) | See Point #1 "Pile Driver" theory was already debunked years ago. The top floors were not significantly heavier than they had been for 30 years. The floors closer to the bottom were especially strong and could withstand even falling floors. There was no slow-down in speed as the stronger floors collapsed. This requires explosives. |
| 8 | Timothy Wilkinson, "World Trade Centre, New York, Some Engineering Aspects" (October 25, 2001), Univ. Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering | October 25, 2001 is rather soon after 9/11/2001 for a conclusion |
| 9 |
>Perdue Univ study, again, peer reviewed.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-06-20-fireproofing-wtc-collapse_N.htm |
Just a computer animation - basically a cartoon. A cartoon can show anything, even King Kong stomping on the WTCs. When someone submits a computer animation as "proof" it means that they could not show such behavior with real life materials and laws of physics.
The two-year Purdue University study, funded in part by the National
Science Foundation, Ayhan Irfanoglu, a Purdue professor of civil engineering, said half of the building's weight-bearing columns were concentrated at the cores of the towers.: "When that part is wiped out, the structure comes down," Irfanoglu said. " Precisely! |
| 10 |
Official Journal of the Demolition Industry--their viewpoint
|
If you were president of a demolition company that had the Government as a customer, directly or indirectly, would you not agree with the customer, to get more business? |
| 11 |
Here is the Northwestern University paper, again peer reviewed, and this
one has the most comprehensive mathematics I've seen on exactly how the
buildings collapsed. Let me know what part of the math and physics is
wrong.
|
You mean Bazant of Northwestern. He has been long debunked, even by Rick Shaddock in his kitchen. www.TruthMakesPeace.com
He was also debunked by Tony Szamboti in the paper "The Missing Jolt" |
| 12 | 1. Someone said: 2. "Jones, Harrit, and Roberts have not submitted their paper, with samples, to independent labs for verification. 3. They have not completed the discovery process by scheduling a presentation of their findings to a group of qualified scientists and allowing for educated debate and evaluation of their findings in the public sphere. 4. Their paper was published in a journal that has questionable academic credentials, and was even cited as offering publication of a non-sense paper written by a computer. 5. Harrit himself has connections to one of the peer reviewers used by the publishing house, who has subsequently resigned as a peer reviewer from that house. 6. The editor in chief of the publishing house quit after she was told about the paper saying that the paper had no merit and shouldn’t have been published by her journal. 7. She also said that the paper was published without her knowledge and seems to have been published for purely “political reasons”. |
1. Where is this quote from? 2. Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley and Larsen welcome any labs to verify their findings. That's like saying Wallace and Benson never submitted their TM research to independent labs. It's not their responsibility, and would color anything they submitted as being a continuation of their own research. They would only hurt the follow up study's validity by getting too involved. Other scientists are supposed to verify the experiment independently, which means for the original scientists to keep out. 3. Discovery process is from a divorce litigation. The Truth movement often schedules forums. The internet is as much of a "public sphere" as you can get. www.911Blogger.com , www.911Research.net are some popular ones. 4. Anyone can question any journal, even Harvard's. Open Journals on the internet are a new phenomenon, and there need to be new standards. Old fashioned paper journals, that charge for subscriptions, are going by the wayside. Any student can post a paid-for article on the web for free. The internet is where it's at, and paper journals will one day go the way of papyrus. Bentham and other journals are using a new model where the submitter pays a fee of $800 (a bit high in my opinion) to weed out those who are not serious about publishing their study. A good researcher should be able to get $800 as a grant with no problem. The credit card process makes sure that no one is a phony, as it would be a crime to submit a false credit card. 5. What does the author mean by "connections" - that he and a peer review are both chemists? Who is the peer reviewer he is talking about? The resignation had nothing to do with the paper. He was old, and retired. He obviously liked the paper, because he permitted its publication. This allegation shows the bias of the author, willing to deceive the reader and makes his other points highly suspect. 6. she works for a nano-thermite company. No, she did not do her "job" to quash the paper. The staff published it anyway because they saw it had merit. Did not want to have a "natural heart attack" by lethal injection, or lose her payoff. 7. She is the one who has "political reasons" for trying to resist the
truth. |
| 13 |
Aside from all of these massive issues with the paper itself, there is also the question of integrity that cannot be dismissed. In a recent interview with Russia Today, Harrit calls for an investigation into other explosive residues in the dust found at the World Trade Center.
