Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Remember that NIST report? NIST officials involved with nano-thermites (Dial-up Warning)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 08:57 PM
Original message
Remember that NIST report? NIST officials involved with nano-thermites (Dial-up Warning)
Edited on Fri Aug-29-08 09:45 PM by Texas Explorer
I know this will probably be thrown in the dungeon but it is VERY FUCKING IMPORTANT!!! Those of you who see this, whether you believe it or not, should send this far and wide. Keep in mind that all the steel was barged and floated to China before any independent forensics tests could be conducted as per NFPA 921 of the National Fire Protection Association's guide for professional fire/arson and explosion investigations. Also keep in mind that, according to NIST, because there was no "BOOM!" in the audio of recordings of the WTC collapses, there was no reason to consider the possibility that explosives or thermate were the cause. In fact, to hear them tell it, they can't even imagine how thermates or nano-thermates or quiet explosives would have been used to bring the buidings down.

But some NIST officials are intimately familiar with reactive shape charges and nano-thermites and are part of the research into the weaponization of themite/thermate.

And, there are even PNAC connections.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, and one other thing. The development of thermites and nano-thermites has been conducted in part by the labs at Ft. Dietrich, MD, and Lawrence Livermore Labs. That's right. THAT Ft. Dietrich, MD, where the anthax originated from.

Thermite Experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM


The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites


By Kevin R. Ryan

Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel.

NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006


The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable
difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented
destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan
2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NISTs story, it never
considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is
at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for
fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other
pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with
explosive and thermite materials.



Microscopic iron spheres found in the dust of WTC that are
formed in the presence of extreme heat and pressure.
One of the most intriguing aspects of NISTs diversionary posture has been their total
lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the
substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and
Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators
(Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only
after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to
their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.
The extensive evidence that explosives were used at the WTC includes witness testimony
(MacQueen 2006), overwhelming physical evidence (Griffin 2005, Hoffman et al 2005,
Jones and Legge et al 2008) and simple common sense (Legge 2007). There is also
substantial evidence that aluminothermic (thermite) materials were present at the WTC
(Jones 2007), and the presence of such materials can explain the existence of intense fire
where it would not otherwise have existed. Additionally, despite agreement from all
parties that the assumed availability of fuel allowed for the fires in any given location of
each of the WTC buildings to last only twenty minutes (NIST 2007), the fires lasted
much longer and produced extreme temperatures (Jones and Farrer et al 2008).

These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply
demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought
down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have
caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and
other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that.
Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed
otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted
(or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).

This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are hightech
energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG
metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other
compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by
adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called sols, and
then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their
intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting sol-gel is then dried to form a
porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.

The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher
rate of energy release than is seen in macro thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites
high explosives as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel nanothermites,
are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular
composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often
used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004).
Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with
thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite
the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials.
It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government
scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998,
Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that --

The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating
technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various
substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries
to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the
hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus
(Gash et al 2002).


The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests
that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of
the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have
been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port
Authoritys engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the
fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of alternative materials (NIST 2005). Such
alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent
paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that
this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.

Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC, it is strange that NIST
has been so blind to any such possibility. In fact, when reading NISTs reports on the
WTC, and its periodic responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no
one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is,
many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC investigation were not
only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and in
some cases expertise in, this exact technology.

Here are the top ten reasons why nano-thermites, and nano-thermite coatings, should
have come to mind quickly for the NIST WTC investigators.

1. NIST was working with LLNL to test and characterize these sol-gel nanothermites,
at least as early as 1999 (Tillitson et al 1999).

2. Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NISTs advisory committee, and the most
prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics, is an expert on the
deflagration of energetic materials and the ignition of porous energetic
materials(Margolis and Williams 1996, Telengator et al 1998, Margolis and
Williams 1999). Nano-thermites are porous energetic materials. Additionally,
Williams research partner, Stephen Margolis, has presented at conferences where
nano-energetics are the focus (Gordon 1999). Some of Williams other
colleagues at the University of California San Diego, like David J. Benson, are
also experts on nano-thermite materials (Choi et al 2005, Jordan et al 2007).

3. Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland Security
contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators
to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive links to nano-thermites,
developing and judging nano-thermite research proposals for the military and
other military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites
directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007). SAICs subsidiary Applied Ordnance
Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with lasers
(Howard et al 2005).

In an interesting coincidence, SAIC was the firm that investigated the 1993 WTC
bombing, boasting that -- After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast
analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible (SAIC
2004). And the coincidences with this company dont stop there, as SAIC was
responsible for evaluating the WTC for terrorism risks in 1986 as well (CRHC
2008). SAIC is also linked to the late 1990s security upgrades at the WTC, the
Rudy Giuliani administration, and the anthrax incidents after 9/11, through former
employees Jerome Hauer and Steven Hatfill.



4. Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and materials who was
nominated as director of NIST by President George W. Bush in October 2001,
was former deputy secretary of defense, former director of DARPAs office of
materials science, and former executive at TRW.

Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders in the production and use of nanothermites
(Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005). And military and aerospace contractor
TRW has had a long collaboration with NASA laboratories in the development of
energetic materials that are components of advanced propellants, like nano-gelled
explosive materials (NASA 2001). TRW Aeronautics also made fireproof
composites and high performance elastomer formulations, and worked with
NASA to make energetic aerogels.

Additionally, Bement was a professor at Purdue and MIT. Purdue has a thriving
program for nano-thermites (Son 2008). And interestingly, at MITs Institute for
Soldier Nanotechnology, we find Martin Z. Bazant, son of notable conspiracy
debunker Zdenek P. Bazant (MIT 2008), who does research on granular flows,
and the electrochemical interactions of silicon. Zdenek P. Bazant is interested in
nanocomposites as well (Northwestern 2008), and how they relate to naval
warfare (ONR 2008). MIT was represented at nano-energetics conferences as
early as 1998 (Gordon 1998).

Bement was also a director at both Battelle and the Lord Corporation. Battelle
(where the anthrax was made) is an organization of experts in fundamental
technologies from the five National Laboratories we manage or co-manage for the
US DOE. Battelle advertises their specialization in nanocomposite coatings
(Battelle 2008). The Lord Corporation also makes high-tech coatings for military
applications (Lord 2008). In 1999, Lord Corp was working with the Army and
NASA on advanced polymer composites, advanced metals, and multifunctional
materials (Army 1999).

5. Hratch Semerjian, long-time director of NISTs chemical division, was promoted
to acting director of NIST in November 2004, and took over the WTC
investigation until the completion of the report on the towers. Semerjian is
closely linked to former NIST employee Michael Zachariah, perhaps the worlds
most prominent expert on nano-thermites (Zachariah 2008). In fact, Semerjian
and Zachariah co-authored ten papers that focus on nano-particles made of silica,
ceramics and refractory particles. Zachariah was a major player in the Defense
University Research Initiative on Nanotechnology (DURINT), a groundbreaking
research effort for nano-thermites.

6. NIST has a long-standing partnership with NASA for the development of new
nano-thermites and other nano-technological materials. In fact, Michael
Zachariah coordinates this partnership (CNMM 2008).

7. In 2003, two years before the NIST WTC report was issued, the University of
Maryland College Park (UMCP) and NIST signed a memorandum of
understanding to develop nano-technologies like nano-thermites (NIST 2003).
Together, NIST and UMCP have done much work on nano-thermites (NM2
2008).

