Internet Debating of 'Conspiracy Theory' on Message Boards

[mothandrust]

sorry guys, am way too committed and under pressure to help, but just spotted this article at ICH and thought it might be of use.


Thermite

By John S. Hatch

April 14, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- -A recent article published in the respected peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal by nine noted scientists offers incontrovertible proof that the dust from the Twin Towers and Building Seven of the World Trade Center contains small intact samples of Thermite.

Thermite is a highly explosive agent consisting mostly of aluminum and iron oxide, and is used to cut steel in building controlled demolitions, and is also used in welding and in military applications.

Using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, and differential scanning calorimetry, the scientists were able to determine that the Thermite present is of a specialized type called Nano-thermite or Superthermite. It burns hotter and has a lower ignition temperature than normal Thermite, and is produced at laboratories such as Lawrence Livermore, incidentally thought to be the same lab that produced the anthrax sent out shortly after 9/11.

Nano-thermite could not be accidentally present in dust samples collected at four different sites, nor could it be the result of clean-up operations at ground zero, as one of the samples was retrieved a mere ten minutes or so after the collapse of the second tower. All samples show the same consistency.

This would explain the streams of molten steel (not aluminum) falling from one of the towers, and the fact that steel remained molten in the rubble for more than a month after the event. There is no scientific explanation for this other than the use of Thermite, which can achieve temperatures of 3500 C, while under ideal conditions jet fuel can achieve just approximately 285 C. It would also explain the otherwise physically impossible near freefall speed of the three buildings, and how they were able to fall so homogeneously.

So what does it mean? It means that there is proof (which so far no one has attempted to refute) that the WTC buildings (and more than three thousand lives, counting the ongoing deaths of first responders and ordinary NYC citizens caused by the dust) were brought down by controlled demolition in a planned and purposeful manner by elements of the Bush Administration, most likely as a ‘catalyzing event’ , the new Pearl Harbor’ fondly mentioned by neo-con PNAC (Plan for the New American Century) and designed to galvanize American citizens in support of attacking other nations and restricting human rights at home. ‘Full Specter Domination’.

This was the excuse or invading Afghanistan and Iraq (there were plans for Syria and Iran as well, and perhaps others), for justifying domestic spying, disappearances, torture, and murder. Murder based on lies and deception, and the killing of American citizens.

Knowing, as he must by now, that 9/11 was conceived and executed not from some dark cave in Afghanistan, but much more likely from some deep bunker in dank Cheneystan, will President Obama still insist on ‘looking ahead’? Just how deep is America’s reserve of dismissal and denial?

I feel for all the victims of 9/11, past, present and future, but was especially haunted by those poor souls who chose to jump to their deaths, or who fell. Surely the people who did this need to be brought to justice. Otherwise America is not ‘looking ahead’. She has her eyes shut tight while she babbles inanities.

John S. Hatch is a Vancouver writer and film-maker. john.s.hatch@gmail.com

link - http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22408.htm


here's a link to the paper - Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

[Hans Olo]

I would not want to use it. You give them way too much ammo against you.

Quote:incontrovertible proof

In reality there is no such thing. Just because a "film maker" says it is, doesn't make it so. This article arrives at conclusions from the very beginning. So what is missing here, what are the holes in the story?

1. The guy who wrote the story is a "film maker", not a scientist. If I wanted to debunk that article I'd go right to that. Guess who came up with the idea of calling this study "incontrovertible proof"? It was not the scientists.

2. Where is the proof that the samples came from the WTC? How do we know we are not being conned?

3. The article does not link to the study nor does it quote the study. What we get is conclusions made by John S. Hatch. There actually is the word "asshat" hidden in that name, I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

4. That's why the author doesn't tell us HOW the study actually shows that explosives were present. He doesn't have a clue about what the hell they were doing.

If you were still asleep would you believe an anonymous forum post with an article by a John Asshat with no expertise and no credibility who doesn't tell you what's going on because he has no clue, but says it's undeniable proof for a conspiracy, because the guy he copied his "article" from said so? Would you change your world view for that?

Just playing devil's advocate here

What if there was an article

- written by someone who knows what he's talking about and
- who has the study in front of him and
- quotes directly from the study
- is at least twice as long as that one

Ah, you added the study. That is good, now you only need to write a better article:)

[mothandrust]

i understand that, that's why i posted a link to the pdf file of the scientific review. here's the abstract and the list of contributors:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3
1
Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3
S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
4
9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5
Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7
International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
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 approxi-
mately 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 oc-
curring 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.

link - http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content....0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

[---]

Quote:Besides I'm pretty good at cheerleading

stop it Jack, you're giving me the hots:P

[---]

Quote:If what you say is true then we're screwed anyway, we might as well try and stop it.