|
1. As we see above, the so called
"massive issues" are easily debunked. 2. The Russian Today interview shows the unscientific attitude of NIST, if anything. So the author is only contradicting himself. |
| 14 |
The trouble is, as they were writing the paper, I myself suggested they test for trace elements of conventional explosives in the dust at the World Trade Center. Gregg Roberts of AE911Truth refused to do so.
|
This does not sound like a
refusal by Roberts. He is not afraid to test for conventional
explosives. It is just not his job. Studies are expensive, in terms
of time and money. Why does the author of this article "refuse to test for conventional explosives"? Aha! The author is afraid of what he will find! I'm being sarcastic here, so you see my point. If the author can set Roberts up with a grant, I'm sure he will be open to doing a study for something, even though his whole point is that non-conventional explosives (nano-thermite) were found in the dust. |
| 15 |
The idea that Roberts would refuse to do a test for these materials that are commonly used in the demolition industry based purely on a “P.R.” standpoint sent chills down my spine. Here is a “scientist” in a critically important investigation, refusing to do what should have been the very FIRST scientific test run on this material, for no better reason than the results may reflect negatively on their “movement”? What an amazing statement… |
More of the same blah blah blah.
Roberts is not refusing. It's just not his responsiblity. This
author sounds very biased. |
| 16 |
1. BUT THEN, to actually include the statement in their paper that they think SOMEONE ELSE should run these very same tests that they REFUSED to run themselves, is an outrage and should send massive red-flags up around the entire 911 Truth Movement. 2. "Jones investigates only the red and gray chips and not the entire sample. He has a limited sample size. The chips have a laminar nature which suggests a coating or adhesive but he rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint and comparing it to the effect on the red chips. This is either incompetence or scientific misconduct and fraud. 3. He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion of components but claims thermitic reaction. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this congruency; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in paints and coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the red and gray chips with a more agressive solvent, such as hot DMF or DMF-DMSO which would allow analysis of individual components. |
1. There is nothing wrong at all
with expecting someone else to run tests to verify an experiment.
In fact it is the correct way to do it, by the scientific method. Scientists are not supposed to be involved with the follow up studies, other than answering questions, in order to maintain objectivity. Otherwise the follow-up study is tainted, and only a continuation of the original study it is supposed to scrutinize. To call this a "red-flag" shows the author's bias, and ignorance of the scientific method. 2. Jones looked at the entire sample. The rest was just concrete dust, not worth writing a paper about. Herules out paint |
| 17 |
His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on
the data. |
If it has the same chemical
signature of thermitic material, Then the conclusion is justified. |
| 18 | I have not reviewed the paper in depth, but that may be a waste of time as it is fatally flawed, in my opinion. I estimate that the samples are a red oxide primer on corroded steel." | Is this a quote by FML , or the
author? (not clear) Regardless, an "estimate", not based on experimental data, is just that, an opinion. I estimate that it is nano-thermite. So what? |
| 19 | You keep repeating the same unfounded statements while ignoring the large volume of expert evidence that debunks what you are saying. | They are statements founded by
research, or quotes from credible people, often while interviewed by main
stream reporters. By the presence of this page, I am not ignoring any true evidence. I just find it so easy to debunk. |
| 20 | How WTC7 fell has been thoroughly documented by several peer-reviewed groups. I've sent you Journal articles, and WTC7 is covered extensively in the Northwestern Study. What part of the detailed physics are you disagreeing with? | The ones you mentioned are debunked on this page. |
| 21 | There is no evidence that thermite in any form can break steel beams apart, | Nano-thermite has been decribed in the MIT Review as a "better explosive". If the Army could blow up steel beam bridges in World War I with explosives, then a better explosives would blow steel beams up better. No? |
| 22 | There is no evidence from any demolition company that any explosives in elevator shafts can collapse a building | Demolition companies blow up the elevator shafts also. I know of no CD that left the elevator shafts standing. In the WTC 1 and 2, the core was everything. It was the "spinal column" of the buildings. Blow the core, and the whole tower collapses. The jets did not explode the core. So what did? Explosives. |
|
23 4/23/2010 |
Demolitions, according to what I read on the web, are never top down. The noise you hear is that of the building beginning to collapse, and you can see this clearly if you watch a few Vegas demolitions, the difference is striking. |
Yes, controlled demolitons are usually done be
exploding the base, then letting gravity do most of the work, as they
did with WTC7.