8. NIST has their own Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST 2008).
Additionally, NISTs Reactive Flows Group did research on nanostructured
materials and high temperature reactions in the mid-nineties (NRFG 1996).

9. Richard Gann, who did the final editing of the NIST WTC report, managed a
project called Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program, both
before and after 9/11. Andrzej Miziolek, another of the worlds leading experts
on nano-thermites (Amptiac 2002), is the author of Defense Applications of
Nanomaterials, and also worked on Richard Ganns fire suppression project
(Gann 2002). Ganns project was sponsored by DODs Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program (SERDP), an organization that sponsored a
number of LLNLs nano-thermite projects (Simpson 2002, Gash et al 2003).

10. As part of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, NIST
partners with the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head (NSWC-IH) on
Chemical Science and Technology (FLCTT 2008). NSWC-IH is probably the
most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology (NSWC 2008). In 1999,
Jan Puszynski, a scientist working for the DURINT program, helped NSWC-IH
design a pilot plant to produce nano-size aluminum powder. It was reported that
At that time, this was only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the
United States (SDSMT 2001), however, private companies like Argonide and
Technanogy were also known to have such capabilities.



Among an interesting group of contractors that NSWC-IH hired in 1999 were
SAIC, Applied Ordnance, Battelle, Booz Allen Hamilton, Mantech, Titan, Pacific
Scientific Energetic (see below), and R Stresau Laboratories for demolition
materials (NSWC 2000).

A tragic coincidence left William Caswell, an employee of NSWC-IH, dead on
the plane said to have hit the Pentagon (Flight 77). He had for many years
worked on deep-black projects at NSWC-IH (Leaf 2007).
The presence of Pacific Scientific Energetics (PSE) in this list of 1999 NSWC-IH
contractors is interesting because PSE was the parent company of Special Devices, Inc
(SDI). SDI specializes in explosives for defense, aerospace and mining applications, and
was acquired in 1998 by John Lehman, 9/11 Commissioner, member of the Project for a
New American Century, and former Secretary of the Navy (SDI 2008). Lehman divested
in 2001.

With this in mind, it is worthwhile to reiterate that nano-thermite materials were very
likely used in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings, but most certainly played
only a part in the plan. However, other high-tech explosives were available to those who
had access to nano-thermite materials at the time. Like SDI, several other organizations
with links to military, space and intelligence programs (e.g. In-Q-Tel, Orbital Science)
have access to many types of high-tech explosives to cut high-strength bolts and produce
pyrotechnic events (Goldstein 2006). These organizations also have connections to those
who could have accessed the buildings, like WTC tenant Marsh & McLennan and former
NASA administrator and Securacom director, James Abrahamson.

In any case, it is important for those seeking the truth about 9/11 to consider what
organizations and people had access to the technologies that were used to accomplish the
deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It is also important to recognize the links
between those who had access to the technologies, those who had access to the buildings,
and those who produced the clearly false official reports.

To that end we should note that NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites,
both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did
not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long
afterward at Ground Zero. This fact would not be inexplicable, of course, if those
managing the NIST investigation knew to not look, or test, for such materials.



REFERENCES AT LINK - 12 Page PDF Document from The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001. Many fields of study are represented in the journal, including Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Psychology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
4 more, and we live on after The Dungeon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. K and R
Edited on Fri Aug-29-08 09:03 PM by seemslikeadream
The only way I'll make it to the dungeon again :hi: EVERYBODY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Self-kick. Please, if you rec it, kick it! Thank you. =) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. K & R thanks for posting. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. It is getting harder and harder to hide the murderous truth about 9/11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
140. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #140
164. yep, the Truth is breaking out all over. I can feel it. Any day now...
Here it comes... wait for it... wait for it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. kicking for the truth
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. KnR for more visibility.. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thank you. And, speaking of more visibility...
Edited on Fri Aug-29-08 10:37 PM by Texas Explorer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
24. I remember seeing those on the 'news' back then, along with one or two reports
that "The Mob" was stealing the steel and selling it to China.

I have no link to prove it, never could find it on cnn site, but I did hear it and others I know did also.

Nice cuts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
165. Do you know who took those pictures? DO you know what he
says about them?

I urge you to explore this in more detail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
172. That is a very... 'interesting' diagram. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. If you are embarrassed, then go away. It's really funny to me that
the only thing you picked out of this entire post is a statement I myself made. I'll give you that I may be mistaken on some of my perceptions. I even grant that I don't know the truth. Yet. But I am looking at it and the reason I post on the subject is to get opinions from people like you. But, if you want to be a fucking asshole about it, then you can just go the fuck away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. If you "looked at it"....
Edited on Fri Aug-29-08 11:33 PM by SDuderstadt
you'd know the claim was false, which means you did not bother to factcheck it before posting it here or you certainly would have known it was false. Why should we take someone with no regard for the truth seriously??? I'm embarrassed by your lack of regard for science, facts and Logic and I intend to keep pointing it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Ok, let's try this. I'll try to fact-check better and you address the
subject of this post, which is NIST and their involvement with nano-thermites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
113. So what?
What difference does it make if NIST is/was/will be "involved with nano-thermites"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #113
117. What a completely stupid question that is. It makes a great
difference if one of the very R&D components of thermites is the lead and last-word investigators who are charged with determining its presense at WTC.

God, you 911 Commission Report Thumpers just can't produce can you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. Are you now accusing NIST of being in on causing 9/11????
Are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #119
128. No. I'm accusing NIST of lying to cover up the use of thermates in
the destruction of WTC.

Is that plain enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. And they lied where, exactly?
Do you do anything except slander people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #129
131. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Which independent labs examined steel from the WTC? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. WPI. Barnett et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Okie dokie. I'll start fact-checking that too. Should be fun. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. LOL! Looky here! Our Katrina saviours are like cockaroaches! Sheez!
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Man, that FEMA sure does give me the warm fuzzies.

Tee-hee! Let's see what else I can find...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. This is interesting. A direct communication with Jonathan Barnett
Well, maybe. I mean, you can't really put 100% of your faith in someone else's perception, can you? After all, who knows for sure whether this guy is making shit up, huh? But, of course, we can believe Dr. Gene Corley and Jonathan Barnett and WPI because they would never lie to us to advance an agenda or cover a crime, now would they?

http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2006/07/open-letter-to-pr...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #23
59. You have absolutely no basis to cast aspersions on the character
of Dr. Barnett. For the record, he was my graduate professor in advanced mechanics of materials at WPI, and he is apolitical, as far as I can tell. He is a very good lecturer and pretty much invented the science of fire protection engineering.

Every academic in the country would fail your sniff test, because every academic institution in the country accepts federal funds, which makes them shills for BushCo, right?

If you hate Bush enough, anything is possible. You can see connections everywhere.

I tried to answer your question, but I won't be replying to you anymore. You have made up your mind.

Good day, and enjoy your sexy little fantasy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #59
88. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #88
148. spot fucking on! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #23
69. You are quite quick to slander. I have known Dr. Barnett for 25 years.
You know nothing about him. Nothing.

Yet you imply that he is complicit in a criminal conspiracy.

Amazing.