Jawohl! Bravo!!

[---]

Quote:Alright I say attack large! I found this forum http://www.skepticforum.com/ if they are skeptics, then they should be pretty open minded. However, there already is a "conspiracy theories" and "holocaust denial" subforum in there, but many seem not to be buying it. 2 cents:P

Okay, waiting on validation from them and Randi forums :D

[---]

this paper from Copenhagan does seem ostensibly very strong and we should know our facts about it for sure - if we're heading into the obligatory 911 debate - although, I tend to agree with Hans that we will fare much better at the outset be concentrating on evidence of prior and post event profiteering for initial umpf. 2c

When we're ready we should start organising our strategy and fact base - here.

This little project doesn't preclude anyone on the site though, it's important to say - even if you don't feel an urge to participate this thread stands as a place where you can input any and all facts,data and ideas to help spur the effort on.

ie contributions are VERY welcome ;)

[mastermg]

Yep me too, waiting on the verification. I laughed at the anti-spam verification they had lol.

[---]

Quote:Yep me too, waiting on the verification. I laughed at the anti-spam verification they had lol.

took me three times to get past that overly uptight BS - I must be a robot:rolleyes:

I have some exciting(lol I think so, anyway) ideas about how we can structure this and utilise phony call and response tactics to 'challenge' each other to present facts etc.

We would all really benefit ourselves in this from having a 'meeting' about it imo - but I don't want to post up my ideas in this thread as it has no privacy...

@Hans - yes, the IRC channel still works - I just tried it out - perhaps we can all conference there..

[mastermg]

Ya it was asking me for the capital of Russian lol. Alright sounds good, although im kinda busy right now.

[---]

Quote:Ya it was asking me for the capital of Russian lol. Alright sounds good, although im kinda busy right now.

ah ok lol I got the question first time it was the BS cryptified words on the other one that I had trouble with.. crap if English isn't your native language..

No worries - it's just some fun to wake a few folk up ideally - no pressure!!!:D

[jack]

Quote:

Quote:Besides I'm pretty good at cheerleading

stop it Jack, you're giving me the hots:P

oh the twist & flip, you naughty naughty, dirty boy - shame on you, perhaps a spanking is in order:whip:

Haha heehee - you've done an excellent job at brightening a XXX-tra long dull, lonely day:smokin:
(just couldn't help myself):beer:

[---]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Besides I'm pretty good at cheerleading

stop it Jack, you're giving me the hots:P

oh the twist & flip, you naughty naughty, dirty boy - shame on you, perhaps a spanking is in order:whip:

Nope. that didn't help lower the temp. at all!! - I think I best go and take a cold shower B)

Thanks bakatcha for putting a spring in my step today too:beer:

[Hans Olo]

Quote:i understand that, that's why i posted a link to the pdf file of the scientific review. here's the abstract and the list of contributors:

Yes, and on one of the last pages there's a conclusion. I'd quote that one too.

However, I know what the next step of a debunker would be. They'll say:

"Well, maybe they found explosives in the dust. That does not mean that explosives brought down the towers, it just means that they were THERE. Maybe they were laying around in some laboratory... it's a skyscraper, you'll find all kinds of stuff there. They also found some star dust. Are you saying star dust was used to bring the towers down?"

Haven't found my way around that argument yet. It's total denial. But I'm sure someone will come up with it.

[---]

Quote:

Quote:i understand that, that's why i posted a link to the pdf file of the scientific review. here's the abstract and the list of contributors:

Yes, and on one of the last pages there's a conclusion. I'd quote that one too.

However, I know what the next step of a debunker would be. They'll say:

"Well, maybe they found explosives in the dust. That does not mean that explosives brought down the towers, it just means that they were THERE. Maybe they were laying around in some laboratory... it's a skyscraper, you'll find all kinds of stuff there. They also found some star dust. Are you saying star dust was used to bring the towers down?"

Haven't found my way around that argument yet. It's total denial. But I'm sure someone will come up with it.

They don't even say that, they say well aluminium and rust were present in the towers and so it mixed together in the energies of the collapse and hey presto..

If we get onto it it should be a good topic as that is clearly a BS line that's being touted - the collapse didn't just 'form' red chips of 'highly reducing energetic' thermite compound, that's patently ludicrous.

Anyhow, I now have an activated account at http://www.skepticforum.com/memberlist.php...file&u=5800 my name is 'Nik Green':)

Stuffy buggers don't even have a introductions sub forum:rolleyes:

I'll make a couple of nondescript posts while we still prepping to help it appear less incongruous when we kick off.