For WTC1 and WTC2 they used a new "top down"
demolition technique, which required more nano-thermite in the elevator
shafts, in order to fool the public into thinking the collapses were
only caused by the jets.
The perpetrators waited too long, about 1 hour, to
start the explosions, which is why the cause-effect relationship is
questioned. If they started the controlled demolition immediately after
the jet impacts, they probably would have gotten away with it. But now
there are hundreds of web sites, and thousands of people, including
Congressmen, demanding a new investigation.
|
|
24 4/23/2010 |
Also, I'm not aware of a single person on the street who has reported a pre-collapse explosion, which again if you watch YouTube videos, happens a full 2 seconds before the building comes down. | Yes, not a
single person, but scores of people talking about it on camera, for main
stream reporters, about explosions they experienced and heard. Main
stream reporters at least screen out any nuts reporting space aliens. They
won't be included on camera unless they seem like a credible witness for
the news. We hear the word "explosions" again and again. RICK PUT YOUTUBE HERE |
|
25 4/23/2010 |
>Open Journal white paper you reference has been
pretty thoroughly debunked
|
It has not been debunked. By who? Please send
the link you are talking about. What's to debunk anyway? You put the
WTC dust in a microscope and chemical analyzer and read the results. The
dust either has the chemical signatures of explosive materials, or it
does not. It's not something that is open to interpretation.
A possible point to debunk would be the source of
the dust. But I don't think the NYC artist Janette MacKinlay has the
demeanor nor motivation to lie for no benefit or pay. She definitely
does not have the high tech equipment of a Lawrence Livermore Lab
necessary to plant nano-thermite in her WTC dust samples.
|
|
26 4/23/2010 |
a prominent Structural Engineering firm that went through the paper paragraph by paragraph, and they said in their summary that the authors are advised to read a freshman in college introductory book on structural engineering. If I wrote a white paper, and a firm with SE offices throughout the country wrote that I knew less than a freshman in college, I'd either 1) update my paper to address the flaws; 2) write a response that explained why the firm was wrong. Since Harritt has done neither, we can conclude the study is discredited since the Structural Engineering firm took the trouble to have their paper peer-reviewed by other engineers. | That response was to another paper, I believe, in turn debunked by Jim Hoffman, not a response to the Harrit-Jones-Farrer-Ryan thermite study in Bentham. Please send the URL so we know what article you are talking about. |
|
27 4/23/2010 |
Further, a nano technology expert has weighed in,
with his name and experience, and he says that from the photos provided,
the samples don't contain nano-technology, and from the size of the
particles you can't calculate the energy that would be released, and it
would not be sufficient to do more than make the steel warm. He also
states that all nano technology is in a lab/experiment state and could
not be used to bring down any building.
|
Who is this
expert? please provide the link. |
|
28 |
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. |
Yes, the FBI requires even ordinary evidence, for
their webmaster to type "9/11" on Bin Laden's Wanted page.
It requires extraordinary evidence to claim that a
guy in a cave defeated a billion dollar defense system.
|
| 29 | >Unfounded claim: There is an explosion pre-collapse of the WTC buildings |
It certainly is founded. There were witnesses
such as William Rodriguez, Barry Jennings (NYC Emergency official),
and Michael Hess (Corporate Counsel - until Barry was murdered by
unknown "natural causes"), plus the many main stream news reporters,
including Peter Jennings, who used the word "explosion."
In 2001 the perpetrators did not predict YouTube,
giving us the ability to replay news interviews with a few clicks. Such
interviews used to play on TV once or twice, then are forgotten
forever. Now, you and thousands of people can hear Barry Jennings in
his own words: "Why did WTC 7 come down in the first place. I know what
I heard. I heard explosions." He was too credible to be allowed to say
what contradicted the final NIST report. The perpetrators had to knock
him off, at 53, just weeks before the NIST report was published.
The technology for causing "natural heart attacks"
has existed since the 1960's, and was mentioned by William Colby before
Congress. A CIA whistleblower came forward.
|
| 30 | >Structural Engineering firm or university that will stand behind this paper |
Firms are out to make money, and don't make policy
statements.