Simply amazing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #69
90. Barnett and Corley are FEMA liars. There, I did it again. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
125. This is hysterical....
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 12:36 PM by SDuderstadt
you challenge everyone to produce evidence that the steel was "independently tested". Such evidence is produced, then you immediately start attacking Corley and Barnett as being motivated to "cover-up the crime". In Logic (which I doubt you know much about) this is referred to as "moving the goalposts".


Do you even know anything about ASCE? Did you know it has 125,000+ members? Did you know that it's a quite prestigious and well-regarded association of civil engineers? Do you really think that if Corley was helping to "cover-up a crime" there wouldn't be a huge outcry from his fellow members of NIST?

See, it doesn't make any difference what evidence is produced because you've already determined the "truth" emotionally and gone off in a confirmation bias-induced haze to confirm your suspicions. Avove and beyond not searching for evidence that would disprove your hypothesis, when confronted with it, you attempt to counter it with wild accusations of malfeasance, impugning honorable people's character in the process.

Frankly, I am disgusted with a "truth movement" which, in its quest to discover the "truth" manages to slime all federal agencies, law enforcement personnel, scientists, professional associations, etc, that don't toe the "truther line". I don't how much more of a laughingstock the "truth movement" has to become before you guys realize that you're stuck in reverse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #125
139. Then go away. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #139
170. If he goes away per your order, will you then accuse him of slinking away...
... with his tail between his legs?

You asked for evidence that steel was independantly studied. I provided the evidence. You then proceed to slander the authors of the study and accuse them of complicity in mass murder while providing no such evidence.

You then attack me for slandering Jones, which I did not do.

Everyone here who can be even the least bit honest with themselves can easily see what is going on here.

You have made up your mind that pixie dust brought down the WTC on orders from ... someone.

Nothing in this world is going to dissuade you of that notion. Anyone who tries will be slandered and called a FEMA masturbator or worse.

You are not very impressive, sir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #170
179. wow, talk about strawmen!?
"You have made up your mind that pixie dust brought down the WTC on orders from ... someone."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #179
183. I don't think that retorical device is called a straw man bill.
You might want to look up the straw man fallacy. Flatulo didn't make an argument against 'pixie dust' so it isn't a straw man.

Not saying it was appropriate but it is not a straw man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #183
186. you could be right, is "false fabrication" more appropriate then? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #170
190. You provided evidence put forth by a criminal government.
You and your rhetoric are a waste of everyone's time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #190
216. It is your opinion that the government is criminal. Is it also
your contention that the millions of federal employees are, by association, also criminal? And the 600 engineers, academics and consultants, to the last man-jack, who worked on the NIST and FEMA studies, is also criminal?

What evidence do you have that the distribution of political bias is any different among federal employees than it is among the general population? My guess is that it would be more or less similar.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. Staying with Barnett...What's this about "evaporated" steel?
This is curious. Why is the guy that is in charge of the WPI investigation saying something about "evaporated" steel in WTC7 in the NEW YORK TIMES?

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE...

On page two of that story...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #18
29. At 3:55 in this Youtube video Barnett states:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNskClIyGfY

"I have not seen, until recently, a protected steel structure that's collapsed in a fire."

And then all of a sudden three tall buildings do so in a single day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. That is a half truth at best.
"And then all of a sudden three tall buildings do so in a single day."

Two hit by jetliners and one with no water supply to the sprinklers on several floors. Not exactly ever day occurrences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #36
43. Is that the best you can do? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #43
91. The best I can do at what? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #91
96. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. ok. At least I understand your response now.
I did indeed imply that airliners colliding with the WTC towers, and the lack of sprinklers (or other fire fighting) in WTC 7 had something do do with their collapse.

Now the twin towers and WTC 7 are very distinct cases and in my experience here it is easy for people to get mixed up as to which is being discussed (resulting in a lot of miscommunication). Therefore I will try to stick to one to keep things simple.

Lets start with WTC 1 & 2

Now I don't know your views on this, and some people *do* disagree so I don't mean to come across as insulting but:
I assume you believe that each of the twin towers was indeed hit by an aircraft on 9-11, correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. Yes. I watched it as it happened. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #102
107. Ok. so far we agree
Now given the way the twin towers were erected and the fact that they did not immediately collapse we can tell two things

1. Structural damage was done by the planes.
2. This damage was not enough to cause the buildings to collapse.

Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #107
118. Yes. On both counts. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #118
123. So my guess is we diverge when it comes to...
what triggered the final collapse.

We can probably agree that it did not need to do as much damage as it would have if the towers were not already structurally compromised by the aircraft impacts.
I don't have any particular reason not to believe the NIST report on what triggered the final collapse. I suspect form your posts so far that you have some reason to doubt it.

I will assume you are familiar with it (as otherwise you could not have grounds to disagree) so it is probably better if we reverse roles at this point and you help me understand why the NIST version is not correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #123
130. I will be glad to do so. However, it will take more time that just a
quick response here. I'll have to do some additional research and fact-checking. But I promise I will respond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #130
133. Cool. I appriciate a well done post as uposed to a quick response n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #96
135. It's really stupid to claim
that "we" have never offered our "own studies" to the contrary. We have repeatedly, a la the works of Greening, Bazant, Barnett, Corley and many others. Confronted with this, you retreat to calling them all "liars", yet you can't seem to point to where they are lying, other than they don't agree with your "conspiracy theory".


On another note, since you insist on "debating" by demeaning and insulting people (calling Flatulo a "Barnett mastubator" was over the top), I'm done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #135
138. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #138
180. Slandering Barnett on a public forum does not constitute 'discrediting' the man.
It's simple slander.

You've posted nothing that addresses the man's competence or ability.

You just don't like him because he sees no pixie dust conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #180
192. No, I don't like him because he's a shill for FEMA. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #192
217. Do you know how much money Dr. Barnett was paid for his FEMA work?
So, you don't like him. Fine with me. But your dislike of him does not discredit his work in any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #18
32. More Barnett...
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 02:28 AM by Texas Explorer
Worcester Polytechnic Institute professor Dr. Jonathan Barnett to be honored by the Sons of the American Revolution. Curious, those folks. Here's their leader: http://www.sar.org/about/officers.html

And here's his legal website: http://www.applebylaw.com /

Damn, ye kool-aid mustachioed gullibites, this is just too damn funny! Cult much?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Well, well, well...You are certainly right about fact checking...
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 12:01 AM by Texas Explorer
Was just reading your Gene Corley's (of ASCE) report. Looks like the same folks that did such a stellar job in New Orleans post-Katrina was a major player in ASCE's investigation. Wow! That must mean the investigation is credible, eh?

Edited to add: Oopsy! Forgot source link: http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

The partnership with FEMA has proven to be extremely beneficial to the overall
success and progress of the WTC team. In addition to providing funds, FEMA has
provided logistical assistance, organizational and operational guidance, assistance in
obtaining and organizing the needed data, and will provide the resources to publish the
report. Utilizing the FEMA standard operation procedure for post-disaster engineering
studies, managed through a contract with the architecture and engineering firm,
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., FEMA helped organize and coordinate the on-site operation
of the BPS Team as they performed their initial data-collection efforts in New York City.



Hmmm...let's go see what other facts I can check...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
141. Bush has made it perfectly clear: "Good job, Brownie!"
And Myers got his promotion to head up even more military shit -- I mean, just because the Boy Scouts were in charge of our Security, on 9/11, doesn't mean that the Boy Scouts should be demoted, does it??

