Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - Hate Mail: 9/11 Truther defends Steven Jones, calls me a "dumbass."

[ Add Tags ]

[ Return to Hate Mail | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Dec 01, 2010 - 15:14
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

It's a long one, and remarkably fact-free for being so many words:

http://conspiracyscience.com/site/hate-mail/view/74/911-conspiracies/</p>

Enjoy!

#1 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Dec 01, 2010 - 15:37
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

What a surprise, he wants you to watch a YouTube video.

#2 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Omni-SciencePosted: Dec 01, 2010 - 15:38
(0)
 

Ordo Ab Chao.

Level: 8
CS Original

OM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM....

Just a small thing though (I only skimmed through your essay, so if you answered this directly, my bad)

What's the probable source of these "iron microspheres," if they were actually there?

This is the only quip I haven't been able to disprove to other CT's at school, so if I have this answer, I'll be golden. :3

#3 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Dec 01, 2010 - 15:47
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

"It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group
report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain
that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some,
if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples."

#4 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Omni-SciencePosted: Dec 01, 2010 - 15:54
(0)
 

Ordo Ab Chao.

Level: 8
CS Original

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO[truncated because I'm messing things up]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#5 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Dec 01, 2010 - 19:43
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Actually the iron microspheres can be produced in a number of different ways, during the cleanup is just one of them. Jones wants to rule out all the most obvious explanations and go to thermite because thermite can melt iron.

#6 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Dec 01, 2010 - 19:57
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

3. In the case of unconventional explosives (PETN, for example, is a simple white putty-who, lacking explosives experience, would think a white putty suspicious?) the more exotic the explosive material, the less conspicuous the item would be. Everyone who watched looney tunes would recognize a bundle of dynamite with a ticking alarm clock on it, fewer would recognize a satchel of RDX, and even fewer still would recognize a steel box with thermite in it.

So many things wrong with this

1. Bomb sniffing dogs which were there wouldnt have just sniffed these explosives they are also trained to sniff for thermite, which is the named - main - thing truthers claim was used to destroy the towers.

2. No one saw or documented any evidence of any steel having any evidence of explosive damage.

3. The 93 bombing had a 1310 pounds of explosive made of urea nitrate. Apparently only one time before did the FBI know of a bomb which used urea nitrate and Ramzi Yousef expected the tower to collapse onto the other. In reality it didn't even destroy a single core column.

4. Even if someone had seen something resembling an explosive charge, the fact that it was in a working skyrise would have caused them to immediately question if what they were seeing was an explosive device; if you don't expect it to be there, you are less likely to see it, and more likely to doubt that it is what it looks like if it isn't supposed to be there. The fact that no one (who lived to tell) saw ACTUAL explosive charges in the building doesn't mean SHIT. Again, this would not contradict a clandestine controlled demolition, it would coincide with a clandestine controlled demo.

And yet truthers like to claim tons of explosives were in the building, so how was that done with no one noticing? Why did not one notice all the demolition ninja teams coming in and ripping up dry wall, or reporting smells of fresh paint, or seeing loads of devices sticking out of the walls?

Im so bored with these idiots...

#7 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Dec 01, 2010 - 20:05
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Note; the nanothermite is not paint, it does not contain chromium as WTC paint does, and it reacts violently in a calorimeter (a very narrow and high peak) where paint does not react and has a low and wide peak. It also creates nano-spheres of iron when burned, whereas paint simply turns to ash.

Actually fly ash is regularly added to paint and that does contian iron microspheres as well. Unfortunately Jones/Harrit's sample was not tested in an oxygen-free environment and they decided not to perform tests that would have given conclusive results. Labs around the country test for thermite all the time for the police in arson cases and for a small charge could easily and quickly perform a test that could give a conclusive result. Jones/Harrit et al dont want conclusive results. And because he is thinking it, nano thermite is still thermite. It's not magical, it doesnt have amazing super properties. Its just smaller. It doesn't make it undetectable to everyone apart from truthers and it doesnt make it explode and it doesnt make it explode silently.

Yet another lie was that the buildings did not fall at free-fall acceleration, which again is a claim that NIST was forced to correct after being forced to view the work of David Chandler, specifically WTC7

So truthers claim towers 1, 2 and 7 fell at free fall. They claimed WTC 1 and 2 fell around 9-10 seconds and 7 about 6-6.5 seconds.

How did NIST admit any of that? All of that is still just as wrong as it was the first time truthers started claiming it. Towers 1+2 took over 15 and 20 seconds to collapse. WTC7 took over well over 13.5 seconds to collapse (just visually, not counting internal collapses we cant see). All Chandler saw was 2.25 seconds of free fall, talk about your back tracks. This free fall also didnt occur at the onset either and buckling explains it just fine without having to to resort to suggesting silent explosives were planted without anyone noticing.

why the FBI has not charged him with the WTC attacks?

Because the state department handle terrorist prosecutions. It wouldnt make any sense for him to be indited currently. Why is it sensible that the State Department believe Bin Laden to be responsible for 911, while the FBI does not? Can the NWO not muster enough control to just add his name to the Most Wanted page? Even if I believed in a 911 conspiracy this would still be an amazingly dumb claim.

#8 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Dec 01, 2010 - 20:11
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

"And yet truthers like to claim tons of explosives were in the building, so how was that done with no one noticing?"

They've seen a lot of X-Files episodes that prove that "the government" can do anything, anywhere at any time.

#9 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]