Universities are in the business of teaching
students, not taking a vote of the faculty on issues to put on their web
sites. Brigham Young University stands by Dr. Steven Jones as best it
can, and keep to their mission for the students, by giving him full
retirement benefits, with their highest title, Professor Emeritus. BYU
continues to employ Jeffrey Farrer, who was the 3rd scientist listed on
the Bentham paper, who has not (yet) been the target of those who feel
threatened by their research and are trying to shut them up.
|
| 31 | >certify that nano anything can rip two steel beam apart? |
It's pretty obvious that
if the MIT Review calls nano-thermite a better
bomb,
and existing bombs can blow steel apart,
as the Army could blow up steel bridges even
back in World War I,
then the better bombs can blow steel apart
better. Right?
As I found, you can't get non-thermite at Home
Depot.
It is a controlled substance, under high security,
and not advertised.
The Government cannot keep secrets, but the
military can, very well.
Even Vice President Truman did not know the atom
bomb existed.
|
| 32 | >There is an explosion pre-collapse of the WTC buildings. Can you find any demolition company in the U.S. |
There's one on YouTube telling thousands a day,
www.Jowenko.com
He does this every week, doesn't depend on US
Government contracts,
and has the balls to call it as he sees it -
"Controlled demolition. Absolutely."
Companies don't make statements. People do.
My own company doesn't even a statement about
9/11.
But we have one employee who does.
That's his personal business.
Controlled Demolition Inc. may have been in on it.
They made a lot of money from 9/11.
So it is unlikely they will bite the hand that
feeds them.
www.AE911Truth.org
is up to 1185 now, growing exponentially.
The list has gotten so long, it takes a while
for the web page to load.
Tom Sullivan who retired from Controlled Demolition Inc is a major speaker for AE911Truth. |
|
33 ToDo |
I can send you the text from a nano expert who says Harrit does not have nano-thermite and it wouldn't matter if he did because you can't break apart steel beam with thermite in any form---- | Please send it |
|
34 4/23/2010 9:38 PM |
So the final, absolute debunk of
all time. Better than God. And God, how this made me laugh. Here is your
Bentham open access "peer reviewed Journal" accepting an MIT paper that
was made of completely meaningless statements that were computer
generated. LOL.
The paper: "Compact symmetries and compilers have garnered tremendous
interest from both futurists and biologists in the last several years.
The flaw of this type of solution, however, is that DHTs can be made
empathic, large-scale, and extensible. Along these same lines, the
drawback of this type of approach, however, is that active networks and
SMPs can agree to fix this riddle."
An open access journal has agreed to publish a nonsensical article
written by a computer program, claiming that the manuscript was peer
reviewed and requesting that the "authors" pay $800 in "open access
fees."
Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell University, and Kent Anderson, executive director of international business and product development at theNew England Journal of Medicine, submitted the fake manuscript toThe Open Information Science Journal(TOISCIJ) at the end of January.
Davis generated the paper,which
was titled "Deconstructing Access Points," using a computer program
-- called SCIgen -- created at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. He and Anderson signed the work using pseudonyms (David
Phillips and Andrew Kent). The two listed the "Center for Research
in Applied Phrenology" (CRAP) as their home institution on the
paper, which featured fictitious tables, figures and references.
"I wanted to really see whether this article would be peer reviewed," said Davis. "[Our paper] has the look of an article, but it makes no sense." Davis told The Scientist that he got the idea for this "little experiment" after receiving scores of spam emails soliciting article submissions and invitations to serve on editorial boards of open access journals from Bentham Science Publishers, TOISCIJ's publisher. According to its website, Bentham publishes "200 plus open access journals" that cover disciplines from bioinformatics and pharmacology to engineering and neuroscience. "One of the things that made Bentham catch our eye," Anderson said, "was that they were so aggressively soliciting manuscripts." The two wrote about the incident today on theScholarly Kitchen,the Society for Scholarly Publishing blog that they run. Davis said that last week the journal notified him that it had accepted the manuscript, which contained absolutely meaningless statements typified by the first few lines of its introduction: "Compact symmetries and compilers have garnered tremendous interest from both futurists and biologists in the last several years. The flaw of this type of solution, however, is that DHTs can be made empathic, large-scale, and extensible. Along these same lines, the drawback of this type of approach, however, is that active networks and SMPs can agree to fix this riddle." He received an email from Ms. Sana Mokarram, assistant manager of publication at Bentham, that the manuscript "has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ." But Davis said that he received no reviewer comments in reference to the sham manuscript. |
Yes,