"We were unable to contact Andrews Air Force Base on the morning of Septemvber 11th because
ONLY the Secret Service has the Andrews phone number."

Actual NORADS commander testimony to the 9/11 Commission
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Cool! More facts! This fact-checking thing is so much fun...
How's about a (nice?) promotion for our good friend, Dr. Corley:

http://www.ncees.org/news/index.php?release_id=17


Still have more fact-checking to do...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. Ok, ok, ok! Fact-checking is the way to go with this topic. I'm wrong. You're right.
I'm attempting to find the Chicago Tribune page for this excerpt, but here it is for now:

Dr. Gene Corley also investigated the Waco disaster for the U.S. government, as the Chicago Tribune reported:

"Many of his fellow structural engineers were stunned when the twin towers of the World Trade Center crashed to the ground on Sept. 11. But not W. Gene Corley, the suburban Chicago structural engineer who is heading the federal investigation into the collapse.

"Corley, senior vice president at Construction Technology Laboratories in north suburban Skokie, is an old hand when it comes to figuring out why buildings fall down. His roster of past investigations includes the fatal 1993 fire that occurred during the FBI's raid of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas; the 1995 bombing and collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City; and the 1999 collapse of a construction crane at Milwaukee's Miller Park. You might even call him a master of disaster, though he's far too reserved to use such a jaunty, self-promoting term."

Source: Chicago Tribune, Dec. 6, 2001


Here is a Chicago Tribune article from Dec 5, 2001, describing the other investigations (funny how the government always goes to the same people for every investigation) Dr. Gene Corley was involved in.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-73657...

So farrrrr...I'm thinkin' your Dr. Gene Corley isn't as credible as you think he iiiissss....

But, I'll keep trying to find something about our Dr. Corley that proves me wrong and you right while you address what I've already given you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. Just so everyone knows who we're talking about:


Oh yeah, we're not really talking about it since you're not saying anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. I do believe they have been struck
dumb and quit playing for a bit.

Thanks for this thread and info! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. I'm not finished yet. And...
you are welcome...

Another fact-check post coming right up. This is fun!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Well done, Texas Explorer...
Thanks for the posts....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Thank you. I'm still fact-checking. Another post coming up! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #10
33. Ok, I've picked on Barnett enough for the moment. Let's get back to Corley...
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 02:44 AM by Texas Explorer
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-73657...


Corley, senior vice president at Construction Technology Laboratories in north suburban Skokie, is an old hand when it comes to figuring out why buildings fall down.

His roster of past investigations includes the fatal 1993 fire that occurred during the FBI's raid of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas; the 1995 bombing and collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City; and the 1999 collapse of a construction crane at Milwaukee's Miller Park.

You might even call him a master of disaster, though he's far too reserved to use such a jaunty, self-promoting term.

When the hijacked Boeing 767 jets hit the Trade Center that morning, Corley was in his Skokie office, part of a Bauhaus-like compound of low-slung modern buildings at 5420 Old Orchard Road, just west of the Edens Expressway. Alerted to the disaster in the making, he went to The Washington Post Web site and found still pictures of black smoke and red flames shooting out of the lower Manhattan landmark.

"I said: 'At least it hasn't fallen yet,' " Corley told the Tribune in his first extensive interview on the investigation. "'But if they don't get the fire out, it will.' "

-snip-

In a sense, everybody already knows what happened on Sept. 11: When the hijacked planes, gorged with fuel for cross-country flights, struck the towers, the rupture of the fuel tanks started an extremely hot fire that weakened the buildings' structural steel and caused the Trade Center's deadly crumpling. No building could have survived such a blow, expert after expert has said.

-snip-


"I said: 'At least it hasn't fallen yet, But if they don't get the fire out, it will.' " ... ??? And then, everybody knows what happened...??? THIS SHIT IS COMEDY GOLD, JERRY! GOLD! Bahahahahahahah! And that just a scant two months after the attacks considering this was published on 6 Dec, 2001.

Actually, if I recall correctly, the mystery of 9/11 was solved and settled beginning from only 30 minutes into it. By 90 minutes, Osama bin laden was the culprit, al Qaeda was the terrorist organization, and fires bring down two gigantic building. All a part of the American culture and experience delivered at precisely the moments of shock and awe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
34. I'll tell you what I'm going to do after I get some sleep.
You see those peer-review paper citings in the OP like (Jones 2006, Legge and
Szamboti 2007) and (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004)? Well, I'm going to go and
fact check some of those so I can get your read on them. I really need someone who knows his
stuff about this subject so I don't accidentally get sucked into a tinfoil vortex. I need you
to put forth a rebuttal to these studies and show me, and them, the error of our ways.

After all, you have done your fact-checking otherwise you probably would not have reached the following conclusion - and I quote:

"This is why the "truth" movement is such a laughingstock, inasmuch as it, apparently, cannot even manage to get basic facts correct. If these false claims are repeated knowingly (as I suspect) or even unknowingly (because the speaker hasn't bothered to subject the claims to the same rigorous standards they demand of the "official story"), why should we remotely believe anything else they have to say? What I find most ironic is how the self-styled and self-named "truth movement" has so little regard for the actual truth. As a liberal (you know...utilizing facts, science and logic), you guys embarrass me."

You must rise up to the challenge and show us where we lost our way. Please, tell us the sacred
secrets that form the basis of fire-induced collapse. Because, I gotta tell you, NIST or FEMA or WPI, The 911 Commission, the joint, closed-door deposition of boosh & cheeney, has given me a shred of evidence that they didn't MAKE IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE!

Please, oh please, SDuderstadt, show me the error of my ways before the truth totally consumes me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
28. Video:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #28
41. The correct term that SHOULD be in the title of that video is...
Molten Metal not Molten Iron. The metal would be a mixture of various metals found in the buildings and thus would have different properties than pure Iron.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #41
47. Please show which study determined that. I would be very interested
in seeing the results of such a study. Should be as beleivable as NIST's reports are. And entertaining reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. I do not think you need a study...
Other metals were present in the WTCs right? Aluminum from various objects in the offices for example?

Aluminums melting temperature is lower than that of steel correct?

Wouldn't their be at least SOME other metals found in an pool of molten metal?
If not what mechanism do you propose kept any other lower melting point metals form melting?

Given the mixture of metals in the debris and no mechanism for keeping them separate I think it an unreasonable conclusion to think the metal was pure Iron.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #50
56. but if there was iron in it...
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 11:10 AM by wildbilln864
what melted it? Sure, if there was molten iron, I'd expect it to be contaminated with a lot of other materials. But what melted it in the first place? What does your research show may have caused the steel to be melted? Don't try to ignore the molten iron!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #56
62. I wasn't trying to ignore it.
I was trying to point out that assumptions of pure iron are erroneous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. you'd be correct there but who said "pure iron"? nt
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 11:19 AM by wildbilln864
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #65
78. Jeasus bill
all I said was that the video title would be more accurate if it said 'molten metal' instead of 'molten iron'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #78
147. Okay.
I agree.
BTW, that's "Jesus", not "Jeasus". :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #50
68. No. I ABSOLUTELY DO require that you provide a scientific forensic
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 11:22 AM by Texas Explorer
study to back up your bullshit! In fact, I insist that all of you MIHOP deniers produce scientific, peer-reviewed, studies to back your claims. Otherwise, you are nothing but co-adjutants who are attempting to argue with people whom you think are nuts.


If you can't, then please withhold your opinion until you have something to substantiate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. And I, in turn, demand that you provide proof that Dr. Barnett is
complicit in a criminal conspiracy.

You slander a fine man, sir, and I take great issue with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #71
74. but you'll get over it...
eventually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #71
77. I don't care. You slander the good PhDs who actually did scientific
studies and favor servants of FEMA. There are several papers for you to read in the OP. Now, please provide studies to back your case.

If you can't, I won't take issue with you. Because your opinions aren't worth taking issue with. Not that you feel the same about mine. In fact, you debate those whom you deem psycho. Kinda puts the kibosh on anything you say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. Precisely whom did I slander? Please provide the quote.
If you can't then please retract your statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #79
81. Uh, you called Ryan a LIAR. Duh. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #81
85. BZZZZT. Wrong. Show me where I said that or retract it. Simple.
If you won't do it then let the record show that YOU sir, are a liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #85
87. Hey Flatulo...
I haven't seen you around here in a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #87
221. Hi RH... work has been hellish - I've been lurking, mostly. Hope all is well with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #221
223. As well as it ever is.
Hope things calm down at work for you.

Quite a thread we had today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #223
225. Yeah, looks like someone took their ball and went home.
Props to you for remaining civil and rational. I had to bite my tongue a few times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #225
229. Yeah. I've gone. You may want to hang out here and debate those
you see as delusional but I would rather not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #225
231. I would say I stayed semi-rational at best.
And I think my tongue is still bleeding from biting it so hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #85
92. My bad, it was another
911 Commission Report-thumper that said that. So, you agree with Ryan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #92
99. Thanks for admitting your error.
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 11:58 AM by Flatulo
I am not a metallurgist, so my opinion on the OP is meaningless. I have some acquaintance with Ryan's past works, and he has made at least one well-documented error that I am aware of (individual steel components are not UL heat tested; only completed assemblies). I will read the OP more closely and try to understand it.

I do resent the quick-draw condemnations of any academic who provided consulting the either FEMA or NIST, especially when I personally know the accused and consider him a mentor and role model.

Most engineers are pretty objective, but they are human and therefore fallable. Initial theories are often incomplete and get replaced with better theories. For example, Barnett originally had no explanation for the extreme sulfidic erosion of the steel he examined. Later, he and others posited that the large quantites of gypsum could have been the reagent.

If he was in on some conspiracy, why would he report on the erosion and then offer no explanation for it when he could have just buried it? He just presented his findings. No big conspiracy there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #81
226. You mean Kevin Ryan?
I don't think he's a PhD.

Oh, and he's an idiot. Or a liar. Or both - I'm not sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #50
73. Oh, and by the way, nobody ever said that the spherules were
pure iron. In fact, they are described as being "iron-rich", which leaves room for other materials. And, as a metal tradesman, I can tell you that the ONLY metal used in steel structural columns is STEEL, not aluminum or any other metal. When a building is erected, no other metal is attached, or found adjacent to, the steel structure with the exception in some cases of the copper in wiring and the galvanized electrical conduits - which are steel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #73
75. Texas Explorer....
:yourock: IMO of course. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #75
80. Thank you. I'm no "truther" in the insultive way
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 11:36 AM by Texas Explorer
911 Commission Report-thumpers would portray people who don't believe the official story. I'm just a citizen who sees that something doesn't add up and I'm using my common sense and intelligence to look for anwwers. I'm not nuts and I'm not part of any movement. I just don't believe the official story. I haven't even decided if the buildings came down as a result of FEMA's help. But I'm getting there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #73
83. I think we have a case of misscomunication...
All I was pointing out was that any molten metal in the debris pile at the WTC would be a mixture of metals.

Is that a statement you actually want to take issue with?

Regardless of construction technique the buildings um... collapsed. So you would have steel beams next to copper wires, aluminum cases, zinc from various sources, etc. etc.

No all I am saying is that it is extraordinarily unlikely that any molten metal in the debris pile would be pure anything.
I think based on your statements that you would actually agree with that but I could be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #83
105. I do agree. There is no expectation of "pure" iron, especially in the
pools of "molten lava" (as described by NYFD firefighters) under the debris.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. Which means this hole disscussion is probobly my fault...
for not being more clear in my first post.

That was all I was trying to point out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #47
51. well that was realityhack's own research.
I'm sure there'll be a peer reviewed paper shortly! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #51
63. Bill do you claim it was pure iron? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #63
67. see post #56. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #67
76. So you agree with me...
and yet you chose to make fun of my statement like some grade school dipshit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #76
82. Actually, no intelligent person who is capable of thinking objectively
agrees with you. You are a nut case who drinks neo-con-flavored kool-aid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #82
86. I think it is 2008... according to you... no sane person agrees. Great logic. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #82
94. Interestingly YOU agree with me on some things.
Not everything. But on some things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #94
97. That's because my mind isn't made up about what actually
brought those buildings down. But as a former collegiate physics major and as a metal construction tradesman, the "official" story makes no sense. And NIST makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #97
103. Ok.
I am glad we calmed down a bit.

I would be interested in knowing what specific parts of the NIST report you find make no sense. I am open to being wrong. The NIST reports do seem plausible to me given my limited study of them (I admit I have not read the full complete reports), but if there are errors I am definitely interested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #103
112. Well, the first thing is that, despite knowing what thermites can do
and being intimately involved with it's R&D, they are acting as if they can't even fathom the posibililty that it was indeed used. They didn't even take it into consideration nor did they test it. It's reminiscent of the boosh administration's claim that they could have never envisioned planes being used as missiles to be flown into tall buildings when there is so much evidence that they did, in fact, envision such a scenario.

Also, NIST's animation is laughable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #112
126. which animation? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #126
136. The one that show's the purported iniitation of collapse but which
stops shortly after collapse begins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #136
137. Are we talking WTC 1 & 2 or 7?... do you have a link? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #137
142. Here ya go...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #142
144. are you talking about the one labled "Visualization Model of WTC Collapse"? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #126
184. please address the point made in the post....
"despite knowing what thermites can do
and being intimately involved with it's R&D, they are acting as if they can't even fathom the posibililty that it was indeed used. They didn't even take it into consideration nor did they test it. "
Which animation is irrelevant to that. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #184
185. Which ARE relevent to that? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #185
189. if you can't figure that out....
then nevermind!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #189
195. Bill... as far as I can tell from re-reading the relevent part of the thread...
Texas explorer just called the NIST animations laughable. He didn't claim they were relevant to any thermite theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #76
145. You asked was it pure iron...
I said probably not. You're making no sense. Your name calling is against the rules. For some of us at least!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
35. Kick
You have dug up some interesting facts.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
37. Interesting... Thanks!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
38. The responsible thing to do is to state clearly in the OP title
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 09:58 AM by LARED
that you are posting nonsense from Kevin Ryan.

Sort of like posting a warning sign that readers are about to enter a sophistic roller coaster ride though the mind of a deluded, con man that sucks the life out of truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. Much less odious than the stench emanating from the fetid minds of the DUOCT
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Ryan is an established sophist, and many would add outright liar
I'm not aware of ANY of the so called DUOCT having those credentials?