Bentham's Journals have been compromised and rightly embarrassed by this
incident. There would be no excuse for a journal calling itself peer reviewed if no one really read the article. Bentham has lost a lot of credibility on this, especially the Bentham Information Science Journal. Different Bentham Journals have different levels of efficiency, depending on whether the staff and reviewers are doing their job. In February 2009, Davis also submitted a bogus article to the Bentham Journal of Engineering. Bentham's JoE was on the ball. It was caught, and the article was rejected. It was brought to the attention of Mahmood Alam, Bentham's Director of Publications. The bogus Information Science paper only got through Stage 1, an Initial Acceptance letter, but never got near to Stage 5, approval by the Editor for actual publication: Stage 1. Initial approval by an underling at Bentham (the only
stage Davis got to) Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications says "In this
particular case, we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax and
we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the
article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not." One way Mr. Alam would find out who the hoaxsters were was by asking for a credit card at Stage 2. At no time was the article in danger of being actually published. Bambang Parmanto PhD was the Editor, and resigned because his reputation suffered, whether fairly or unfairly, over this incident. They don't get paid much if at all by Bentham, so it is just not worth it. Keep in mind that at Stage 5, Parmanto would have stopped it from being published, after reading the first paragraphs. "I think this is a breach of policy," he says, adding: "I will definitely resign. Normally I see everything that comes through. I don't know why I did not see this. I at least need to see the reviewer's comments." Bentham is well aware of this situation, and have been more careful, including the time when the Harris, Jones, Farrer and Rober. Bentham wants a good reputation so university professors will ask students to buy their books for classes. Their aspirations are noble, and even Nobel. The nano-thermite article really was reviewed by peers, and one . A reviewer commented on it. http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090615/full/news.2009.571.html |
| 35 |
>Tellingly, not a single reputable newspaper, magazine or TV program has
given any media coverage to the 9/11 issues or been willing to seriously
even present their claims.
|
Washington Times printed an
article on "Explosive News"
You can also find Richard
Gage interviewed on mainstream TV in Canada.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G1ub2ca! Also: Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, Russia Today, Financial Times,
CBC, Architectural Records, BBC, Fox TV News.
|
| 36 | >There is no logic or scientific evidence to support any of what the 9/11 Truthers say |
http://911scholars.org
www.911Experiments.org |
| 37 |
 R
o n M o s s a d:http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html Ron's self-proclaimed "Bureau of Information" |
This is some guy's Jewish
activism blog not a peer reviewed scientific research article. Nevertheless, I'll read them asap |
| 38 | R o n M o s s a d: Who brought down the Twin Towers? A bunch of crazy Arabs, that's who. |
|
| 39 | R o n M o s s a d: Controlled demolitions, thermite and YOU. |
|
| I said "reputable newspaper or magazine." Did I leave the word "reputable" out? I have no doubt that the "Daily Mail" in London or the Washington Times might run a story on anything. They run stories on aliens and Area 47. If I didn't say "reputable" and instead wrote "Moonie Paper with a reputation for printing all sorts of nonsense," |
It is so "convenient" that
any time a newspaper writes an article about Richard Gage, they are no
longer reputable in your eyes.
They do not cover aliens or Area 54. The comparison to a tabloid is unfair. The Washington Times covers basically the same headlines as the Washington Post. They are no longer receiving funds from the Unification Church. They have serious reporters, invited to the White House, as other reporters are, who ask serious questions and report objectively. Washington Time photojournalist Mary Calvert was a Pulitzer Prize finalist this year, 2010..
I suppose when (not if, but
when) the Washington Post writes an article questioning the official
story, you will no longer consider them reputable?
The political views of The Washington Times are often described
as
conservative.[24][25][26]
The Washington Post reported: "the Times was established by Moon
to combat
communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as
the liberal bias of The Washington Post."[6]
In 1994
Reed Irvine, chairman of
Accuracy in Media, a conservative media watchdog group, said: "The
Washington Times is one of the few newspapers in the country that
provides some balance."
The Times was read every day by President Ronald Reagan during his terms in office.[27] In 1997 he said:
On November 30, 2009 the New York Times reported that the
Washington Times would no longer be receiving funds from the
Unification Church
On Janary 29, 2010 the Times
announced the hiring of
Sam
Dealey as editor. He is a media fellow at the
Hoover Institution and had previously worked
for the
U.S. News and World Report,
The New York Times,
CNN,
and other news outlets
|