If there are any please point them out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. Oh? And I suppose Corley and Barnett are the truthers? Please, do elaborate. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #42
48. Please cite the proof that Ryan is a sophist and a liar and then show
us where NIST officials are not liars.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #48
104. I take it logic isn't your strong suit
Why do truthers always demand unprovable things?

"and then show us where NIST officials are not liars." Texas Explorer.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. No, logic is not YOUR strong suit. After all, it is YOU who believes the "official" story. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. Geez, how could anyone argue with that logic.
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 12:19 PM by LARED
So are you saying that because I call Ryan a sophist, or I believe the official story? Is that your logic?

edit for clarity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #110
115. Do you believe the "official" story? And, if not, what brought the
buildings down?

If you say it was airplanes and fire, then YOU are devoid of logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. "If you say it was airplanes and fire, then YOU are devoid of logic."
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 12:20 PM by LARED
Another brilliant argument. Care to make a case based on logic and evidence that something other than airplanes and fires brought down the towers?

If you did you would be the very first CT'er to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #116
146. Care to make a case based on logic and evidence that airplanes and fires
brought down the towers?

After all, all you did was turn my question to you around and throw it back at me.

Also, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. It's obvious that there is no theory here. Only conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #146
177. See here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #48
109. Ryan starts off well
first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.

I don't have access to a copy of NFPA 921, but I will bet you dollars to donuts there is not a single requirement for testing for thermite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #109
132. Don't just say it doesn't. Go find it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #132
157. You going to front the $72? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #157
158. Nope. It is you who is betting "dollars to donuts
there is not a single requirement for testing for thermite."

So you purchase the thing and tell me whether or not it mentions thermite. For now, I'll suppose Ryan has already done that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #158
159. It wasn't me. It was another poster.
I was just pointing out that unlike some things it isn't something he can just find a link to and search online.

I have no idea if it talks about thermite.

If Ryan has done this he should probably provide a quote or at least a page number etc. Hey could be correct but I am not going to buy the standard to find out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. You are right. My bad. I redirect the comment to LARED. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #132
166. Sure I'll spend the money to buy it, Not.
But I'm quite sure the NFPA does not say to test for thermite. I use and have access to much of the NFPA literature, and it would be very out of character for a guideline to call for testing of a particular material. Also it is up to Ryan to establish the truth of what he writes. Something you and i will wait forever to happen be he is full of BS now and since the day he wrote that idiotic letter that got him fired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #166
171. I shouldn't have expected anything more than the investigation of these
events that has taken place in your own head. I'm quite sure that you've been told what to think and that is that.

The burden was left to Barnett, the government, FEMA, et. al. And they failed. And not only did they fail to explain the collapses of all three towers, they avoided explaining it and then lied to cover up their complicity.

You are discredited, and shamed, by your logic. Try thinking for yourself, "gullibite".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #171
174. In this case the burdon of proof is clear.
If someone makes the claim that a standard says X the burden of proof is on them.

It doesn't matter what the burden of proof is for other things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #174
197. No! The burden of proof is on the fucking government. And they
haven't proved jack shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #197
203. If they make a claim then yes it is...
for example the burden of proof for the model in the NIST report is on authors.

If Ryan makes a claim the burden of proof is on him.

Ryan made a claim that a particular standard said something. He should have provided evidence that it does as it is not something that can be easily looked up by any member of the public (ie. it costs $72).

I am not saying he is wrong (though I suspect he is). I am saying when he makes a claim the burden of proof is on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #171
198. Nonsense. the burden of proof is on Ryan.
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 03:03 PM by LARED
Tell you what, if NFPA 921 says testing for Thermite is a requirement I will write Ryan a letter of apology and post it in this forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #198
200. No it isn't! tThe burden of proof is on THE GOVERNMENT! It's not
Ryan's job to explain what happened on 911!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #200
202. You're off the logic wagon again
Ryan job is to establish that NFPA 921 states to test for Thermite as he claims in this paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #202
208. You want a fact-check on this? Fine. I'll see what I can do. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #200
215. Are you suggesting that the government should also prove that
there were no nukes, no space beams, no holograms, no <insert internet theory here>? Afer all, others believe in their pet theories just as strongly, if not more so, that nano-thermite could have been used.

That's a mighty tall order, wouldn't you say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #109
152. so basicly you're arguing based solely on your "bet dollars to donuts" opinion!
Okay, got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #152
167. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #167
182. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #182
191. Willbill is a great guy, and I love him, but is specialty is posting
one line OP's with links to youtube videos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #191
213. I like to get straight to it....
and avoid all the long boring bullshit. :hi: Love you too, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #48
168. Ryan references himself to try and establish facts. Yawn,
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 03:00 PM by LARED
How scholarly.

the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.

edit: Ryan does establish the NIST has expertize in explosives (no kidding it's the NIST), what he claims is that WTC investigators have this expertize, something he fails to establish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #48
169. More complete BS from Ryan
There is also substantial evidence that aluminothermic (thermite) materials were present at the WTC
(Jones 2007), and the presence of such materials can explain the existence of intense fire where it would not otherwise have existed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #48
175. Extensive use of illogic and fantasy stats
The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008).

This guy Ryan is sheer genius. He discovered that it's an "amazing correlation" between the impact zones and the failures. Not for nothing but a six year old could figure that one out. As such there is no amazing correlation, just Ryan's active imagination that spray on nano-thermite is needed to explain the correlation between the impact zones and the failure point. He really must think people are stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #175
178. That is a truely astounding quote.
The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008).
Emphasis added.

How can you even type that without bursting out laughing?

(picture in my head)
OMG! I just realized... the buildings seem to fail... RIGHT where they are damaged! The floors that are dammaged are the SAME FLOORS!!!!!! that seem to fail. We need to study this! With Nano-thermite and this amazing coincidence we can EXPLAIN EVERYTHING!!11!!1!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #178
205. Truly amazing, yet CT'ers read it without even blinking - nt
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 03:05 PM by LARED
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #48
176. Here's another good one
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 02:57 PM by LARED
The Port Authoritys engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the
fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of alternative materials (NIST 2005). Such
alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent
paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that
this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.


I'm sure the PA substituted nano-thermite materials into their spec's to use during upgrades. No one knows if these materials in an insulation form even exists. Let alone explain how or why this is material to Ryan fictional accounts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #176
204. Ha! It's obvious you either didn't read the report or you just saw
who wrote it and discounted it based solely on your "gullibite" bias.

Either way, I can no longer listen to your unfounded and un-cited rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #204
206. Not true I forced myself to read the report in full
What did I miss?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #48
187. Ryan is a just lame
He list the top ten reasons why nano-thermites, and nano-thermite coatings, should
have come to mind quickly for the NIST WTC investigators.

Of the ten reason listed maybe two people have a direct relationship to the WTC work. The rest are what seem to be normal endeavors for an organization the size and scope of the NIST.

From http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/general2.htm

NIST's FY 2008 resources total $931.5 million. The agency operates in two locations: Gaithersburg, Md., (headquarters234-hectare/578-acre campus) and Boulder, Colo., (84-hectare/208-acre campus). NIST employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel. Also, NIST hosts about 2,600 associates and facility users from academia, industry, and other government agencies. In addition, NIST partners with 1,600 manufacturing specialists and staff at about 400 MEP service locations around the country.

A billion dollar budget that host's or partners with 2600 organization, and 1600 manufactures.Based on Ryan's standards for inclusion in his fantasies, I'm surprised it's not 100 reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #42
52. Please explain how the microscopic iron spheres found in the
dust at GZ were formed as per Jones, if not as Jones asserts?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-41869209675711...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #42
53. What is Ryan, et. al.'s, motive for lying? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #42
54. What is your motive for debating people whom you think are crazy? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #42
57. What is architect Gage's motive for lying? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #42
58. What is Dr. Jones' motivation for lying? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #58
72. Interesting. You assume Barnett is lying, and you assume Jones
is telling the truth.

You have some cognizant dissonance on your sleeve, and a bit of confirmation bias on your shirt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #72
84. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #84
89. You are very rude. Please stop telling people who disagree with you
to go away. It's against the rules.

If you have solid proof that Barnett is a criminal, please post it. Otherwise, stop slandering this man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #89
93. Barnett is a liar for FEMA. 'Nuff said. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #93
95. Excellent proof. I'm convinced. Well done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #95
98. And, still, all you have to offer is hot air. Your opinion, and thus every
post you make, is irrelevant. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #98
114. I think you will find that my posts are not irrelevant. Please review my past postings if you care.
I am a degreed mechanical engineer with over 30 years of experience. I am happy to provide my credentials to anyone who thinks I am a liar. I am not a PE or structural engineer, but I did take and ace every ME course that WPI had to offer through the graduate level. I analyzed thousands of trusses back in the day, even though my current line of work mostly involves sub-micron mechanical vibratiions and resonances.

In some of my early posts on DU I provided the calculations showing how much energy was transferred from the 767 impacts into the towers. If I recall correctly, it was 2.83 GJoules, which is a significant percentage of the Hiroshima bomb, and also roughly equivalent to the Murrah Federal Building truck bomb.

It is my informed opinion that the structural damage caused by the airplane impacts, coupled with fire, was the only cause of WTC1 & 2 collapsing. I am still trying to absorb the Bldg 7 report.

I will add that I believe that the information to disrupt the attacks was available, at least piecemeal, to various elements of the US intelligence apparatus, but for reasons unclear to me, the information was not used to prevent the attacks. How high up this negligence goes is not known to me.

I reject all theories of CD, nukes, energy weapons, no-planes, etc.

Reports of thermite nano-spheres may make good reading, but because something may be possible does not mean that it happened. I require a higher standard of proof - like what a court of law would require.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #114
120. Your "informed" opinion tells me that anyone who hires you
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 12:28 PM by Texas Explorer
should also take out insurance from the same insurers patronized by Larry Silverstein.

Your rejection of CD makes anything you say irrelevant, despite your credentials.

Sorry.


Edited to add: Perhaps I've been a bit hasty in my judgement of your opinion. Please shoot me over a copy of your scietific study of the collapse or any other studies you are privy to. I will digest them and will retract my comments if I am wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. Ah well, we'll just have to disagree on this. Good day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #122
127. Your study and those you're privy to please. Don't just go off
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 12:34 PM by Texas Explorer
with your tail between your legs because some guy in Texas in his underwear challenges you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #127
134. That is more information than was needed n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #134
154. lol....
see, we agree on that. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #127
161. I'm not going off with my tail between my legs.
Look up 'invincible ignorance' and you'll see why I don't want to play with you anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #161
163. 'invincible ignorance'? Perfect description of those who
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 02:19 PM by Texas Explorer
masturbate the FEMA, NIST, and the boosh/cheeney Fed.

NEXT!

Edited to add: Isn't it typical that you gullibite masturbators of the "official" story continuously refuse to cite scientific studies to back your ridiculous claims? Still, you have not provided your study or any other that is not sanctioned by those who serve as the inplements that bring booshco to the point of ejaculation of their spooge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #120
162. You know, there are a few people on this board who sincerely believe
that nuclear bombs were used to destroy the towers.

Other believe that no planes were used in the attacks.

Still others believe that an energy beam from space was used.

All of these are possible, but highly improbable.

Making up a theory don't make it so. That is not how science and engineering work.

The way that science and engineering work is that you try to model the phenomenon that you are studying. If the model performs like the phenomenon, then it is probably a pretty good model. If the model fails miserably, then you start over with a new model. Rinse, lather and repeat.

But the very first step to understanding is to clear your mind of all your preconceived notions. People who cannot disassociate themselves from their hatred of Bush are incapable of seeing any other possibilities than that they somehow did this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #162
188. Very good point. It does indeed look to me like NIST
prepared a model and a report that fits booshco's version of the events - without even considering, much less testing for, the presense of thermites! That despite their intimate ties with the stuff, which they claim they can't even imagine having been used based on there being no BOOM! on audio, at least none that we're allowed to examine.

That's a neat little trick!


PS: I've asked you repeatedly for sources and studies, including your own. I have no other use for a "gullibite" who doesn't deliver on their rhetoric.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #188
193. Um. I think you are mixing a few things up there.
"Very good point. It does indeed look to me like NIST prepared a model and a report that fits booshco's version of the events - without even considering, much less testing for, the presense of thermites! That despite their intimate ties with the stuff, which they claim they can't even imagine having been used based on there being no BOOM! on audio, at least none that we're allowed to examine."

They did not dismiss thermite on the basis of no audio. They dismissed explosives on that basis.

Isn't it possible that their knowledge of thermite is exactly why they can't imagine it having been used?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #193
201. Isn't it possible that their knowledge of thermite is exactly
why they can't imagine it having been used?"

Not without any substantiation of such. And, since they are part of a criminal government, substantiation is a pipe dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #201
207. ok. fair enough.
Substantiation is a good thing to look for.

However, it is not a requirement for something to be considered a possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #188
219. Well, yeah, I understand the OP. NIST did not test for something
that Ryan (and yourself apparently) feel should have been studied. I get it.

But as strongly as you feel that nano-thermite could have been the culprit, others feel that nukes or DEW or holograms or missiles were used. Should NIST have proceeded along these lines as well?

We had clear evidence of massive structural damage followed by fires. Building designers fireproof beams because they can indeed be weakened by sustained heat. This was th emost logical model to prepare.

As for my studies, they are scattered around the dungeon. Feel free to peruse for them. I'm damned if I know where they are. If you have a physics background as you've indicated elsewhere, they should be pretty straightforward - just energy stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #42
60. see post #45!
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #38
44. OK, genious, let's here your analysis. Let's here how Corley and Barnett
are any less credible than Ryan?

I'm waiting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #38
143. Uh, and how many years have you worked as a respected
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 12:54 PM by truedelphi
Underwriter's Laboratory researcher?

oh, I forgot, NONE!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #143
209. More 9/11 mythology - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
39. I would be interested to know...
just how explosive nano-thermite is. The information I have seen indicates that it releases energy multiple orders of magnitude faster than standard thermite and qualifies as a 'high explosive' (I am not sure of the technical definition of a high explosive).

A lot of people seem to get very excited when words terms like nano are attached to something. If nano-thermite is an explosive then what is the difference between explanations involving traditional explosives and nano-thermite theories.

Also this would make the comparisons to normal thermite questionable at best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #39
61. so do some reasearch and find out! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #61
66. Gee bill that never occured to me
:sarcasm:

When I have a chance I will.
In the mean time I figured those who put the theory forward might be able to provide a handy link.

Actually that is a lie. I figured they SHOULD be able to provide a link or at least answer the question because it is fundamental to their idea... but I did not expect them to be able to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
46. great post, thanks! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
55. So during the Clinton administration, spray on nano-thermite
was applied to the WTC as they upgraded the fire proofing. And government agencies led by democrats were involved? Interesting - looks like the truth movement is preparing for an Obama administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #55
64. Whow me the evidence of how the government, led by Democrats
in the Clinton admin was involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #64
70. All these evil people you point out were working for a democratic administration
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 11:25 AM by hack89
when they were developing nano-thermite and planning 911, weren't they? Obviously a plot by Clinton to embarrass Bush. I mean, look at the Clinton death list and his drug dealings - clearly he is capable of pulling off 911.

I understand - the truth movement has to keep the 911 gravy train rolling under Obama when all the Bush haters go away. So now they will cater to the Clinton/Obama haters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #70
101. What? The DoD is a partisan organization? If I recall correctly,
the DoD works on weapons programs despite whoever the president is. Why make Clinton responsible for 911 just because bush used a weapon. Just because thermite was researched during the Clinton administration doesn't mean the Clinton administration decided to use it to destroy the WTC. Just because cheeney decides to use it to cause a false-flag event doesn't mean it's the Dems or Clinton's fault. It was being developed by DoD as part of their tool box. It was used by boosh to propogate the demolition of WTC under the cover of jetliners crashing into the buildings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #101
111. I think what hack is getting at...
is that some people have argued the thermite was sprayed on when fire proofing was replaced.
Which is a fairly silly idea anyway but...
That would indicate the plan was put in place during the Clinton administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #111
155. self deleted...nt
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 01:31 PM by wildbilln864
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #101
121. How long did it take to get all these people in the right places
to make 911 happen or to facilitate the cover up? Years I would imagine. Your OP suggests that the nano-thermite was sprayed on during fire proofing upgrades - which happened during the Clinton administration. Either Clinton was blind to the plot or part of it. I bet the truth movement says he is part of it when Obama takes over. Only way to keep selling DVDs you know.

The DoD is run by politically appointed civilians - a whole bunch of them. How else were the air defenses of the US circumvented on 911 if the DoD was a non-partisan organization - had to get the right people in the right places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #121
124. Yes, the fire-proofing was done during Clinton's admin. But so was
the planning for the coup that installed boosh and cheeney, which means the planning for 9/11 could also have been in the planning, especailly with Marvin Bush as head of security and cheeney as head of Halliburton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #124
149. So government agencies were infiltrated right under Clinton's nose
Sure they were. You know damn well Clinton was in on it - why else would the Democrats on the 911 Commission help Cheney whitewash 911?

Come - you need to look to the future. Don't you want to be peddling 911 "truth" when Bush is out of office?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #149
151. I don't know if Clinton was in on it or not. In fact, thanks to my own
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 01:21 PM by Texas Explorer
government's inability to conduct a proper investigation, I have no idea what the truth is. They have just spurred me to the issue exactly because they haven't convinced me it was planes and fire.

As far as I know, Clinton was involved in it. But, I'm not going to stand up for him just because I happen to have interacted with him, as some here are wont to do, ie: Flatulo's faith in Barnett.

Edited to add: I was formerly a gubenatorial supporter and volunteer for Clinton during his second campaign in Arkansas and attended college there with a major in Physics as well as a member of the Young Democrats of America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #124
150. You know of course that ole Marvin was not head of security, don't you?
Edited on Sat Aug-30-08 01:07 PM by hack89
You are a year or two behind on your truther talking points - should spend some time in the archives.

On edit: even your fellow truthers have figured it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #150
156. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #124
173. You just cracked out of turn.
Some of the CT sites you've been cruising are out of date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #173
181. "cracked out of turn"??
Not sure I followed that. I know he screwed up on the head of WTC security... but what does your phrase mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #181
218. Oh, it's an old saw from the movies, when someone says something
they're will later wish they hadn't.

I guess I'm dating myself. (No one else would date me ha ha)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
153. K & R'ed n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
194. OK!!! NOW ALL MY POSTS AND MY POINTS ARE BEING
DELETED. IF THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE, THEN I'LL JUST BE ON MY FUCKING WAY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #194
196. Posts are deleted when they break the rules. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #196
199. My points are being systematically removed. That is destroying
this entire thread.

That is not democracy. So much for "DEMOCRATIC"Underground!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #194
214. Maybe if you tried being more civil... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #214
228. Um, this is not civil:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

If you'll follow, you'll see that it is at that point that I became uncivil. And, I was called a "truther" and a "conspiracy theorist", among other things, and I was insulted and disrepected several times. If people want to be uncivil and insulting and rude to me, then that is what they will get in return. I have demonstrated twice in this thread that I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. And I have stated that I am investigating really for the first time and that I will make mistakes. I have stated that I am not part of any group that you call in a derogatory connotation "truthers".

I am a thinker. And I think the "official" story stinks to high hell. But none of that is any reason to behave as some here have. And, frankly, I don't understand why some people are so vitriolic and downright mean in defense of this criminal government. If you don't believe there is another "truth" to the story of 9/11 and you are happy with your assertions that it was a gravitational collapse, then why on earth would you waste your time with those of us you see as being nuts? After all, you could just leave us in this dungeon and let us babble to each other. Don't bother answering. I already know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #228
230. Your link is deleted, but I'll try to address some of your points....
For starters, I have refrained from addressing others as Truthers or CTers for quite some time now, so your beef may be with other posters.

Secondly, I did follow this whole thread pretty closely, and if I recall, you were the one who started telling people to 'fuck off', including myself. You went on to call me a FEMA masturbator and some other things that were not very nice.

Thirdly, you enthusiastically trashed anyone who questioned or otherwise took issue with Ryan's nano-thermate theory. As you have acknowledged, you are new to the 9/11 Truth Movement, and yet you are defending more or less to the death one of a multitude of alternate theories whose implementation are unsupported by any witnesses, whistleblowers, experimentation or mathematical modeling.

You exhort everyone to question the OCT, but attack anyone who questions your pet alternate theory. Isn't that a double standard? What are Ryan's credentials? Have you seen his resume? Does he earn his living now by writing about alternate 9/11 theories? Could this motivate or influence the content and nature of his work? Are these valid questions to ask? Did you ask them?

You impugned the reputation and motives of Dr. J. Barnett. Did you apply the same rigorous standards to your background investigation of Mr. Ryan? Has Mr. Ryan ever worked for or taken money from the government of GWB? Does this taint him for all eternity?

Lastly, I agree that some people here can get nasty from time to time. I do it myself. I try not to.

I bear you no ill, bro. I hope that we can meet in another thread and start over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
210. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #210
212. When you find that NFPA 921 states testing for thermite is required
feel free to start a new thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #210
222. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
211. "peer reviewed" (tm)
The 'Journal of 9/11 Studies' claims to be "peer reviewed". Who on earth do they have doing this review? I just pulled up a random article that looked interesting form their list (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/911andPr... ) and I must say... I can not imagine that being published in a peer reviewed publication. In fact I can't even see it getting a passing grade in a college course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
220. This thread is teh awesome! ( n/t )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #220
224. That may be the best thread summary ever. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #220
227. Moar! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC