Sunday, April 19, 2009

A final word on Niels Harrit, nanothermite, 9/11 "truth" and basic common sense

Please note the previous two entries before reading this item:

Who brought down the Twin Towers? A bunch of crazy Arabs, that's who.

Controlled demolitions, thermite and YOU.

Back yet? Ok, let's continue.

So - I felt the need (after another brave Anonymous "truther" kept me up until 3 am reading a psuedo-scientific paper) to put a final stamp on this topic before moving on. Last night, I was forced to actually delve into Niels Harrit's magical mystery tour and actually address the "facts" that were presented within it once and for all. It unfortunately turns out that despite the hopes of the conspiracy people that the more I "search for the truth" the more I will turn to their side...the more I read about this the LESS convinced I am that there is any merit whatsoever to this study.

Here's the abstract from the report if you don't feel like downloading/reading the entire thing (which I could hardly blame you for):

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

It's hard for me...or anyone with a modicum of common sense to take this report seriously when the items they based this report on were given to them by residents of Lower Manhattan almost SIX YEARS after the Towers fell. These samples were not kept in sterile environments by any stretch of the imagination and were handled by ordinary, non-scientist New Yorkers.

Referring to these samples, the report itself states the following:

The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sul-fur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wall-
board material in the buildings.


So by their own admission the scientists are saying that in SIX YEARS that the samples, which were hanging out in lay peoples' homes they MAY have been contaminated. Wow, really?

The paper also never actually says that material in question is nanothermite or even regular thermite...rather that...

These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere

So it REMINDED them of a substance that no one aside for 9/11 conspiracy people apparently knows anything about. Can they conclusively say exactly what it is? Well...

We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study.

...not really. You see they can't really get their hands on this nano stuff because we're not sure it really exists. Ok. And further...

All these data suggest that the thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nano-thermite

How incredibly conclusive! I have some suggestions of my own. Well at least they're not jumping to any conclusions right?

We make no at-tempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains.

Why bother making an attempt to actually identify this substance, right?

Well that's ok, at least we know for sure it's not paint chips right? Well of course not! Because...

we have shown that the red material contains both elemental aluminum and iron oxide

Oh. I see. There's iron oxide (rust) and aluminum in this mixture. There's no WAY that rust or aluminum could possibly have gotten into the Twin Towers. Except of course that the Twin Towers had tons upon tons of aluminum and every building in history that had iron it also had oxidized iron (rust) in it.

How totally convincing. It's stunning even! How could anyone ignore this incredibly conclusive evidence!

The material they found, that had been contaminated over six years, reminded them of nanothermite or regular thermite but probably nanothermite no really it's almost definitely the nano kind. Or it might be just regular paint. Except that it also has rust and aluminum in it. Which may be a result of the contamination or it may just be because those two substances are present in just about every structure in the history of construction.

What's even better though, is that the inconclusiveness of this paper (and it's really stunningly inconclusive) aside...it doesn't answer any of the following issues I've raised in my previous entries:

-How did they got 10 to 100 tons of this highly dangerous substance into three buildings right under the noses of the very people they were going to kill?

-How did they detonate this substance? Was it a timer? Remote control? Telepathy?

-How did they know exactly where the planes were going to hit in order to plant the explosives in a way that would make it seem that the structure of the building gave way right around the point of impact? Because that's what it looked like to me. Also that's what it looked like to the rest of the world.

-Perhaps most importantly...if this material is as highly explosive and reactive as everyone says it is, why didn't it explode as soon as it came in contact with the burning hot flaming jet fuel that exploded all around it? Why didn't the buildings collapse immediately after the planes hit? Did this substance just decide to wait to react to the fire?

-100 other issues I've brought up about this conspiracy.

Now it's not surprising that this paper doesn't deal with any of this...aside from the fact that the writers all live in a parallel universe where plutonium is available at every corner drugstore



and addressing these issues would force them to come back to reality, this is a scientific study that is meant to address one simple question:

IS THERE NANOTHERMITE IN THE DUST/RUBBLE THAT USED TO BE THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

And the answer...is a resounding "MAYBE? UHHH AT LEAST WE THINK IT COULD BE."

Like I've said previously, I'm not a scientist. I'm not a structural engineer. I may be completely off-base with my analysis of their methods but the one thing I AM good with is common sense. If you want to ignore the fact that this scam would be impossible to pull off in reality (especially in the reality of a world with internet and a 24/7 TV news cycle) without someone finding out that's one thing. But if you're really going to jump just because some Danish physicist and a bunch of sociologists and psychologists told you they MAY have found something that they still have no proof could actually knock down a building and would be entirely unqualified to comment on even if they did...then God bless you but I can't be bothered to show you why you're wasting your time.

I've already spent enough time on this and while it was kind of fun living in the Wonderland for a week or so,



Israel Independence Day (Yom Ha'atzmaut) is coming up and I should have my hands full with the real issues. I'll still respond to comments when they come up as I'm sure fans of this topic will continue to haunt me the same way that Ben Wedeman and Jon Stewart fans continue to pop up on occasion and send me fun little emails. It's interesting by the way what topics continue to generate traffic months and even years after I post them, but that's a whole different topic entirely.

Anyway, to the 9/11 conspiracy people I say it's been real, it's been nice...but it hasn't been real nice.

I want the last week of my life back...

UPDATE: Two major new developments concerning this topic can be found clicking here. Apparently the editor of the journal this paper was published in, has resigned in protest and the methodology for these experiments was botched in several ways.


244 comments:

1 – 200 of 244   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

I stumbled on your site and I am surprised? Frightened? Apalled? By some of your commenters. I applaud your patience in replying to the nonsense they write to you. You are organized and well informed with plenty to back up your arguments.

I applaud you.

RonMossad said...

Thanks Mr./Mrs. Anonymous - let me know if you want me to add you to my mailing list when I update the site. My email is listed in my profile. Oh and tell your friends!

Anonymous said...

You are one ignorant fool. If you took a science class since the third grade, it doesn't show.

RonMossad said...

My, what an excellent rebuttal you've drawn up there!

wardogs said...

Thank you Ron for both your patience and equanimity in dealing with this subject.

I am owner and trainer of a K9 training and deployment company in FL. We have been breeding, training and deploying our purpose bred explosive detection and SAR dogs for over 40 years as well as training K9's for the Military, LE and private industry.

In addition we are a FEMA Incident Response Team/First Responder K9 unit for FEMA Task Force II, Miami.

It was in the latter capacity that we were went to NY on 9/11 as part of the FL Task Force, arriving on scene about 3 1/2 hours after the second tower fell. We went with 4 of our dogs and handlers. Our main function was US&R, live person, (not cadaver search) but all of our dogs are cross trained in several disciplines, including EDD and Incendiary detection. In addition, of the over 300 K9 teams that came from all over the world, there were more than 70 other EDD K9's present on site. This is on top of the 6 full time EDD dogs employed full time at the WTC site, 3 of which I had trained personally. Besides the presence of the normal team that patrolled in shifts 24/7, there had been an ADDITIONAL team of 16 explosives interdiction K9's on duty for several weeks prior to the attack. They were there in response to bomb threats against the center (unrelated) and had only been removed 5 days prior to the attack. 6 of those dogs were also trained by our company.

No explosives or incendiary devices were planted anywhere in that complex. None. Our dogs and the other EDD K9's would have alerted after the fact as well. It's what they are trained for. We staged for the two weeks we were there at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. This is where much of the structural steel was brought. Despite rumors to the contrary, chain of custody was maintained and virtually all of the steel was cataloged and vital pieces were inspected. Not a single dog ever alerted to the presence of either explosives or incendiary residue.
Not one.

Two K9's were lost at 9/11 and dozens more injured. One was our lead dog and the other was one of our trainees, EDD dog "Sirius".

Sirius was K9 Officer #17 of the Port Authority Police Dept. He had just finished his rounds with his handler, David Lim on the morning of the attack. When the first plan hit David placed him in his Kennel in the basement of Tower II while he investigated what had happened. He was still there when the tower came down.

Our dog "Ali'i" was lost on Sept 13th while attempting to find a way through the tunnels under building 6 into the subway system under the complex. He was carrying a video pack and VA radio and was trapped when 6 suffered a partial collapse from fire. It wasn't until the following Dec that 6 was pulled down and the basement of Tower II was cleared to the point where the body of Sirius was found. They had a full memorial service for him. Ali'i was never found.

I'm not a scientist, but I am an expert on explosives/incendiaries, their use and detection bothbefore andafter detonation. I've testified as an expert witness more than 70 times at court proceedings on explosives detection, K9 training protocol and K9 scent differrention capability.

No explosives or incendiaries were present at the Trade Center on 9/11.

Thermite has never been used in demolition, ever. It has been used occasionally in clean up, but never as an instigator for controlled demolition.

The procces of controlled demolition itself is one that takes many weeks to prepare. the buildings undergo extensive preparations, and the demolitions are painstakenly placed in strategic positions. Remember also that 6 full time explosive detection dogs were on 24 hour patrol in shifts, 7 days a week. In addition, until just 5 days before, 16 additional dogs were working the Center in response to bomb threats from two weeks prior to that.

Walls are ripped apart and knocked down, beams are cut, holes are bored, wires are run to detonators. Here is a description of the work needed to take down a much smaller, 33 story building, the J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit. It was the largest (by square footage) building to be imploded at the time of 9/11. Keep in mind, this is just the amount of time needed to emplace the explosives, not to prepare the building in the first place:

Controlled demolitions Inc.
J.L. Hudson Department Store - Detroit, Michigan
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120

"...In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum..."

Before the placement started, more than a month of "prep" was involved that included removal of non load bearing walls, exposure of structural beams and stripping of all internal walls and supports.

I guess no one at the WTC noticed all that work going on.

wardogs

RonMossad said...

You know what's sad wardogs? I read your excellent comment and I say "wow, that's a guy who knows what he's talking about, I guess that's all there is to it" but the average 9/11 "truther" will read your entire post and fixate on the following:

"They were there in response to bomb threats against the center (unrelated) and had only been removed 5 days prior to the attack."

And they'll say "see! That proves the conspiracy! WHY would they be removed only 5 days before 9/11? We must answer these difficult questions! Launch a full investigation!"

Nevermind the fact that there were full-time bomb sniffing dogs.

Nevermind that there was no way they could have detonated this "nano-thermite" stuff.

Nevermind that based on your post it would have taken about three MONTHS (24 days for 33 floors, approximately 90 days for 110 floors) for each of the Twin Towers and an additional month for World Trade Center Seven just to prepare them for demolition.

Nevermind that no one noticed them knocking down walls and essentially gutting the building all around them over seven months' time.

Nevermind that there were full-time, bomb-sniffing dogs at the complex, 24/7 that also never noticed the bombs.

Nevermind your own expertise in the field.

They pulled some of the dogs away from the Towers just FIVE DAYS before the attacks! It's a scandal!

Thank you for your informative post and my condolences for your K-9's...I know how close people are to their K-9 support staff - those dogs are almost like people and in many cases are significantly braver.

wardogs said...

Ron, I apologize for not answering sooner, and thank you for your kind words.

Yes, our crew are "family" to us. Our team of (at present) 11 working dogs live with us, share our home, our lives and we spend virtually all our time together.

You mention that the fact that the additional team was pulled five days before would be construed as evidence of malfeasance... in fact it already has.

Alex Jones has brought up that fact in several of his rants. When I first heard him say that, I contacted him personally and explained that while the extra team had been pulled, the regular WTC PD team had been present as always. Since the first bombing in '93, supplemental teams have been deployed on the average of 3-4 times a year in response to intelligence received by LE. It was nothing out of the ordinary.

Like on other occasions when Jones has been informed of facts, he never retracted his accusation nor corrected his information.

"truther" is a misnomer when applied to him...

The bottom line is that if either explosives or incendiaries had been used to create a "controlled demolition" than the buildings would have fallen immediately, not hours after. The intricacies of a successful fall do not lend themselves very well to having airliners flown into them either. That would tend to interfere with delicate devices such as timers and delays as well as cause premature detonation...

I'd like to address a couple points about Steven Jones and his latest farcical flights of fancy.

Finding Iron oxide and aluminum in a tower built from steel with an aluminum facade is not unexpected.. On top of that, there's nothing in this paper that's not been restated before in previous articles. This is a total recycle. They found Iron oxide (rust, the “red chips”) and Aluminum. As already noted, all elements were present in large quantities in the WTC buildings.
Finding iron oxide and aluminum from the Twin Towers is like finding water in the ocean i.e. fully expected.

Also, the article’s reference to “Danish Chemists” is misleading.
Here's the actual article itself; published again at the Bentham Open Journals, a vanity publishing outfit based in... wait for it... Pakistan.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Notice who the authors are…
Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, STEVEN E JONES, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen. ("truthers" all)

This is a rehash of Jones’ thermite theory that has been completely debunked already, and every one of the "authors" are members of various conspiracy groups and have had previous theories shot down in flames.

Google the names. While the OP tries to imply that this "group of chemists" are an independent study group, they are not.

The publisher is a pay to play vanity journal. (Open Chemical Physics Journal is the same company)
The only condition you must meet to publish in it is to send in your check. The owners of the journal cannot even provide a who-is of the peer reviewers. (“peer review itself is just the first step in authentication anyway). They are not even aware of the content they allow to be published. They just cash the checks. It’s a boiler room operation out of Pakistan. Jones himself has already been caught manipulating data to fit his “theory”. For example…

In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"
However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/n...age-right-area
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."
Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know. This just one of the deceptions he used, including photos and false claims about thermite “devices” that didn’t exist then, and still don’t.

He seems to be being a bit more careful here, calling the substance “thermitic material” which means simply, any substance that burns… Then his group goes into fantasy land about “Nanotechnologically produced “super-thermite”, a substance that only exists in theoretical research and his imagination. In fact, although a patent was issued in the late 90's for "nanothermite" full research on manufacturing and developing true nanothermite only began in 2008 under a program being funded by the DOD. Jones willingly confuses nano thermitic materials, used to enhance explosive reaction, and "nanothermite".

Here is the spectrographic signature for both military (top) and commercial thermite…

Element Weight % Atomic %
Carbon 5.18% 15.34%
Aluminum 24.78% 32.66%
Titanium 70.04% 52.00%

Element Weight % Atomic %
Carbon 5.13% 15.33%
Aluminum 23.50% 31.23%
Titanium 71.37% 53.44%

Below is a composite of the spectra from page 8 of Dr. Jones paper for the red dust and the spectra for thermite.
http://www.amazingrust.com/Experimen...mite_EDAX.html

The spectra for thermite extends only to 5 keV. Perhaps Dr. Jones is talking another, imaginary flavor of thermite, but he is using the elements found in thermite as he stated in the OP.

I would think a more reasonable hypothesis is that the trace amount of titanium observed in the samples came from another source. I'm sure among the computers and other office equipment in the WTC, titanium was present somewhere.

Or maybe from here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium
Quote:
"Titanium commercial aerospace requirements (including engine components such as blades, discs, rings and engine cases as well as airframe components including bulkheads, tail sections, landing gear, wing supports and fasteners) can account for a substantial proportion of the mass of modern aircraft, for example:

The four engines alone on the Airbus A380 use about 26 metric tons (57,000 pounds) of titaniumBoeing (including both the airframes and engines)

B787 – 134 metric tons (295,000 lb) of titanium
B777 – 59 metric tons (130,000 lb) of titanium
B747 – 45 metric tons (99,000 lb) of titanium
B737 – 18 metric tons (40,000 lb) of titanium"

The "red chips" are iron oxide, commonly known as rust, as has been shown in several other studies. There is nothing new in this "study", just an attempt to try another angle. After being laughed at for his "angle cuts" and imaginary "bundling devices" as well as his use of misleading photos he now is coming back with a new "find" that has been known about for years.

If you want evidence, reconcile the fact that there was no thermite severance of the steel columns. Literally thousands if not tens of thousands of pounds would be required as well as access to columns buried behind concrete walls while people were present in the buildings. Thermite burns vertically, not at an angle or horizontally. Also reconcile the fact that, if you continue to mistakenly think thermite is an "explosive", (which he seems to imply in his description of “nano thermite), why is there no evidence of such explosions left i.e. broken windows for blocks around, barotrauma, etc.

Regardless of what Jones and his misled gang find, the fact remains that there was no sign of thermite or explosive severance on the recovered steel, nor was there any other evidence of it's emplacement. This argument has been made over and over before; go do a search for it. It's the conspiracy peddling side that's yet to actually deal with the real evidence.

wardogs

Angus said...

Thermite leaves no taggant, unlike other explosives which dogs can be trained to detect.

The nano-thermite was most likely placed during "fireproofing upgrades" that coincidentally correspond to the floors which were purportedly hit by "hijacked" airliners on 9/11.

RonMossad said...

Hi Angus, unfortunately for your point, thermite is not an explosive. However, even nanothermite, which assuming it exists and IS an explosive would need something to detonate it - otherwise why wouldn't it have gone off at some point before 9/11. Wardogs' K-9 unit would have sniffed these detonators.

I'm very concerned however about this "fireproofing upgrade" you bring up. Do you have any proof that the SPECIFIC floors that were hit on both towers were worked on?

If you don't have this proof I will invite you to read my response to the last person who brought this up in response to my original post on this topic. That anonymous poster has not been heard from since...
Turner Construction Co fireproofed the buildings in the "late nineties - Ok. So I just pulled this site and found that the work was actually done in January, 1997. These buildings sat...with these highly volatile nanothermites all over the place...for almost FIVE years just waiting...and for what exactly? If the government did this why wait so long to pull the trigger on this scheme? And how lucky that nothing triggered a catastrophic explosion over the course of those almost FIVE years? That's incredibly risky, irresponsible and would jeopardize the entire operation needlessly. NOT TO MENTION that the nanothermite that you claim was the culprit here wouldn't even be invented for THREE MORE years! That makes no sense AT ALL.

I would also point out that the work order that allegedly proves that this is true says that it is revised on 3/24/94. How could a work order from 1997 be revised in 1994? This also makes no sense.
I'll be right here, anxiously awaiting your response...

wardogs said...

Hi Angus.

I'm sorry, but your assertion is incorrect. Thermite (or thermate, the mil. equivalent) most certainly does leave traces. Those traces were the whole basis of Dr Jones' study. "Taggants" are microscopic pieces of multilayered colored plastic, added to an explosive product to indicate its source of manufacture. They are not what EED dogs react to.

In fact, K9's don't react to residue at all, but rather odors. Our dogs, and the dogs we train for incendiary work are specifically trained to react to certain chemicals found in explosives/incendiaries. In the case of thermite/thermate that chemical is Barium Nitrate. Sulfur is also one of the compounds we train for that are found in thermate and explosives either as an initial component or as a by product of detonation.

Thermate is the specific name for the formulation used by the U.S. military. It is used as an incendiary device (the Barium nitrate increases the incendiary effect) and can be used for welding. Thermite itself is essentially iron oxide and powdered aluminum (or magnesium in some applications) with an initiator, usually strontium nitrate, another chemical we train for.

Various mixtures of these compounds can be called thermate, but, to avoid confusion one can refer to them as thermite variants or analogs. The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN). As both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires trained human supervision and sometimes persistent effort.

It is intersesting to note that while Dr Jones uses traces of Sulfur he found in his tests to say thermate was present, Barium Nitrate was not.

So, where's the Barium? Sulfur is only 2% of thermite, while Barium makes up 29%...
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Pate...=6766744&HL=ON

Given that Jones appears to accept as reasonable that the 2% of sulfur has left a detectable trace on his sample, he must surely also have discovered the byproducts of Barium Nitrate, which is present in much larger quantities. And yet, there’s no mention of this at all. Instead, although he does talk about a “high concentration of Barium”, this comes from a Government dust study he references that has nothing to do with his work:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-...ig4new11-7.gif

So was Barium also detected in Professor Jones dust sample, and he’s simply forgotten? Or could it be that, awkwardly, there were no significant levels at all, and so he’s resorted to showing us the results of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TEST instead? He's been known to do that very thing... I included a comparison of the spectra from his paper along with one from thermite in a previous post. Barium is not there....

Because thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite, it has useful military applications in cutting through tank armor or other hardened military vehicles or bunkers. As with thermite, thermate's ability to burn without an external supply of oxygen renders it useful for underwater demolition.

However, even though nano super thermites can be very energetic, they are NOT explosive. Research into nano thermites concentrates on them being used as initiators or additives to explosives to enhance their effectiveness. Plus, there is a ratio of Aluminum to Aluminum oxide that must be maintained to keep them so. (nano and regular thermite are essentially the same chemically, it's the fineness of the granules themselves that increase the reactivity). Chloride (salt) in any form upsets that ratio.
They are highly reactive to Chloride, Nano thermites are simply nano particles of Aluminum with very thin aluminum oxide layers, the thinner the layer the more Chloride affects them. Dangerous stuff to be exposed for even a limited time to environmental conditions like the salt air of the WTC location.
One, just ONE thermite molecular reaction to Chlorides could set off the whole charge. It would also presuppose pre-planning years in advance on a scale that boggles the imagination.

There is also no guarantee that the impacts of the planes would generate enough heat or energy to ignite it, as well as having the precise control needed for a controlled demolition.

The elements that Jones reports finding have already been discovered by other WTC dust surveys, who for the most part don’t seem surprised by their presence. It seems that, in all cases, there are other WTC sources that can deliver far more of these elements than you would ever see from thermite/ thermate.

There’s also no clear evidence that the suspect elements are available in proportions that match what you’d expect from a thermite/ thermate reaction. And some products you might imagine would be produced, aren’t there at all.

Proof of thermite/ thermate, then? No. Just assumptions, and avoidance of alternative explanations for the presence of these elements. That’s just fine when you’re telling an audience what they want to believe, but convincing anyone conversant in the fields of explosives/incendiaries detection is going to take considerably more evidence than is displayed here. And that is disregarding ALL the logistics and problems of a "controlled demolition" in the first place...

wardogs

wallofcheese said...

Ron,

Thanks for a great lay analysis of the problems with the active thermite, and thanks to wardogs too for his comments.

There's a couple other links supporting your argument you might like

1. The Editor of the Bentham Open Journal the thermite article was published in has resigned in protest, as she never saw the article before publication
editor resigns2. A scientific analysis of the paper's claims finds the paper fails to consider the rather obvious materials source of what the beams were coated with to prevent corrosion.
Critique of active thermite paper

RonMossad said...

Thanks for the posts and backup, wardogs and wallofcheese. It's pretty amazing how quickly/embarrassingly this whole thing unraveled.

Sadly, it won't matter to the conspiracy people because they'll just say it's even MORE proof of a conspiracy that's so powerful and deadly that it's caused these scientists to resign in fear!

Downtown NYC Worker said...

I occasionally visited customers in the 1, 2, and 7 WTC buildings. The building management and union thugs made sure no non-union workers got in there. They had a long line of trucks waiting to get into the underground loading docks. They examined all incoming building materials to make sure it met code. All doors upstairs were locked so you could not hide a bomb anyplace. I don't know about an insulation upgrade, but there was a lot of asbestos abatement since they used asbestos to fireproof the steel at the start of WTC construction before asbestos use was prohibited. When tenants left, they removed asbestos before leasing out the space. Remember that underground fire lasted until after Thanksgiving. Who knows what chemical reactions took place in that toxic stew. He also doesn't seem to know about the huge fuel tank for emergency generators in 7 WTC. Like a lot of other New Yorkers, I ran for my life that day. Video of the guy show he has no idea what it was like.

RonMossad said...

Downtown NYC Worker:

I invite you to check out this follow-up on this story that should shut these clowns down once and for all. By the way, do you remember which union ran those operations over there?

Because we're going to have to add them to the list of possible culprits in the new 9/11 conspiracy investigation these yahoos want to launch.

Glad you made it out of there alive...

Perseo1441 said...

Wardogs & everyone else. (I'm addressing wardogs primarily due ti his expertise with explosives)

I think asking questions and wanting plausible explanations for tragedies & events that happen is a pretty reasonable thing. Certainly there have been cover ups throughout history over a varying array of events that have happened, and also certainly not every event that has happened which is controversial is a cover-up either. I think one must approach events with an open mind, collect facts, be wary of believing one side or the other and arrive to the best decision possible based on the real facts. So, here's my question from someone who's not a "truther", just a guy with a question that doesn't feel it necessary to be attacked or belittled because I have a question in my mind. Here it is: How did WTC 7 collapse? Could fire damage really cause it to fall the way it did? I have many friends who are firefighters and even a fire chief who when we look at that video, they tell me that fire damage couldn't cause that in a steel skyscraper. I think this is a very important question and I would greatly appreciate your expertise in the field of explosives to know if that collapse looks to you like a controlled demolition or if fire damage could really cause that total collpase in seconds. Thank you very much for your time in answering this question. I appreciate your service to our country & citizens.

RonMossad said...

Perseo1441 - it wasn't just fires. WTC 7 took some very very serious damage from the Twin Towers when they collapsed. From what I've read, about 25% of the building was gutted and if you watch the video you can actually see a part of the penthouse level collapse a few seconds before the rest of the building starts to go down floor by floor.

This video shows what I'm talking about.

I'm sure someone else can give a much more technical explanation than I can but in my book that's good enough...

edlogic said...

all you did was try to make a joke out of the work of a scientist - you present no refuting information at all - just like when they tried to make a joke out of the war - no wmd's under the table - while people die and died you and others make jokes about serious people attempting to get a reasonable explanation and probable cause to make sure it does not happen again by placing blame where it really belongs - your jokes are pathetic - your logic is also pathetic if you think 3 buildings and 4 planes turned to powder like magic on 911 - because the u s gov told you so is not a good reason to cling to fantacy

RonMossad said...

Hi edlogic and thanks for your reply. If you don't accept my analysis of Harrit's work or wardog's outstanding refuttal (see the comment section for this post to read what he wrote) then perhaps you'd be interested in reading about how the editor of the journal Harrit published his paper in resigned in protest over it or of the many procedural errors they made in running their experiments? Check www.ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/05/game-over.html for the details if you don't believe me.

Downtown NYC Worker said...

Ron, There wasn't just one union that ran operations there. If a union contractor was hired to do work in the building, the company's unionized workers would watch what anybody and everybody else in the building was doing. If they thought someone was infringing on their turf, they would go to their union shop steward to complain. There were dozens of trades involved. I forget many of the union names now, but the unions were members of the New York City Central Labor Council. You can get a list from there. I don't know how many of the IBT (International Brotherhood of Teamsters) local unions belong to the NYCCLC. Members of Local 3 of the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) would challenge computer techs and similar trades all the time. In addition, the World Trade Center management had people watching who was bringing materials into the building. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department was also on site. Thus, the NYPD did not have to provide daily, ordinary support to the complex.

On the issue of 7 WTC, I watched them build that building. I saw some good information on Wikipedia that refreshed my memory. The building was not built over vacant land like a lot of other buildings you see the controlled demolition movies of. It was built over the local power company's electrical substation that was originally built in the 60's/early 70's for the WTC. The lower floors had a very strange and complicated structural support system. Then Solomon Brothers wanted double height floors for their trading rooms, so they made major structural changes a few years after the building was built.

I just got off jury duty. It was a civil case, and both sides were shoveling it so much you needed hip boots to enter the court room. We reached a verdict based upon deciding who not to believe. I don't feel I have to prove anything. I just don't believe that what Harrit, et. al. published squares with what I observed on 9/11.

The City of New York had their emergency operations center in 7 WTC. These conspiracy theorists want me to believe people planted explosives in that building? Next thing you know, they will be advertising ham sandwiches Kosher for Passover.

RonMossad said...

Downtown NYC Worker - I agree that being put in a position that we need to prove our point is ridiculous. It's like someone walks into a room and declares that none of us are alive, don't exist and we're the figments of someone's imagination who is in a coma and could wake up any second (thereby ending the dream and ending the illusion of our existence).

Then that person starts yelling and screaming that he's just asking questions that because there is a 0.00000001% chance he may be right that we must prove he's wrong or else we're just closed-minded idiots.

It's just not worth the effort to try and convince these people that they're wrong...the only thing we can do is make sure that we don't allow them to convince any weak-minded individuals who are susceptible to debating just for the sake of debating.

As for the unions - I was joking about adding them to the list but it's pretty amazing just how much more complicated this "conspiracy" would have to be than even what I had conjured up in my own head...

Perseo1441 said...

Ron,

Thanks for posting that video of 7WTC, I had not seen that video before and it does show the east side falling before the west side which I had not seen before. In other videos it appears to be a total simultaneous collapse. Also the stuctural information regading the foundation of 7WTC given by "Downtown Worker" is interesting as little is ever discussed about this. I had not heard anything of this either. So, given these points of fact, is it feasable that 7WTC would fall the way it fell? I am frequently referred to videos of steel structured skysrcapers that have been on fire for days that do not collapse but are destroyed in a way that leaves a "steel skeleton shell" of the structure. I'm sure you've seen the comparison pics of those buildings and 7WTC. In my mind, the reason other theories exist about these events is that the government doesn't step up to the plate and say "we acknowledge that there are other theories out there regarding 9/11, and we want to address them to give our citizens peace of mind. Here are the arguments that say our government is responsible for these events and here is the scientific data and prrof as to why that is not possible. Here is what happened and why"...and lay it all out for all the public to see. The sense of secrecy behind these events and the unwillingness to acknowledge that there are real questions out there that need to be answered lends itself to distrust of the government. To me it really is a simple matter. If I were accused of something, and were innocent, I would simply defend myself with facts and show my innocence clearly for all to see. Why doesn't the government do this in a public forum? It probably would cost less than flying the air force one over low altitude over NYC with F16's in tow
for a photo op without informing anyone of this event. Really, either the government is just plain stupid or is too arrogant to care, or the truthers have a real point. In any of the three scenarios they are wrong. I really hope they are just stupid or are too arrogant to care. As I do not believe they are stupid this narrows down the choices somewhat. In any event, my original question about the collapse of 7WTC remains and I do not have the expertise to make an educated opinion about if that collapse would occur naturally the way it did or not and I wish our government would just say...we know this is a big question about 9/11 and here is how it happened...and someone of you could point me to a link and I could see thier explanation or read it without all of us guessing about it which I think would be deserving of a catasrophe of this magnitude. Thanks for the link and time and opporutnity to discuss this. Peace!

RonMossad said...

Perseo1441 - you ever think there's another reason why the government isn't giving you the answers your looking for aside from that they were behind it? Maybe there's something ELSE they don't want you to know that's much scarier than "the government did it."

Perseo1441 said...

Ron,
Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. Of course I believe there may be other "justifications" as you are describing them, that the government would lie by ommission or lie by commission. As I stated, they are: (1) the government is simply stupid or (2) the government is too arrogant to care. As you can see, neither of these conclusions involves a theory that "the government did it". Your standpoint, however, seems to be that is is justifiable for the government not to give it's citizenry answer it is looking for (ie. the truth) so long as they have "a reason". Hmmm, this is pretty enlightening.

RonMossad said...

Perseo:

You missed option three...

3. The government doesn't want to inspire mass panic by telling you just how close you are every single day to getting blown to bits by the millions of people that wake up everyday after dreaming all night of new ways to kill you. And worse, how difficult it is for them to prevent that from happening. And even worse still, how abysmally they failed all through the 90's to contain the threat so we now have to deal with a significantly more powerful and better organized foe than we would have if we had taken care of business under the Clinton administration.

There is such a thing as too much information. As a leader you often faced with the situation where the "best" option is actually the worst option. And your choice is not between right and wrong, your choice is between wrong, wronger and wrongest. It's not as simple as you think.

If you head down the rabbit hole you often will not like what you find.

And finally Perseo, your example about being accused of something when innocent and defending yourself against it is a good one but it does not apply in every case.

Imagine you and I are having a debate. And I say to you, Perseo your screen name isn't Perseo, it's Jerkface. Are you even going to respond to what I said? What would be the point? Anyone reading this exchange can see your name is clearly Perseo and I'm clearly insane or illiterate for accusing you of it. Or I'm trying to waste your time by distracting you from the point of the debate by drawing you into an argument about something that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The same way if I decide to take the position that Earth is flat. Or that Antarctica is actually hotter today than the Sahara desert. It's a waste of time to even acknowledge what I'm saying. All you accomplish by arguing these insane points is giving them a voice, giving them credence and distracting the public from the reality.

And the reality is that a group of disgruntled Arabs launched a sneak attack on our country and there are millions and millions of people who support them and view them as heroes.

That's a pretty scary concept and frankly I'd rather my government spend its time combating those people than addressing impossible theories that anyone with any common sense can see as the distractions that they are.

Perseo1441 said...

Ron,

This may surprise you, but I think you are right. Even though I think the government has very much told us that we are continually at risk from terrorists, which would discount your opening paragraph somewhat, I agree that certainly the government does not tell us every detail. They never have (not just our government, but all governments throughout history), and they really do not need to tell us everything. It's not their responsibility to be honest. Your point concerning the rabbit hole is true. Also, I pretty much agree with your analysis of entering into a debate about something that is completely out in left field only giving credibility to the person out in left field and hoe that could easily turn into an endless cycle of tangential arguments. Overall, I am pretty much in agreement with you. I do have questions about some facts & events though, but, being open minded, I realize they are questions and I do not automatically jump to conclusions that such questions must therefore point fingers of guilt to any party. Still, it as with all questions, it would just feel better to have the answers. This said, I think we must also admit that governments, to speak of them generally in global terms, do not only leave things out but they sometimes flat out lie to protect their asses. They are like people in this sense. Although I know it happens, and always have, I still don't gotta like it!

haze said...

I'm a bit surprised that apparently no one of you is pushing for further independent tests of the samples. This is the scientific way to settle the issue. Not through all this chatter about who's conspiratorial etc.. All that is irrelevant.

I'd like people here to start supporting more independent studies of the dust samples. Such studies will show what the red grey chips are. Is it paint? Is it nano-thermite? Spare all the speculations because further independent tests will show.

Even if something sounds wacky doesn't mean that one can abandon scientific methodology. This issue could and should be settled in the laboratory. Any disagreement with that only betrays a lack of understanding of the scientific method.

Cheers and take care!

haze said...

I'm a bit surprised by the editor Pileni's statement that she was not informed about the article. I myself is a practicing physicist with several publications in peer reviewed journals and when you submit a paper you always send it directly to the editor. In fact, the letter (an email these days) to the editor always starts with "Dear Editor,...". I would suppose that this is also the case for Bentham's journal. After all, after all, it is the very job of an editor to know what the content is.

Secondly, her resignation is also surprising. Bad papers slip through from time to time in any journal, no matter how prestigious. But that won't cause the editor to resign.

RonMossad said...

Hi Haze - I'm assuming based on your second post (and I appreciate you not deleting your first one as that would be bad form) that you read this article which basically puts the story to bed. There's no need to do anymore tests because using the information in the first tests we can already ascertain that these are paint chips.

See there's a line, that when crossed takes "scientific methodology" and just turns it into scientific MYTHOLOGY. You can take any bit of reality and spend forever and a day proving that it's actually reality. I mean how do we know the sun is really there? I look in the sky and see it...but how do I know it's not an illusion? Or some god (as our ancestors thought). How do I know it's really there? Do I need to actually go to the sun and touch it to make sure it really exists?

It's the same thing here. We can just go round and round and round in circles...or we can just accept what we all saw with our eyes - that two planes full of jet fuel and aluminum exploded into two buildings made of steel and concrete which caused them to collapse, in the process destroying most of another building which later collapsed in itself. We ALL SAW that the same way we all see the sun.

There's just nothing to waste time on over here.

Then again, if you want to take the time to pursue this - makes no difference to me. But I'm entirely satisfied that what I saw is what I saw and that's all there is to it.

Thanks for stopping by and for your comments.

haze said...

Thanks for your reply RonMossad,

That the article was printed without permission seems strange to me. As the editor, Pileni WAS the one giving the permission! This is very the job of the editor! She should have said that it was neglect on her part but not that it was printed without her permission.

If the findings of this paper are incorrect, since it entered a peer reviewed paper, it now needs to be rebutted with the same standards. I see that you are very dedicated to exposing internet conspiracy theories, but then you should really encourage further experiments. You see, it does not look good (at least not from a physicists point of view) that your are discouraging further experiments. That's like blasphemy among scientists. And remember, a physicist always like a good experiment: even if they know what the outcome will be!

Moreover. if this is paint, further studies will show just that. But to claim categorically that the red chips is paint without even having studied the samples doesn't look good at all. In fact, it looks a bit cranky...

Also, I did not see that you mentioned section 7 of their paper where they detail the method they used in order to determine that it is not paint. If you want to sound credible you have to attack them there. To omit this discussion looks cranky. In the end you see you have nothing to loose by pushing for the scientific method. But potentially you'll loose some credibility in the eyes of some if you don't.

Regarding your "sun analogy", I'm afraid that scientists would have a quite different attitude than you. Scientists will insist on much much more detail and scrutiny that the ordinary person. For them it has never been enough to conclude that there is a sun because they see a sun. In fact, great care is taken to exorcise out this kind of simplistic reasoning of graduate students! You see, many extraordinary findings in physics runs against common sense, especially with the advent of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. In science we cannot we cannot afford to have dogmas or preconceived ideas. Sooner or later they turn out to be wrong. And that is all revealed by the scientific method of doing experiments and going through the peer review process.

So I would reiterate:

This issue could and should be settled in the laboratory. Any disagreement here only betrays a lack of understanding of the scientific method, and that doesn't look good!

Cheers and take care!

RonMossad said...

Haze - I have no problem with scientists continuing to debate this...it's what you guys do. However, it's not what I do. The reason I brought this topic up is because of the political undertones and the implications of those political undertones for the Jewish/Israeli community. I'm not trying to attack the validity of their work - I'm not a scientist so I would have no way of knowing how to.

However, other scientists have made comments about the possibly faulty methodology used and it is in that link (which again is a reprint of someone else's words, not my own) that you will find the reasons why it is paint and not some mystery substance. If you disagree with their assertions - I'm sure they will be happy to debate the topic with you on a much deeper level than I could.

For me personally, I'm satisfied that there's no story here. When I say I'm done...I don't mean that no one else should be allowed to continue debating and experimenting...I just mean that I'M entirely unconvinced by these findings. When you say I have nothing to lose by pushing for the scientific method - I disagree. What I have to lose is time. Again, the professionals who debate these things for a living can continue to go back and forth for all of eternity for I care, it's their job.

But for us amateurs, it's time to move on. There are too many holes of logic here for the true believers to keep chirping that it was the government or the Mossad that brought down the towers. All I'm doing is making sure that the current debunking information is readily available until the paper is scientifically disproven.

Haze said...

RonMossad, that sounds fair enough, although it *does* seem to me that you are trying to put the paper in a very bad light :)

The beauty of science is that once an empirical method of determination has been identified, further arguments are somewhat pointless. So in this sense I agree: it is time to move on... and leave it to the lab.

I was hoping that those people at JREF would challenge Harrit et al empirically, i.e. to first agree on the empirical criteria for a positive identification of nano-thermite (or paint) and then join together in the lab to settle the issue. After all, challenging people with "fringe" beliefs to prove their ideas empirically is one of the trademarks of JREF. Unfortunately, as of yet, I have seen no sign of the JREF people suggesting anything like that. That's unfortunate but perhaps they will in the future.

I have seen comments on JREF that are more scientifically oriented. The best I saw was by "Sunstealer" who claims it is kaolinite. However, he has not yet studied the samples himself. But he seems to have experience in the lab and should therefore be encouraged to join Harrit et al in the lab to conduct his own experiments on the dust samples.

I'm not sure about the political undertones your talking about. Yes, I've seen "the Jews did it!" nonsense but I do not see any signs that the authors of this paper supports such a view. In fact, it seems clear that they do not. If 9/11 conspiracy is a fringe movement, then "the Jews did it!"-conspiracy is a fringe-fringe movement.

Thanks again for your comments RonMossad. Have a good life and take care!

RonMossad said...

Haze, what I'm putting in a bad light is the fact that I don't trust the people publishing the paper. The implications of the paper are so much harder to believe than what we all witnessed on that morning that even without the political implications I'd be incredibly skeptical of the findings. I've not participated in the scientific method but I participate in the common sense method on a daily basis and to me the possibility that what they are saying is true does not add up.

As for the political motivations of the conspiracy movement - I lay them out in my initial post on the subject of which this is just one of three follow-up posts.

In that post I think you'll see that if you dig down just below the surface, it becomes clear that the belief held by the conspiracy believers is that the real perpetrators were an amalgamation of crooked government officials in the pockets of evil "New World Order" bankers or just good-old-fashioned Jew-bashing in the form of blaming Israelis or the Mossad.

Now perhaps these researchers themselves have not gone on record and said these things in public but the fact that they are very much a part of this movement and have spent so much of their time promoting its views puts them in a negative light in my opinion to begin with. That their paper in my opinion is entirely unconvincing as well closes the book on it entirely.

Anonymous said...

As a Danish natural scientist with over 6 years of experience on demolition in the Danish Engineer Regiment, the entire theory is utter and complete nonsense
It saddens me that this mad man is Danish... Oh and he is a chemist not a Physicist.

I cannot understand why he keeps on coming up with these insane stories

RonMossad said...

Only one of the scientists is a chemist - the rest are psychologists and sociologists. No credibility on the subject what

so

ever.

Haze said...

In this video it is demonstrated how a tiny red-gray chip ignites when a small oxyacetylene flame is applied:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/oxy_redchip_sl
ow.mov

The distinct and sudden reaction is very interesting. If this reaction we see on the video is really a red-gray chip igniting, then it is seems clear that, whatever it is, it is not paint. Needless to say: no fire security protocol would ever allow for ignitable paint in a building. Even less to use it as a primer paint.

Of course, this is just a video and doesn't show any details of the ignition. A more rigorous analysis of this property of the red gray chip is detailed in the paper. By applying differential scanning caliometry (DSC) (which is a standard tool in the lab) Harrit et. al. makes a more quantitative analysis of the ignition. They observe that the red-gray chips ignite at 415-435°C. If this is accurate, it is certainly not paint. You can't make paint ignite like that.

They also studied the remnants from an ignition and found the tell-tale signs of a thermite reaction: iron-rich spheres.

They do many other test as well in the paper to determine the chemical composition.

All this seems to me OK and standard procedure. So, unless they are forging the data, this seems to conclusively rule out paint.

Cheers and take care!

RonMossad said...

I'm sorry I just don't see what you're referring to in that video at all. I see two tiny sparks emanating from an unseen tiny object that is hidden by someone's hand that for some reason does not seem at all impacted by this 415-435°C flame. Are you suggesting that there is enough force in this spark to bring down two enormous, 110-story buildings?

Downtown NYC Worker said...

I came back to this site because I selected the wrong item from my browser's history list. Frankly, I am surprised the conspiracy theorists are still posting here. It could be to get exposure by Google. I got rickrolled into "looking" at this debate from a page on a TV station's news page. It said something about a professor in Denmark found something-or-other (don't remember the exact words) in dust from the WTC. I thought there might be something here. I put in a few keywords into Google, and this blog entry showed up on page 1 of the Google search results.

I don't know how long Ron wants to play along with these conspiracy theorists, but they are clearly posting here for viral marketing, spamming, or Google page ranking purposes.

We have a retort in this neighborhood when someone comes around with a fantastic tale: Point and say "Bellevue, 27th and 1st"

Haze said...

RonMossad,

No, I'm not jumping to any such conclusions. I mean exactly what I wrote above: the red/gray chips is not paint.

And yes the video is not excellent quality. What one can see is a spark not much more. It should be possible to make a high quality video where details are shown. I heard that people in a different lab are heating samples with a laser and recording the ignition with a high quality video camera. That would certainly be more impressive.

But in any case, video's are for public relations. The DSC tests are more interesting from a scientific point of view. And if Harrit et al are correct that the chip ignites at 430C, then it is safe to say that it is NOT (fire-security approved) paint.

Regarding your comment whether or not there would be enough energy in such material to bring down buildings. To determine that one would need to measure not only the amount of energy released, but also how fast these reactions are, and also if enough gas is produced, in order to work as an explosive. All that require careful lab-work. I'd like to see more experimentalists getting involved here. Serious debunkers should be keen on determining the nature of the red/gray chips. Perhaps some are already getting involved and requesting samples for themselves.

But it is time for me to move on from this blog now. Thanks for the discussion RonMossad! I enjoyed exchanging comments with you!

Best of luck!

RonMossad said...

Downtown - being from Jersey we used to make cracks about sending people to Bellevue too. What can I tell you the page rankings help me too... lol But the truth is the reason I try to respond to as many people that post on my site as possible (regardless of the topic) is to demonstrate to everyone that if you put in just a little effort and give the other side enough rope...it hangs itself.

Every time.

RonMossad said...

Haze - it's fascinating to me that they wouldn't use a "high quality" video camera to begin with. My iPhone takes better video than that...and it's not even supposed to be able to take video at all! The fact that it's such poor quality shows the lack of confidence these guys had in their methodology.

And if you didn't approve of the video...why post it here it here at all?

In any case, I'll close the with four additional links:

Questions/answers about nanothermite (JREF forum)

Harrit's paper itself PROVES the material isn't thermite (JREF forum)

Moderated thread on the Harrit paper (JREF forum)

The second part of my third and final follow-up on this topic


Make sure you scroll down right below the the picture of the paint can.

There are two comments from the JREF forums that deal with the question you brought up about why not have "mainstream scientists" conduct additional experiments on samples Harrit used:

If a chemist finds a brand new reaction, and someone points out that her test tubes were dirty, the proper response is not to argue that dirty test tubes don't matter, but to redo the experiment with clean test tubes. Sunstealer has pointed out enough problems that the ball is back in Jones' court. The burden of proof is where it should be--on Jones.

Exactly my point - there are so many holes in this paper that the authors must address before real scientists spend any additional time on this. But why not do it anyway, in the name of science?

This is why mainstream science and scientists don't get involved. They would then be subjected to such bizarre questions as you propose and then be castigated when they don't waste their time replying. Who on earth in their right mind would actually bother to reply? They would just print them out and stick em on the undergrad's common room for all and sundry to laugh at. Honestly. Have you lost your mind entirely? I suggest you seek medical help immediately.

That's from the guy ("Sunstealer") who tore the paper apart initially.

I'll keep going at it with you guys because I'm not scientist and I don't have any scientific credibility to risk on it. The real scientists have better things to do. Like cure cancer.

I hope you head over to the JREF forums I linked to after this because that is the appropriate place to have these discussions. This site is for politics, religion and other debatable topics.

I'm getting bored of debating REALITY.

RonMossad said...

Oh and PS Haze - thanks for stopping by. Best of luck to you too.

Anonymous said...

When you claim that the samples collected were only collected after 6 years, you lost credibility. I doubt very much that you read the paper. In the paper, the scientists have stated the dust collected came from 4 sources, picked up from the next day,(Sept 12, 2001) to 2 weeks later. To claim otherwise suggests you didn't read that part of the paper, and you put the rest of your tiresome post in doubt.

RonMossad said...

Yes Mr./Mrs. brave anonymous poster...these "sources" (who were not scientists themselves) allegedly collected them from the dust shortly after 9/11. They then sat on them for SIX YEARS before the scientists themselves got to them. On page 8 of the paper you'll see the following statement:
In a paper presented first online in autumn 2006 regard-ing anomalies observed in the World Trade Center destruc-tion [6], a general request was issued for samples of the WTC dust. That means that they didn't even ASK for the actual samples until five years after the attacks.

Perhaps you should have more than just the abstract.

Haze said...

RonMossad,

It may come as a surprise, but scientifically speaking it is not the methodology of Harrit et. al. that is in question at the moment. They have done their part: they have listed the methods by which they examine the samples, explained how they reach their conclusions, and then published the findings in a peer reviewed journal.

Rather, it is the methodology of the debunkers that is in question: They claim that it is paint without even having examined the samples. Needless to say, this is scientifically unacceptable. This is not just bad methodology, it is no methodology at all!

And every scientist knows that.

This goes for Sunstealer too. He is an anonymous blogger who has (to my knowledge) not made public his credentials as a scientist. For him to appear credible he should. What he has going now is an hypothesis: the red/gray chips is paint. Now he needs to be able to back that hypothesis scientifically in the lab. This, and nothing else, is the scientific procedure.

But instead Sunstealer does a logical sumersault: first he claims that Harrit's et al's paper is faulty and therefore cannot be used to support the nano-thermite hypothesis, and then in the same breath, use the SAME allegedly faulty paper to claim that it proves that it is paint!

It is perfectly reasonable to question the conclusions of the paper but then one has to follow the scientific procedure and carry out independent studies and then publish it in a peer review journal. Nothing else is good enough, and if Sunstealer is a practicing scientist, he knows that.

Regarding the video: it is clear enough: the substance ignites. So whatever that is, it is not paint. This is all very clear and difficult to question. What you could question is that claim that the substance in the video is the red/gray chips. But then you would also accuse the authors of forgery.

Secondly, the video is but one of the different methods used in the paper to determine the nature of the red/gray chips. You have to keep that in mind. From your comments it seems to me that you did not read the paper.

You keep coming back to common sense. But a quick search on the internet shows that everybody is claiming that *their* opinions are the only ones compatible with common sense. For you RonMossad, it is just common sense that this 9/11 truth movement is an anti-semitic conspiracy and the people in the 9/11 truth movement are all "in on it". For others, common sense tells them that WTC7 was demolished with explosives.

As for me, I think this is all good fun, and I would like the debunkers to step up to the challenge and carry out independent tests. THAT is serious debunking. And clearly, claiming it is paint without even studying the samples is not. The blogger you quote discouraging further experimentation is clearly not scientifically minded.

Cheers!

RonMossad said...

Hi Haze - I see you couldn't resist coming back...at least you don't just make one anonymous post hurling some unoriginal/ineffective insults and move on to something else.

Onto your points:

Burden of proof being on the debunkers - I disagree. Going back to my sun analogy...if I decided to prove that the sun truly exists and claimed it was there by using a telescope, which still had its cover on...you would not have to rebut my findings...only point out that the telescope I used was faulty. If the methodology is wrong, the findings go right out the window and need to be re-proven with correct methodology.

I don't know anything about Sunstealer...but it seems to me that he knows what he's talking about. Why does it matter if he's anonymous? I deal with anonymous posters here all the time - I don't LIKE that they're anonymous and I call them out on it, but if what they say has any merit at all I deal with them as I deal with anyone.

Why do his credentials matter so much? If he is right about his statement of scientific fact, then who cares if he's (or she for that matter) a professional or an amateur? Going back to my telescope analogy, you don't need to be a professional scientist with strong credentials to point out the obvious.

On the paper being faulty - I don't think it's a logical somersault at all. Consider this scenario:

I tell you that I have a way to prove that 2 + 2 = 5. You say, no way. I say, way. I present you two apples, then another two, then cut one in half and say voila! Five apples! You say...no my friend that is very faulty. Not only have I not proven that is not five (because cutting something in half does not create two copies of the original) - I have actually proven that 2 + 2 = 4.

On the video - lots of materials ignite. The vast majority of them are not nanothermite. I'm not accusing anyone of forgery (only of being highly deluded), but I'll be honest with you...I have a much easier time believing this is a forgery than believing this is the truth. I don't know if you've ever noticed how much money is generated by the 9/11 "truth" movement for its leaders...

Not reading the paper - I have copy/pasted numerous portions of the paper on this blog and commented on them. For me to not have read it would TRULY be a miracle.

On lumping together all 9/11 conspiracy people as anti-semites - I did not state this. The purpose of my initial post on this topic was to express my finding and belief that many of members (as especially its leaders) are virulently anti-Zionist/Mossad/Israel, which in my book is the same thing as being anti-Jewish. In fact many of the "truthers" (including Jewish "truthers") have no idea what they've gotten themselves involved in. Your statement suggests you did not read my initial post.

On common sense - I'm not so sure if you're familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor (although I suspect you are). For anyone who thinks that the most logical explanation for what we all saw on 9/11/01 is all the insanity that would go into the government or the Israelis doing it, I don't know what to tell you.

The conspiracy people need to present a MUCH more convincing case than these "chips" they've come up with.

Anonymous said...

Here is an Interview with Mr. Harrit to this topic:
http://www.gulli.com/news/world-trade-center-destruction-2009-05-24/

Maybe it will answer some questions

Max said...

What ignorant, nonsensical, unfounded dribble you spew here. I understand you are trying to sound educated...but I assure you , you have failed.

I could only go a paragraph or so into this post before I had to clean out my waste basket. PLEASE provide ANYTHING in the way of proof that supports the "official story".

OR better yet...ANYTHING that dis-proves Niels Harrit's findings.

I understand that you feel obligated to carry on this facade of truthers being bat-shit crazy...but for once...this time...pull your head out of the standard thinking cave in which you official story believers seem to vehemently wish to stay...and come up with any conclusion that fits just a few parameters of reality. I would not ask you to tell me/us what happened, but give a scenario where the official story may fit...both reality, and physically, i.e. physics verifiable.

Thanks for your attention. As I am certain you will not provide, nor be able to fabricate a satisfactory answer to my query...I will remain disappointed that my fellow humans cannot/will not think for themselves.

DM

RonMossad said...

Hi Mr./Mrs. Anonymous - the editor of that interview has already shared it with me and I've skimmed through it. I'll get into it fully at some point but from what I read I didn't really see any new information that hasn't already been addressed.

RonMossad said...

Well hi Max, thanks so much for your incredibly well-written, fact-based, open-minded post!

I know I'm wasting my time, but I'll respond to your comments anyway.

What ignorant, nonsensical, unfounded dribble you spew here. I understand you are trying to sound educated...but I assure you , you have failed.Wow that's just not a very nice thing to say at all! Thanks for coming by though - it's your clicks and comments that have made this entry the number 2 google search result for the search terms of "Niels Harrit". Thanks to yours and other fans' support of this site, you have ensured that anyone who searches for information on Dr. Harrit will have access to this blog and hopefully be dissuaded from a long and painful descent into the insanity you clearly have succumbed to long ago.

I could only go a paragraph or so into this post before I had to clean out my waste basket. PLEASE provide ANYTHING in the way of proof that supports the "official story".Did you continue reading after that first paragraph? Because if you did you might have seen the exact answers to your demands. Or perhaps you would have read the original post, it's immediate follow up or the follow up to this post which should give you some guidance on how to deal with your government-fueled, gamma-ray induced nightmares.

OR better yet...ANYTHING that dis-proves Niels Harrit's findings.Aside from the fact that what his study implies is impossible in the real world...perhaps you should actually read what he's stating. He never actually says the following:

1. The substance is nanothermite

2. There was a controlled demolition

3. The government brought down the towers

Whatever you think he said, you are wrong. His entire paper builds up to a question. I already get my fill of questions from watching Lost.

I understand that you feel obligated to carry on this facade of truthers being bat-shit crazy...but for once...this time...etc etc angry-typing-guy etc etc etc etc

Four teams of Arabs who are angry at America and hate Americans (especially you) hijacked four planes and attempted to crash them into four buildings. Two of those teams succeeded, one team partially succeeded, one team failed. What's the problem? If you're referring to the science behind the towers collapsing, steel melting (or not needing to) and everything else I invite you to read the Popular Mechanics article or any of the other scientific discussions on this matter that I've referenced several times in the past already.

Thanks for your attention. As I am certain you will not provide, nor be able to fabricate a satisfactory answer to my query...I will remain disappointed that my fellow humans cannot/will not think for themselves.What an amazingly open-minded statement to make! You are truly representing your movement very well here! I'll be here, anxiously waiting for another cordial comment from you on the topic that I'm sure will be as fact-filled and convincing as this one.

Profjoe223 said...

Mr. Mossad,

You have an agenda that you not only do not attempt to hide but openly flaunt that eliminates you from entering into rational discourse on this subject.

You know what that agenda is, as would anyone who reads the masthead of your blog.

Aside from that, may I ask, what color is the sky in your world?

RonMossad said...

Hi ProfJoe - Sky has no color...the light that refracts through the atmosphere appears light blue on clear days and black at night (when there is no light). That's probably the closest to the "color" the sky is.

And what, pray tell do you assume my agenda is? Aside from writing entertaining blogs that are enjoyed tens of thousands of people all over the world...while at the same time giving them the information to refute the utter nonsense that is thrown around as "fact" about Israel, Jews and Zionism.

I'll be here, anxiously awaiting your response.

Haze said...

Hello RonMossad,

"Why do his credentials matter so much?"

Well, why does Harrit, Jones, et als credentials matter to you?

Jones, in fact, has an impressive record with three publications in Nature which is a high-impact journal. It is very hard to get a publication in there. Most physicists will never get the chance to publish there.

These are facts and cannot be disregarded even if you do not like his paper and the conclusions therein.

"On the video - lots of materials ignite."

Agreed, but fire security approved paint is not one of them. Again, if it is true that it is a red/gray chip that ignites in the video it is clear that this is not paint.

You see, Sunstealer cannot claim to have proven that the red/gray chips are paint without also demonstrating that the red/gray DO NOT ignite.

Paint does not ignite at 430C.
If that were the case it would not be allowed to have it in buildings.

This is all very clear.

Regarding Occam's razor. It is not applicable in this situation. Occham's razor can be used when you have two competing theories that cannot be empirically distinguished. This is not the case here: the official story says that the red/gray chips are not nano-thermite and the 911 conspiracy theories says it is. Thus the two theories can be empirically distinguished.

So as you can see, in our case Occham's razor is inapplicable: this issue could and should be determined in the lab.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

...and it's not like the buildings fell like a planned demolition and the third tower did in fact fall from a fire and it was just coincident that it fell nicely too...what is a squib again?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Mr. Mossad will exercise a little more of his Chutzpah and agree that an official scientific investigation into the particles foung in the WTC dust and the free-fall nature of parts of the collapses.

I personally would love someone to explain how Mossad can break laws of conservation of momentum and energy in this casual manner. I'd also like to see professor Jones and his pals thoroughly discredited as the unqualified fools they obviously are.

I'm sure Mossad.....sorry Ron, would agree.

RonMossad said...

Hi Haze, welcome back -

Why do Harrit/Jones/etc credentials matter to me but not anonymous debunkers?

That's easy...because they are the ones initiating the investigation so-to-speak. They're the accusers. They're the ones questioning reality. They're the ones that are saying "no no people, you didn't see what you think you saw" - therefore the burden of proof is on them, not the debunkers.

Furthermore...their methodology is what's in question, not their findings. We don't even get to dealing with what they claim to have found because their whole premise for what they believe is suspect and smacks of politics (which is the reason given by the editor who resigned).

I don't have to be a scientist with credentials to recognize the obvious holes in this paper and neither do other people. If you read what the other debunkers said (not me with my limited scientific experience) - can you contradict the facts that they brought up? Not their opinions, their facts.

As for the materials igniting in the video - it may not be the paint itself that ignites, it may be whatever the paint is attached to. Or it may be something else entirely. That video proves nothing at all.

As for the two theories being empirically distinguishable - that's not exactly true either. On a micro level - the nanothermite question is distinguishable from the opposite (no nanothermite). But in the context of the larger question of what brought down the towers...both answers lead to conspiracy...just different forms of conspiracy.

Occam's razor does indeed apply.

That being said - let them do all the experiments they want. I'm not ignoring what I know is reality until something a lot more earth-shattering than this.

RonMossad said...

A haiku for the Anonymous posters:

Chutzpah usage wrong
Random posts on site - Beware!
Government reads too

Anonymous said...

Are you a Jew?

Are you a Mossad representative?

Are you a representative of Zionist Israel?

Are you a representative of the USA Government?

Sounds like you have a very, very guilty consciounce.
Why are you even defending this issue?

Did someone accuse you and yours of this insider crime(s)?

The irrefutable evidence is in.
Go to this site to see the Quantitative Proofs that back Niel Harrits blockbuster findings.

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5447&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


and this site:

http://www.freeamerican.com/Images/911Boldwynn.PDF

Maybe the Jews did not do it and maybe the USA government did not do it, but somebody did and it was not Arabs.

Why will the Mass Media not even allow this blockbuster discovery into the news?
It appears to be total continued and long, long, long ongoing cover-up

The rest of the non western world's media has this story of Niel Harrit's as it's top kick-butt story and are laughing at the Americans who are still being duped, fooled, decieved, and lied to by thier controlled Zionist controlled news services of all kinds.

You are the desparate and last breath defense for a dying or dead cause.

all of your defensive argument are weak at best and you will need to come up with some much stronger than you have so far. I will bet that you will not be able to defend your breed and will be dismissed as a shill...

If you and yours are guilty, you will get what is upcoming to you, if not, then we will have to rely on a new and unbiased investitation from NY city and the world community.

I forgot my password, so I will post this as anonymous

Anonymous said...

You and your backers are in the most extreme state of denial ever witnessed on the internet.

Your back is against the wall and you may have to eat doo doo.

Your debunk is no debunk at all. You are just showing you inability to scientifically defend and very, very lost cause.

Get over it... The Truth Movement is finally victorious and the government is afraid to deal with it. Put this issue into the newspapers and the tv news and let it all settle out. How many more lies can the government and thier crony PHDs tell?
This may be a tougher fight that Galileo had with the Catholic Church, the openly professed infallible Church, who were acting like they were the "Chosen Ones".

RonMossad said...

To the two most recent Anonymous posters who I'm assuming are the same person - I hope you enjoyed my haiku.

I would like to respond to some of your points.

Are you a Jew?

Yes that should be obvious.

Are you a Mossad representative?

No and if I was I doubt I'd admit it. So, maybe!

Are you a representative of Zionist Israel?

Not an official one. Just like all other Yids though everywhere I go people treat me as such.

Are you a representative of the USA Government?

See response to your Mossad question.

Why are you even defending this issue?

That should be obvious from this post.

Did someone accuse you and yours of this insider crime(s)?

Only the lunatics who have been posting on my site on a daily basis in response to what I've written on this topic. Oh yeah and the racists who assume all Jews are Zionist/Mossad/US government conspirators. Hey! Kind of like you just did!

Why will the Mass Media not even allow this blockbuster discovery into the news?

Because it's NOT EVEN exciting enough for them. That's how meaningless all the "work" Harrit and his group have done. EVEN the news, which talks about Miss California and gay marriage like it's a matter of national security just DOESN'T care.

The rest of the non western world's media has this story of Niel Harrit's as it's top kick-butt story and are laughing at the Americans

Well this just isn't true. It's just not. None of the major foreign news services are running with this. There were a few curious interviews on Danish and German TV where the reporters themselves could hardly believe the people they were talking to.

who are still being duped, fooled, decieved, and lied to by thier controlled Zionist controlled news services of all kinds.

Thanks for proving my point from earlier. And my initial point when I make my first post on this topic.

will bet that you will not be able to defend your breed and will be dismissed as a shill...

My BREED?! Wow, we're not the same breed? I think you meant race...but your inherent hatred of Jews pushed us down to the level of dogs in your head. In your head. In your head. The voices are all in your head. In your head.

Your back is against the wall and you may have to eat doo doo.

I already am, or at least that's how I feel every time I read one of your peoples' steaming, stinking posts.

Get over it... The Truth Movement is finally victorious and the government is afraid to deal with it.

Yes it's all over...any minute now they're going to call a press conference and admit it was them, the moon landing was staged and the real perpetrators of the JFK assassination were...you guessed it - the Jews! And you heard us all into those concentration camps that you think the American government is building in the Midwest. All to as "God Bless America" plays in the background - great job Nancy Drew...you've done it!

You've SAVED democracy for the world!

Anonymous said...

Hello again,

This is Haze, my account does not work for some reason so I hope you'll excuse me for being anonymous!

RonMossad, as you say, you are not a scientist so I'm surprised how confident you are about Occham's razor. What you write is simply incorrect. Period. Any scientist who reads this can see that. Occham's razor can be applied only if there are no possible empirical discrimination between two competing theories. This is clearly not the case here. Discrimination is indeed possible by studying the dust samples.

You are outside of your field of expertize here.

Given that you are not a scientist it is also remarkable that you are confident that Harrit et. als. scientific method is faulty? How on earth would you know? You are a layman!
Your mind is still that of a layman that does not seem appreciate the power scientific method. So I very much agree with "Anonymous" who wrote

"all of your defensive argument are weak at best and you will need to come up with some much stronger than you have so far."

Right now you are doing a good job in convincing people that the arguments of the debunkers cannot match the ones from the truth movement.

Even other debunkers such as Dr. Greening agrees that this is not paint. The paint hypothesis is indeed a very week one.

You should encourage more independent studies of the dust samples. And when you do not, you expose yourself as anti-scientific. And this does not look good.

If you continue like this you will be fighting for a lost cause.

Cheers!

alienentity said...

Hi there.

Enjoyed reading your blog comments, thought you might like to visit my latest critique of 9/11 crap...I mean 'truth'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL7xYx8M7GA

Harrit is either a complete moron or a compulsive liar or both. I don't care which it is.

He makes a number of absurd or false statements which lead one to conclude that he is indeed a 'crazy truther'.

cheers

alienentity

RonMossad said...

Hi again Haze, I'm going to assume this is actually you.

RonMossad, as you say, you are not a scientist so I'm surprised how confident you are about Occham's razor.

I'm really smart. Also Occam's razor doesn't only apply to scientific debate.

Occham's razor can be applied only if there are no possible empirical discrimination between two competing theories. This is clearly not the case here. Discrimination is indeed possible by studying the dust samples.

I already explained how it does apply. In the bigger picture there is no empirical discrimination between the competing theories. The question to be answered is:

"What brought down the Twin Towers and Tower number 7?"

The two competing theories are:

1. A conspiracy of Arab hijackers crashed planes into the buildings, the force of which caused serious structural damage and fires that weakened the building's supports to the point that building collapsed. Amount of people involved: 19-100 (in Islamist terrorist camps etc)

2. A conspiracy of the government/Jews/bankers/spies/space aliens/neo-cons/same thing crashed planes into buildings which had been previously wired with explosives that for some reason went undetected. They faked phone calls to family members and created the biggest coverup in the history of mankind. In order to achieve success they utilized a substance that is not used as an explosive nor has ever been used in demolition nor has ever actually been proven to exist. Amount of people involved: 500-10,000+.

Occam's razor applies.

Given that you are not a scientist it is also remarkable that you are confident that Harrit et. als. scientific method is faulty? How on earth would you know? You are a layman!

I posted links to several people who claim to be scientists who state why the methods are faulty. Whether they are scientists or not is irrelevant because their points are accurate. If anything, the fact that a bunch of "laymen" have chopped up Harrit and his friends so quickly and easily only makes the situation worse for them.

You should encourage more independent studies of the dust samples. And when you do not, you expose yourself as anti-scientific. And this does not look good.

So when I said:

"Then again, if you want to take the time to pursue this - makes no difference to me."

and

"Haze - I have no problem with scientists continuing to debate this...it's what you guys do."

and

"When I say I'm done...I don't mean that no one else should be allowed to continue debating and experimenting...I just mean that I'M entirely unconvinced by these findings."

and

"Again, the professionals who debate these things for a living can continue to go back and forth for all of eternity for I care, it's their job."

You thought I was actually writing that on Opposite Day and what I meant was not what I actually said.

I see.

RonMossad said...

ALIENENTITY YOU MUST BE PART OF THE COVERUP TOO!!!!!!

GOVERNMENT SHILL!!!

Oh sorry I don't know what just came over me...all these "truthers" are starting to affect my perceptions of reality, yikes!

alienentity said...

To the last anonymous poster -

First, if you refer to Occam's Razor, at least spell it right.
Then, at least learn what it actually means.

Third, if you're not a scientist, isn't it hypocritical to dismiss an opinion of another non-scientist?

Fourth, you're wrong about Dr. Greening.
Here's a quote of what he wrote in 2009:

'Now this is very significant because the XEDS spectrum you present in Figure 14 of your report is essentially a perfect match for Tnemec red primer paint, particularly because of the Zn and Cr content.'

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

A perfect match for red primer paint, he says.

You're out of your depth, it seems. We could throw you a life preserver, but then you'd have to abandon the truther ship.

Can you handle the truth?

bu-bye!

Anonymous said...

Here's the real issue, Mossad. Tiny spheres or iron are present in all of the World Trade Center dust. Iron spheres are formed the same way way water becomes spheres as it falls from the sky. Iron becomes spheres when *melted* and exploded into small particles. Neither jet fuel nor anything else which should have been in the WTC burns hot enough to melt steel. Weaken perhaps, but not melt. You can obfuscate all you want, but until you come up with an alternative explanation for molten iron spheres or debunk their presence, the only conclusion available is explosives.

RonMossad said...

Great find alienentity. Not that it will matter because they'll keep coming back for more...

RonMossad said...

Hi Mr./Mrs. Anonymous # 1,000 and thanks for stopping by,

I'm confused by your comment. Do we believe this was the government because of nanothermite or iron spheres or steel spheres or whatever you're saying now.

I also would like to know where you are getting this information.

I would also like to know how that proves anything even if it is true. Are you saying the government melted the steel by superheating the structures until they collapsed? Or the heat from an explosion melted the steel until they formed into small spheres?

How did the spheres become present in "all of the World Trade Center dust" ? Did all the steel/iron in the buildings melt? Wouldn't it have poured through the streets of lower Manhattan destroying everything it touched? How did it manage to mix itself with all of the dust, not some of it, all of it?

Does nanothermite fit into this scenario or has your group abandoned that concept in favor of a newer and more exciting fantasy?

Thanks. I'll be right here, anxiously awaiting your response.

Anonymous said...

Ron...
In the official story (9-11 Commission Report), I believe some evidence of the Islamic hijackers is given in the form of a passport found at the base of Ground Zero and also some ID's found at the Pentagon site. Have you heard about this, and do you take this as positive evidence of Islamic hijackers?
Second question...I did not notice (from news that day or all photos published afterwards) any very large recognizable pieces of airplane debris at the Pentagon site or at the Shanksville site. Do you find this peculiar or is it just me?
My stance on 9-11 started from believing that there is no way this was a conspiracy to believing now that whatever happened is not what we were told happened. I believe that the way 9-11 has been used to advance foreign policy agenda (and who benefitted greatly from this agenda) would be the main reason to reinvestigate. Physical evidence of explosives and other scientific data can be debated and argued to the day we die. 9-11's role in shaping world politics and US foreign policy cannot be debated and argued - this event has led to a lot in a short number of years. Looking forward to hearing a response.

Anonymous said...

RonMossad, here's more information.

Thermite contains two major components, iron oxide and (elemental=chemically unbounded) aluminum. The thermite reaction is the process by which the oxygen from the iron is transfered to the aluminum, that is the oxygen becomes chemically bounded to the aluminum instead of the iron. The rest product is thus chemically unbounded iron and aluminum oxide.

Since aluminum binds the oxygen much better than the iron this process releases a great amount of energy.

Nanothermite contains the same energy producing ingredients but now they are much more finely mixed. When the components are more mixed they burn faster. Gun powder works the same way: it needs to be intimately mixed to be an explosive.

The iron sphere do not come from the steel beams in the building. This would not produce spheres. In order to get spheres the iron first need to be in molten form (i.e. 1538C or more) and then solidified in air (as to form spheres).

Iron speres is the typical rest product of a thermite reaction. This is why the presence of iron spheres are taken to be evidence for a thermite reaction.

The debunkers need to provide an alternative source for the iron spheres. So far this has not been done.

That would require temperatures of more than 1538C.

The presence of iron spheres provide indirect evidence for thermite. If there was thermite planted it should still be unreacted thermite left in the dust. Finding thermite in the dust would provide direct evidence.

And the paper by Harrit et. al. indeed offer direct evidence of thermite. But you need to read the paper to see what these are.


Why do you ask for information? It is very easy to find. First read the article, then watch the various interviews with Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones, Niels Harrit on Visability 911.

If you would have read the paper and done some basic research you would not have thought that the iron oxide is coming from the steel beams. This is a very elementary misunderstanding.

Anonymous said...

Alienentity, I'll spell Occham's razor incorrectly once more just for you. So come on, correct my speeling mistake again and make a fool of yourself once more. Every time you correct peoples spelling mistakes you show that you don't have better arguments.

Regarding Dr. G. here's some quotes:

"I see the debunking crew over there are rolling out the usual suggestion that the red chips come from some kind of paint. This is a very weak rebuttal since ordinary commercial paints - ones that may have been used in the Twin Towers - are not bi-layered or magnetic , as are the red chips in question."

"Now here lies the rub: Jone's red chips do not contain zinc, although some WTC iron-rich particles do indeed contain significant amounts of zinc. Nevertheless, zinc is essentially absent from Jones' red chips, thus it looks like these mystery particles are definitely not paint chips."

Alienentity, did you really miss those quotes or were you just dishonest?

Anonymous said...

RonMossad, you have to understand that the people reading this can see that you have not understood Occam's razor.
So I would encourage you to once more state your confused position, so that more people can see for themselves that you don't know what you are talking about.

Don't you understand that you only discredit yourself by continuing to restate your confused position?

Anybody can look up Occam's razor and see that it only applies to theories that are impossible to discriminate empirically.

I suspect that you actually do not understand what "impossible to discriminate empirically" means. Either that or you are simply dishonest.

People will actually respect you more if you right now honestly admit that you were confused by Occam's razor. That you will most likely not do that only makes more people think that you are dishonest.

Anonymous said...

It was suggested above by Alienentity that fig 14 in the paper suggests it is paint. If you read the paper you see that fig. 6-7 are the relevant figures. These represent multiple test over all the different dust samples and they all show the same thing: these XEDS shows immediately that it is not paint. The chemicals present in the primer paint are zinc, chromium or magnesium but these are absent in fig. 6-7. Again, this picture represent repeated experiments and they are all consistent in showing that it is not paint.

It is important to note that a clean uncontaminated surface in this case (fig. 6-7) was achieved by breaking the chips. If one needs to clean the whole sample this simple method cannot be used. Instead ultrasound could perhaps be used.

Fig. 14 is part of a second method to show that it is not paint. If it is paint the chip should dissolve when exposed to the strong solvent MEK. But as demonstrated, it did not. Therefore this sample is not paint.

Unfortunately, they did not bother to clean this sample. Probably, they did not bother since the chemical composition had already been established repeatedly in the earlier XEDS of clean samples displayed in fig. 6-7.

This second method, that fig 14 is part of, consists of showing that a) the chip does not dissolve and b) that significant migration of the aluminum and silicon has occurred.

a) shows again that it is not paint and b) that the silicon and aluminum is not chemically bounded which is part of the method to show that aluminum is present in elemental form.

You have to read the paper to correctly point out any mistakes. Right now you have just managed showed scientifically minded people that you have not read and understood the different methods the authors used in order to rule out paint.

This doesn't look good and you have just managed to convince scientists that would read this blog that you don't know what you are talking about.

Here are some interviews with the co-authors of the paper.

http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=450792

http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=450803

(Click on the podcast icon to download the interviews.)

Here is a seminar where the paper is discussed.

http://911blogger.com/node/20259

Note that noone that themselves have studied the dust samples claim that his is paint. When are the debunkers going to step up to the challenge and do tests by themselves?

RonMossad, please try to offer more informed debunking. I'm all for
debunking as this is part of the scientific process, but I absolutely loath junk debunking.

RonMossad said...

Wow, it's like an Anonymous blitzkrieg. I'll do my best sort all of this out in as few posts as possible...

To the first guy:

I believe some evidence of the Islamic hijackers is given in the form of a passport found at the base of Ground Zero and also some ID's found at the Pentagon site.

Along with passenger manifests, security camera video, confessions, claims of responsibility, etc etc etc etc etcetc etc etc etc etcetc etc etc etc etcetc etc etc etc etcetc etc etc etc etcetc etc etc etc etc

I did not notice...any very large recognizable pieces of airplane debris at the Pentagon site or at the Shanksville site. Do you find this peculiar or is it just me?

No. A plane hit the ground at nearly the speed of sound. It was full of explosive jet fuel. Popular Mechanics deals with this I belive.

to believing now that whatever happened is not what we were told happened.

There may be more to the story. But the only coverup is how inept we were at preventing this from happening. Not our amazing success in pulling it off.

I believe that the way 9-11 has been used to advance foreign policy agenda

True. The fact that it has resulted in eliminating two horrible governments happens to be something I support though.

US foreign policy cannot be debated and argued - this event has led to a lot in a short number of years.

Foreign policy can be debated. It absolutely can. Motivations for, results of, success, failure. etc.

Thanks for stopping by.

RonMossad said...

Second guy:

Nanothermite contains the same energy producing ingredients but now they are much more finely mixed. When the components are more mixed they burn faster.

Do they burn faster or explode faster? I thought they exploded. Now they burn. Is there anything nanothermite doesn't do? Can it make coffee for me in the morning?

If you would have read the paper and done some basic research you would not have thought that the iron oxide is coming from the steel beams. This is a very elementary misunderstanding.

I DON'T think that. I don't think that any of the questions I asked are true...they're rhetorical questions because what these people are saying makes no sense. Could you please respond to these specific questions though:

"How did the spheres become present in "all of the World Trade Center dust" ? How did it manage to mix itself with all of the dust, not some of it, all of it?"

Please read my comments and responses as well as all four of my posts on this topic. I and several others have responded to your points several times already. I read the article. I did the research. This whole scenario is absurd.

RonMossad said...

Third guy - who may or may not be my old friend Haze.

Anybody can look up Occam's razor and see that it only applies to theories that are impossible to discriminate empirically.

You know, your stubborness in clinging to this "discriminate empirically" stuff actually made me look this up on several sites just to make sure I hadn't hallucinated my interpertation of the Razor. Unfortunately for you it turns out I was right.

I suspect that you actually do not understand what "impossible to discriminate empirically" means. Either that or you are simply dishonest.

THIS IS OCCAM'S RAZOR ONCE AND FOR ALL:

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity."

Ok? Anything beyond that is artificially added ex post facto.

THAT BEING SAID...your "empirical discrimination" STILL applies.

I EMPIRICALLY saw an airplane hit the WTC. I DID NOT EMPIRICALLY see any evidence of a controlled explosion. Period. That's all there is to it. My version of the story does not require an explanation for a secondary explosion that no one saw, heard, smelled, touched or tasted. My version of the story does not require 10's of thousands of conspirators. Yours does. Endofstory.

FURTHERMORE.

From howstuffworks.com:

Here's a classic example of the use of Occam's razor. A pair of physicists -- Lorentz and Einstein -- both concluded mathematically that things tend to go a little wonky within the space-time continuum. For example, the closer we get to moving at the speed of light, the more we slow down.

While both arrived at the same results from their equations, Einstein and Lorentz had different explanations for them. Lorentz said that it was because of changes that take place in the "the ether." The problem is science doesn't hold that "the ether" exists -- and therefore introduces a problematic element of the equation. Einstein's explanation used no references to the ether, and therefore, his explanation eventually won out over Lorentz's.


Einstein's theory had no ether. My theory has 10,000 less conspirators, one less mystery substance that has never been confirmed to exist and is based on what I saw, heard and otherwise witnessed on 9/11/01.

You are attempting to discredit the usage of the Razor to ONLY the nanothermite debate (which I could argue is a dim stance to begin with because of the inordinately MORE complicated nature of your stance VS mine) whereas I'm using it for the overall Arabs VS US government/Jews/Israelis/Zionists debate.

My stance is not confused. I've clearly laid out my stance over four posts and dozens of comment responses. Sorry that we don't agree.

RonMossad said...

And last but not least:

It was suggested above by Alienentity that fig 14 in the paper suggests it is paint.

Neither I, nor alienentity are "suggesting" anything. Both he and I (as well as several other posters here) have linked to other articles by actual scientists that back our claims. Please read all four of my initial posts as well as the over 100 comment responses before assuming that anyone here is claiming to be the final word on the scientific method.

Any of your criticisms should be directed to authors of the links that have been posted here. All of your points have already been debated ad nauseum.

Unfortunately, they did not bother to clean this sample.

Exactly. Contanimated evidence is useless. Redo the experiment properly and then get back to us.

RonMossad, please try to offer more informed debunking. I'm all for
debunking as this is part of the scientific process, but I absolutely loath junk debunking.


OK. I'll go register for classes in physics, chemistry, explosives and structural engineering. I'll go study them for approximately a decade so I can get a doctorate and do the same experiments these people did. Then I'll get back to you, in roughly 15 years when I have my findings. I'm quitting my job as we speak to start on this quest.

In the meantime, until I'm done maybe these yo-yo's will redo their experiments without screwing up. Until then, I'm not buying anything they're saying. Also, maybe they'll have answers for why they decided to publish their article in a journal that is clearly a joke.

Pretty freaking ponderous.

We'll talk again in 2024.

Anonymous said...

Hey, passport and non-plane-wreckage guy here again.
The fact that a passport (i.e. paper) could survive the inferno of the plane crash and the twin towers collapsing is somewhat odd, is it not (since everything and everybody in the aircraft was pretty much completely disintegrated)? Especially since you, at the same time, say that a plane crashing at the speed of sound full of jet fuel will lead to no recognizable pieces of debris being left (except passports or other terrorist ID cards of course). If that is the case, then why in all other documented and photographed plane crashes are there recognizable larger pieces of debris? Wouldn't they all have disintegrated like 9/11 aircraft? Funny that both crashes on 9/11 resulted in very little recognizable airplane debris. Too coincidental to overlook I believe...and the passport being found on the street in NY and more terrorist ID cards found at the Pentagon crash site - those findings which I believe are in the 9/11 Commission Report - are just plain silly and ridiculous - a lot more so than the nano-thermite findings you are feverishly working to debunk.

RonMossad said...

Hello again passport guy.

First off - I am not "feverishly" working to debunk anything. I posted a link to a story I wanted to warn my readers from getting confused by, as it deals directly with the topics I normally post about (specifically Jewish/Israel related matters). Since then I've been inundated with comments from conspiracy theorists that have essentially proven my original point that much of the 9/11 "truther" movement is based on anti-Semitism and Jewish scapegoating and not actual skepticism. Notice I said MOST not ALL.

I am simply dealing with the comments because of my policy of responding to basically everyone who posts here.

As for your passport situation - other items survived the crash, such as parts of the bodies of the hijackers and their victims.

See these two articles for reference:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724/page/1

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/21hijackers.html

Please also (for everyone else) note that the first article mentions that the fires in the WTC reached temps of over 2,000 degrees.

It was Arabs. I don't need passports to prove that. I have no problem with believing that they survived the crash but even if they didn't, they are unnecessary to this discussion.

Anonymous said...

Not certain why you had to bring up anti-Semitism. How does religious bias of any religion have anything to do with this? I could just as easily say that your position is one of anti-Islam, although I will not say that. I myself do not believe the official story...I think it is crap - the whole 9/11 Commission Report - just a whitewashing. I am not prescribing to any conspiracy, but I just think there is a lot more to it that the public is not being told. Now I understand that there is a lot of information that the public may not be privy to, but I think there is a lot not being disclosed that could be made public. I think that omissions in the report of the mysterious collapse of WTC7 amongst other things is fishy - how could they just omit the collapse of a 47-story building? I think 9/11 needs to be reinvestigated by an independent committee, not a pseudo-fair "bipartisan" committee including James Baker types. It is just too important of an event to under-investigate. I believe I understand that 10 times more money was spent investigating Clinton's BJ - how does that make sense? I understand that saying it was an inside job might be quite a stretch, but the idea that 19 Arabs with boxcutters could pull this off while NORAD sat on it's ass is sort of ridiculous in my eyes. I must say though, Ron, that you are a very informed individual - you must see some lack of credibility with the official report? If you do not, then it looks like you do not wish to just for the sake of not wanting to.

RonMossad said...

If you read my initial post on the topic you would understand why I bring up the Jew-hatred. In the end, the Mossad or Israel or the Jewish bankers end up being cast as the culprits by the conspiracy people. You can even see it in some of the comments that are left on the site.

"Now I understand that there is a lot of information that the public may not be privy to, but I think there is a lot not being disclosed that could be made public."

You answer your own question later in your comment when you say:

"but the idea that 19 Arabs with boxcutters could pull this off while NORAD sat on it's ass is sort of ridiculous in my eyes."

But that's exactly what happened. Our government didn't kill us. Our government failed us. All the 1990's as the threat grew in the Middle East and right under our noses. As the terrorists were training in our own country for this disaster. Our government was clueless. Our intelligence agencies had been castrated. We sat as not one or two but THREE genocides were going on (Bosnia, Rwanda and Congo).

The enemy proliferated right in our backyards while yes, we were chasing around Clinton's sexual habit and he was too busy with his scandals and desperation to be loved to pay attention to what was about to happen. We were too busy celebrating the end of the Cold War for a decade to see what was coming.

That's what the government doesn't want you to know. That when it all comes down to it, how EASY it is for your world, your civilization, your society, your hopes and dreams to come crashing down like WTC 1, 2 and 7. How easy it is for some motivated, suicidal individuals to turn downtown New York into downtown Mogadishu.

That's the whitewashing. That's why it feels like there's something disturbing and unanswered about 9/11.

Because it IS disturbing. It's an incredibly frightening prospect and frankly it's a lot more disturbing and scary than if it was some government officials looking for an excuse to seize some oil fields.

Anonymous said...

The notion that foreigners don't care for us is more freightening than the notion of our own government turning against us???? Have you ever read a little book called "1984"? No offense, but that seems a stretch in my humble opinion....

I applaud Haze for his attempt to use the scientific method to resolve this argument or at the very least to steer it in the correct direction. It seems after reading all of the arguments though, that you sir do have an agenda of sorts... Perhaps not an unhonorable one mind you, but your agenda does seem to be fending off anti-semetic thoughts or comments... I really don't think that the mainstream person with questions regarding the 9/11 attacks hold the Jews at fault for it.... At least, most people I know that think things are rather fishy try to keep an open mind about any possible answers on either side of the debate and the notion of jewish involvement is rarely if ever mentioned at all. I personally find it insulting to everyone when so called "Debunkers" belittle our questions as flights of fancy though. These are real questions with real answers, perhaps not easy ones, but there none the less.

The burden of proof is on everyone though, might I add. Do recall that the mainstream thought on the structure of the solar system was once an earth centered model.... It was the burden of Copernicus to show to the world that this theory was flawed, even though as it turns out, he was correct from the beginning.... This is the burden of so called "Debunkers". To show all of us that have questions that their theories are correct as opposed to the "Truthers"..

In regards to the 10,000+ people needed for the conspiracy theory to be possible. I must point out at this juncture that easily that many people were required for the official story to be correct also though. Plus financing for at least a decade and countless espionage activities within our country by foreign operatives. I'm not saying that there is conclusive proof on either side of the equation though. I see holes in all sides of this story and therefore until those holes can be resolved, we are right back at square one. And at square one, everyone's opinion and thoughts are equal until scientifically shown incorrect. Once again, I think Haze has been the most scientific and open minded in these on going debates and I believe everyone could learn something from him here...

skarabee said...

first, excuse me for my bad english.
Just about about two answers Ron made:
"It was Arabs. I don't need passports to prove that. I have no problem with believing that they survived the crash but even if they didn't, they are unnecessary to this discussion." Wow! That's debunking...

-I believe that the way 9-11 has been used to advance foreign policy agenda-(by anonymous)

"True. The fact that it has resulted in eliminating two horrible governments happens to be something I support though."

So, let's continue and invade Iran, and rule the world. Fine. Hope you can say that in front of the family of the 3000 innocents killed that day (correct the number if you have time to spend).
Kind of collateral damage, uh?

I've read all the posts, searching for arguments against the conspiracy theory, because I don't want to think US Government have done this holocaust, and after six years of research over Internet and books, that's what I got. Really sad. Ron, I understand your fight, I saw lots of Conspiracy or re-investigations sites and some of them are anti-Jews, that's true. But do you you think you really serve your fight with your answers? Now, I don't know what to think, at the end, I only see the same old conflicts over and over. I'm not Jew, neither Islamist or Catholic. I'm just a human being whith two children, and I live on the same planet as you. All I want is PEACE, but what will I tell to my sons when they will ask me about 9/11 and the changes it mades in the world?
Should I prepare them to a total and never-ending fight against terrorism? Should I let them become RFID marked cattle?
Sorry, Ron, I was first happy to find something really instructing here, but for sure, i'm alerted now, in all camps, deaf and blind people fighting each other over the dust of a dream. I don't care about nano-thermite or paint in it. But there is one thing that I'm sure to find in the dust, even if you, pro and cons, have forgotten to mention: blood...

RonMossad said...

The notion that foreigners don't care for us is more freightening than the notion of our own government turning against us???? Have you ever read a little book called "1984"? No offense, but that seems a stretch in my humble opinion....

Ok, let's agree to disagree. Because if you don't think it's scarier that 19 idiots with boxcutters killed 3,000 people as opposed to a government who despite your comparison to 1984 still allows you and I to debate about this I don't know what to tell you.

At least, most people I know that think things are rather fishy try to keep an open mind about any possible answers on either side of the debate and the notion of jewish involvement is rarely if ever mentioned at all.

Unfortunately, your friends (and you) have no idea that you're being led around by the very anti-Jews that I am fighting against every day. You mentioned my agenda earlier, my agenda with this blog is the same with basically every post - stop blaming Jews and Israel for everything. That's a pretty common theme that runs here.

This is the burden of so called "Debunkers". To show all of us that have questions that their theories are correct as opposed to the "Truthers"..

The fact that Bin-Laden and company take credit for 9/11 just doesn't matter then? The fact that millions of people saw two buildings collapse in a way that's entirely INCONSISTENT with any kind of controlled demolition that's ever been done before doesn't matter? That there are confessions from terrorists. We SAW what happened. We SAW it. The burden of proof is absolutely NOT on the people that WITNESSED the event happen.

In regards to the 10,000+ people needed for the conspiracy theory to be possible. I must point out at this juncture that easily that many people were required for the official story to be correct also though.

There are millions of Muslims out there today who want to kill Westerners. They're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Chechnya and dozens of other locations around the world. 10K is hardly a drop in the bucket for them. Also, they PUBLICLY state that they want to kill us. No one is saying that it was just Bin-Laden and the hijackers.

It's not that 10,000 people is a big number of people to participate in a terrorist operation my dear anonymous poster. It's that 10,000 AMERICANS who knowingly perpetuated a mass-murder against their friends, family, neighbors and co-workers all managed to keep their mouths shut about it and never leak it to the press! They kept it from the aforementioned friends, family, neighbors and co-workers to the point that none of them have spoken up about it? Not even one of them became overcome with guilt? Not even one of them got cold feet?? Impossible!

10K fanatic Muslims is NOTHING. They tell you everyday they're going to kill you.

Once again, I think Haze has been the most scientific and open minded in these on going debates and I believe everyone could learn something from him here...

He seemed it at first but his militantly narrow interpretation of Occam's Razor and subsequent departure from the realm of science really hurt his credibility. Ever since he stopped posting as "Haze" and started posting as Anonymous his position grew more and more emotional and less scientific. I suspect that was an impersonator to be honest with you.

RonMossad said...

Finally someone with a name. Hi skarabee.

I'm a little pressed for time so I'll just jump right in.

Wow! That's debunking...

I never claimed to be a debunker. I linked several times to websites that are much better at it than I am.

So, let's continue and invade Iran, and rule the world.

Not rule the world. Just eliminate the vile dictatorships that torment women, minorities and attempt to procure nuclear weapons in order to destroy Western civilization.

Fine. Hope you can say that in front of the family of the 3000 innocents killed that day (correct the number if you have time to spend). Kind of collateral damage, uh?

Not quite what I said. I'm not saying we should have sacrificed those 3K people to do this. But we should wake up and realize that 3 thousand can easily become 3 million or 3 billion if we allow this trend to continue and let the enemy reach us technologically or militarily. War finds us whether we want it to or not. Murderers find us whether we want them to or not. At least we can fight on our own terms if we act now.

All I want is PEACE, but what will I tell to my sons when they will ask me about 9/11 and the changes it mades in the world?
Should I prepare them to a total and never-ending fight against terrorism?


I think you misunderstand my friend. I too want peace. Unfortunately it's not up to you and me just like it wasn't up to the Czechoslovakians in WWII. They will come for us just like the Nazis did if we do not stop them. Hiding under a rock will not make you safer - you need to open your eyes to what's going on in the world around you.

But there is one thing that I'm sure to find in the dust, even if you, pro and cons, have forgotten to mention: blood...

Spilling blood is exactly what I'm trying to minimize here. Hitler could have been stopped long before he had the strength to destroy Europe - but he wasn't. The West failed to act in the 30's and it's failing to act now again.

Thanks for stopping by.

skarabee said...

Hi RonMossad and thank your for your answer.
Ok, you have convinced me, it's clear now. And be sure my eyes are wide open to what going on in the human World, for years now. You are right, we must fight at least, but your term and those from the other side are not mine. I have no ennemies, I don't think the rest of the world is trying to kill me and my family and the way I lead my life.
I will not hide under a rock. Instead, I will climb on it, a gun in each hand, one for each side.

RonMossad said...

Skarabee - I wish I was in the same position as you are of having no enemies. Where are you from if you don't mind me asking? You say you are not a member of any of the religions based on the Bible, are you a Taoist perhaps?

Anonymous said...

RonMossad,

The example you provide (Lorentz and the ether hypothesis) is indeed an accurate application of Occam's Razor. But the example does not support your point of view. It supports mine. Indeed, Einstein's relativity theory and Lorentz ether theory are empirically indistinguishable. They even share the same basic equations!

Occam's razor is designed to work in these situations where empirical discrimination is theoretically impossible.

However, when empirical discrimination is possible, no matter how minute (and most evidence in science is very delicate requiring sophisticated experimental equipment), one should not apply Occam's razor. Instead it becomes necessary to do experiments in order to find which theory is empirically correct.

The reason for why Occam's Razor is inapplicable in these cases is that more complicated theories are sometime the more accurate theories. If we were to blindly apply Occam's Razor in these cases we would disregard theories that are scientifically superior (i.e. agrees with a larger class of experiments).

Since empirical discrimination is possible in the case of the two competing 9/11 conspiracy theories Occam's razor is not applicable. Instead one has to resort to experiments which Harrit et. al. have done.

Regarding contamination. As everybody can read above, the determination of the chemical composition was done by XEDS of CLEAN surfaces. These were obtained by breaking the chip in two (and thus create a clean uncontaminated surface).

The "contaminated case" is part of a DIFFERENT experiment which did NOT require any cleaning in advance. That different experiment made used of a strong solvent called MEK to show that the red/gray chips do not dissolve. This provided an independent demonstration that the chips are not paint.

The only reason they should have cleaned the samples would be to avoid this stupid confusion we are discussing right now.

Then as a third way to show that it is not paint they showed that significant migration had occurred during the MEK experiment. This shows that the aluminum is present in elemental form. Elemental aluminum is not present in paint.

Then there are the DSC experiments providing a 4th demonstration that it is not paint.

Regardless of your misunderstandings, the "paint hypothesis" was dealt with in detail in the Harrit et. al. paper BEFORE you raised the issue on this religious blog.

In addition, there are at this moment no scientific rebuttals of this paper. Scientific rebuttals have to go through the peer-review process.

All the debunkers have right now are blogers and blogs. I have said from the very beginning that the debunkers are in a weak position because of their refusal to do independent test by themselves. It is the people on the 9/11 truth side that follows the scientific method. Not the debunkers. And this is sad. They should do better than this.

Needless to say. All your comments about their paper and their methodology is useless. You are a layman and have no scientific training. And this shows in our discussions.

You are also very cocky thinking that you know better how to apply Occam's Razor than scientists. Amazing!!!

I'm not somebody trying to pretend to be Haze. My tone has changed because you, more than anybody else, has convinced me that it is the people from 9/11 truth that are rational and scientific.

Cheers!

RonMossad said...

I'm actually putting aside my first new blog post in almost a month to deal with this. Hello again person who alleges they are Haze.

In regards to Occam's Razor. For the 8,000th time you are attempting to apply what I said to JUST the nanothermite debate. I'm not using it on the nanothermite debate, I'm using it on the overall "inside job" or "false flag operation" theory VS what we all saw on September 11th. You're either not reading what I'm saying, not understanding what I'm saying (which is simply INCONCEIVABLE seeing as how you keep throwing in my face your alleged intellectual superiority over me due to your "scientific training") or deliberately ignoring what I'm writing.

I've said since your first post that I fully support professional scientists following the scientific method in a laboratory to put this debate to rest once and for all. Please do not make me repost my numerous statements to this effect for a third time. I PERSONALLY do not believe that there was any controlled demolition or nanothermite or other mystery device behind the destruction of the Twin Towers...you want to play science games, FINE! That's what I've said since the beginning.

However, Occam's Razor applies to the larger question of who was behind the attack.

On the contamination of the substances. I already stated, independently of the sloppy methodology that was used by the scientists the fact that these samples were in the "wild" so-to-speak in the hands of amateurs (yes, like myself) for years makes me skeptical of their purity. In ADDITION, if Harrit and his friends knowingly screwed up in the way they've admitted, who knows how many times they screwed up UNKNOWINGLY. If they're (and you are) so sure that their science is sound, why not just redo the experiments again to shut people like me up? And maybe this time they won't publish their findings in a fly-by-night research magazine. Which brings me to my next point.

You say:

In addition, there are at this moment no scientific rebuttals of this paper. Scientific rebuttals have to go through the peer-review process.

All the debunkers have right now are blogers and blogs.


You and everyone else on your "side" (an odd thing for someone who is allegedly neutral to say) act as if this Bentham Open Journal were the pinnacle of scientific establishment. If you read the article I linked to you will find that it is little more than a blog itself and its peer-review process is an absolute joke.

RonMossad said...

Continuing with a short transcript from the aforementioned link:

Using SCIgen, a software that generates grammatically correct, “context-free” (i.e. nonsensical) papers in computer science, I quickly created an article, complete with figures, tables, and references.

The manuscript, entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” was submitted on January 29th, 2009, to The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ), a journal that claims to enforce peer-review.

Any similarity to real or fictitious, living or dead academics is purely coincidental, as was their institutional affiliation: The Center for Research in Applied Phrenology based in Ithaca, New York. If the acronym didn’t reveal the farce right away, phrenology is the pseudoscience of reading personality traits from the lumps on one’s head.

Bentham confirmed receipt of my submission the very next day (January 30, 2009). Nearly four months later, I received a response — the article was accepted.


OK??? Can we agree that this "journal" has about as much credibility as the average amateur blog site?? "Peer-review" ??? Of Phrenology?? Forget it pal! This whole thing is a farce!

Finally, I would like to address your usage of the term "religious blog" as an apparent insult. In addition, your continued jabs at my lack of "scientific training" and the fact that I am a layperson.

I have never attempted to claim that this is a scientific blog. It's clearly not. It never was supposed to be. It's about politics, religion and current events. The fact that you keep coming back here to argue and I keep having answers for you (and every other supposed scientist) is pretty sad for the truther team...which you finally in this post admitted to being a part of.

But perhaps what's saddest of all - and ironic at the same time is your claim that I (an amateur who publishes a "religious blog") am "cocky" to think I know Occam's Razor better than scientists. Perhaps the reason for that is that the person who invented the concept of "Occam's Razor" - William of Occam - is not a scientist at all...he was in fact a Franciscan FRIAR. A religious person who believed in simplicity and spawned a philosophy based on that concept. It's something that I believe in myself and sorry if you didn't know, it doesn't JUST apply to mathematical equations.

Your theory is EXPONENTIALLY more complicated and requires a MASSIVE suspension of disbelief. Mine is simple, easy and empirically proven by every single human being who saw two planes hit two buildings that collapsed under their own weight.

If my comments are useless and this blog is pointless then don't post here anymore. I'm sure there are plenty of pseudo-scientific pro-conspiracy sites you can post on that discuss experiments on nanothermite, gamma rays and the mind-controlling effects of fluoride in tap water.

PS I noticed you corrected your spelling of Occam's Razor. Thank you for that. So much for not caring what us silly amateurs think, huh?

Anonymous said...

And so to sum things up: We have once again not resolved anything, left more questions unanswered than answered, and generally wasted hours of our lives pointlessly debating something that probably won't be resolved in our lifetimes...... Mkay.... So, its all still opinion based blogging..... Next thread....

skarabee said...

From Mars;)

RonMossad said...

What's to be resolved - 19 Arabs crashed four planes into three buildings and field killing almost 3,000 people.

If what you need resolved is the conflict that spawned this even then I agree with you...it is likely that will not be resolved in our lifetimes. But only because we refuse to act.

skarabee said...

Hi, Ron.
Remember those lights in the sky you saw from your balcony...;-)
Not already gone to free Iran from another Evil Arab Dictator? Easy to talk about Occam's stuff, but have you ever fought the real Ennemy? Did you kill someone before talking about shooting first? Did you se your brother dying in your arms?
The whole world is against you? Sorry, i'm the same world, and I'm not against you, and I'm not alone, far from it.
By the way, i'm not Taoist, and I have read the Bible and studied the origins of monotheism, and ther is some Jewish blood in my veins, but do you really care, if we are all against you? I think the real enemy is in your head.
I do have enemies now, the ones I choosed: Misery, Disease, Pain, Injuries, Illetrism...And I don't see the Bad Ugly Muslim or Jew behind every problem.
Tought I could find someone open-minded here, but now way.
Go back to your balcony, and take some snapshots of the next Big Light in The Sky. It could be the last one...

Davol White said...

You seem to fail to reconcile the fact that something had to have cut all those building columns into convienient 20 to 30 meter sections in order for both buildings to pile themselves so neatly into their own foot prints. You also have to ignore a lot of 9/11/2001 photographs to say there is no evidence of severence of columns. A tremendous amount of energy pulverized thoes two towers on 9/11in seconds and at free fall speed. But then again, ignoring evidence is what this blog appears to be all about.

RonMossad said...

But they didn't fall "neatly into their own footprints" - the debris fell all over Lower Manhattan and knocked down a third building. Were you even paying attention that day?

RonMossad said...

Skarabee - Muslims are not the source of all problems. However, they are involved in nearly every violent conflict in the world. You can't say the same about Jews.

Anonymous said...

Interesting moniker RonMossad.

I stumbled on this blog while looking for something else.

You make mention that bomb sniffing dogs were in NYC before 911 which is true. The fact you omit is that these bomb sniffing dogs were removed in the days leading up to 911.

You also make mention that there would have to be ample time to plant explosives and again, you fail to mention that whole floors were closed down and strange personnel/contractors were seen roaming throughout the towers leading up to 911.

You use both red herring counter arguments to prove your point which might be convincing if not presented with all of the facts.

2 planes hit 2 towers and 3 towers fell.

And you say over and over about how the Jews were "scapegoats" like they have always been. Again, your select view of history paints a picture that there was no Jewish involvement
with 911 and yet its fingerprints were all over it:

Who insured the towers against "terroristic attacks" 6 months before 911? What were his words about Tower 7? How could he give such an order (to pull it) if bombs were not there in the first place?

How many Jews worked in the towers? How many died on 911? What is Odigo? Where is Odigo? Who was dancing and flicking lighters using the towers burning as a backdrop? Who related on Israeli TV that they were "there to document the event"? Who tested positive for explosives, trained in making explosives and failed numerous lie detector tests? Who ran a front company called Urban Movers? Which country did its owner flee to? Why was the Mossad living in Hollywood, Florida 3 blocks away from "Mohammed Atta"?

Even with your smokescreens and propaganda, the finger keeps pointing back to one group. This amazingly is what the MSM is doing with regards to the 911 truthers and dissenters (called infidels and terrorists in the Middle East). You color and massage your collage of BS, but your arguments, like the MSM's propaganda cannot drown out the truth or stand the test of time. The planes were merely a distraction and as history has clearly shown, there were no WMDs thus, 911 was an absolute prerequisite for the "war on terror" in the world and at home to start. It was the "new Pearl Harbor" called for in the PNAC's A Clean Break document.

This brings up that history thing again. FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen to start a war. Why is it so implausible that Bush and Co. would not do the same? Is Operation Northwoods make-believe? What about Agent Orange? Or Depleted Uranium? Or the use of Phosphorus tipped weapons?

I leave you with one final thought: Google - Condi Rice telling Mayor Willie Brown to not to fly on 911. Seems the Israelis weren't the only ones with absolute foreknowledge .....

Phil said...

"It's hard for me...or anyone with a modicum of common sense to take this report seriously when the items they based this report on were given to them by residents of Lower Manhattan almost SIX YEARS after the Towers fell."

Exactly why did these researchers have to resort to small samples "given to them by residents of Lower Manhattan almost SIX YEARS after the Towers fell."

Rhetorical Question: Wasn't there a bizillion tons of wreckage and dust available from the time of the explosion (oops, I mean "perfectly plausible total structural collapse")?

Answer: The total wreckage was completely secured, trucked off, and sent to CHINA for recycling. (Biggest Crime Scene in history and not a bit of forensic evidence left.)

"-How did they got 10 to 100 tons of this highly dangerous substance into three buildings right under the noses of the very people they were going to kill? "

Question: Do three months of elevator renovations on the 100+ elevators in the Twin Towers count as an possible explanation? (fully documented).

You lack genuine curiosity, watch the videos of the "collapse" on a large screen, or HDTV. Watch the area just under the mushrooming cloud of smoke as the event happens. What propels mass out of a building at 400 miles per hour, pulverizing everything between the center columns and the windows to dust?

Foolish CIA propagandists.

Anonymous said...

WTC7 survivor eye witness testimony by Barrie Jennings. He reports explosions BEFORE the twin towers came down.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1875887453876535780&ei=JEhYSrvVOY6MwgO8mbnFCg&q=pentagon+survivor

Anonymous said...

Check this one out too!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=474797193720095856&ei=_lVYSqOSEo2gwgP96Yj_AQ&q=anthony+saltalamacchia

Anonymous said...

This is also a good video showing the North tower exploding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

Anonymous said...

Hey Phil,

It's pointless arguing with people like RonMossad. He is either dishonest or down right stupid. Or perhaps both.

You should address people that might come across this page and not RonMossad. When people see the testimonies and other good info they will quickly see what RonMossad is doing.

Do the same on other debunking pages! These pages can actually be used to spread information!

RonMossad said...

First Anonymous guy:

What were you looking for when you "stumbled" over here? Nevermind, you're never coming back to see this response anyway like the rest of them.

The bomb sniffing dogs were not "removed" - only the extra group that was there to deal specifically with a bomb threat left after its mission was accomplished. Furthermore, that you acknowledge the fact that dogs were there just days before the attacks proves there were no explosives because it would take significantly longer than just "days" to wire up a building of that size, let alone two buildings, let alone three buildings. Your uncorroborated "strange personnel/contractors" prove exactly nothing...aside from the fact that there were contractors in a building. Wow, Earth-shattering.

Then you launch into a Jew-hate-fest which precisely proves the point I was making in my initial post on the topic. I mean every one of your "points" has been refuted several times over either on this blog or on many others.

None of your points, even if true (which they aren't) prove anything aside from the fact that you hate Jews and Israelis so much that you are desperate enough to cling to insane fantasies just to force this on us.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks proving me right.

RonMossad said...

Hi Phil, thanks for your comment and thanks for stopping by.

Rhetorical Question: Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

Answer: There shouldn't be an answer because rhetorical questions don't have answers. So no, you don't know what a rhetorical question is.

That being said...

Unfortunately your fantasy about the wreckage being taken to China is incorrect. Welcome to Staten, Island kid.

Please note how many times the word "China" appears in that article. I'll give you a hint, it's less than one.

Furthermore, it took 8 months to cleanup the wreckage around ground zero...they've still been finding parts and pieces and fragments of buildings and people for years after the disaster. YEARS.

Please provide documentation of this elevator repair. Not that it matters because elevator repairs would not give you access to the exterior walls nor would it give you a pretext to GUT THE ENTIRE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING which is required for a controlled demolition. I may lack what you call "genuine curiosity" but you lack genuine knowledge.

And it's MOSSAD here, not CIA. Get your insults straight. Thanks.

RonMossad said...

Second Anonymous guy:

Sorry I'm not sitting through 2 hours of interviews on this stuff. Can you provide a summary or is there a writeup? I started watching the 2nd video and 6 minutes in I'm still listening to the guy talking about what a great job he had as a window washer.

As for your other video, it does NOT show the North tower EXPLODING it shows it COLLAPSING. That clip is only a fragment of the actual collapse and mis-characterizes ejections of air as explosions when in reality all you're seeing is a tremendous amount of air and energy being forced out of the remains of a building as the rest of it collapses upon it. See the Popular Mechanics article I referenced months ago for details.

Want more? No? Guess what I don't care. Here's a video of a REAL controlled demolition:

Please notice how you HEAR dozens of very loud explosions going off for several seconds BEFORE the building starts to collapse. Please show me where in any video of the WTC anything like this is witnessed. Here is the site I got that from.

Some more facts from the aforementioned site:

The collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers initiated where the planes hit the buildings. Controlled demolitions always are initiated at the bottom of a building, to take advantage of maximum gravity forces.

That did not happen by any stretch of anyone's fantastical imagination.

More you say? This article references police chopper pilots warning that the towers were leaning and about to collapse several MINUTES before the event occurred. This is not how explosions happen. Explosions do not happen in slow motion over several minutes. They are instantaneous and offer no warning whatsoever.

Other information from that article:

-Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.

-The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.


This article corroborates the previous one. And in addition to police reports there's a call from a civilian to 911 that refers to a tower showing signs of impending collapse well before it happened. IMPOSSIBLE if it was explosives or nanothermite or death ray guns.

Wait a minute, you say. I'm just referencing more Zionist pro-Israel, neo-con porpaganda?? Wrong again. One of the main sites that links this all together is Representative Press, a virulently anti-Israel site that places the blame for 9/11 not on American or Israeli government agencies, rather on the SUPPORT America gives to Israel. So, clearly NOT people on my side WHAT

SO

EVER.

But even they can agree with me on one thing - you guys are out of your minds.


Thanks for playing. Please don't come back.

Anonymous said...

hi Ron, just found your site today, after running a google search on Niels Harrit. i saw a youtube video of Harrit and wanted to find out more about him and what he has to say. i find it interesting that after a couple of youtube links, your blog is the first link of some 260,000 possible hits. anyway i read a little of the posts and your replies... and i have a few questions i would like to ask, if you would be kind enough to answer... 1- what is your motivation in debunking "truthers"? 2 - do you think there should not be anymore investigations into the 911 attacks? 3 - how do you feel about the resulting wars? 4 - why do you suppose, of 260,000 google hits for Niels Harrit, your blog tops the list after the youtube videos ?

my apologies if you find these questions a little naive but it's only just recently that i was given a copy of the Mike Ruppert film "The Truth & Lies of 911" & it opened my eyes to the possibility that the government had fore knowledge etcetera... & i'm struggling to know what make of it all at this point.
and well it's just nice to find any kind of site where someone actually responds to comments & questions

regards J.

RonMossad said...

Hi J - thanks for stopping by and thanks for your questions. I'll do my best to answer them.

1. My motivation for debunking "truthers" is simple. If you click this link you will find my motivation. The reason I continued along with this little side-project is because of the continued interest in my initial post and the unending attacks on me by the the conspiracy people. Out of the 75+ articles I've written, only four have been devoted to this topic.

So as you can see, debunking conspiracy theories and pseudo-science takes up VERY little of my overall time...This blog is primarily devoted to dealing with Jewish and Israel-related matters, especially debunking myths about the state of Israel that are often the result of Arab propaganda.

If you clicked the link I provided in this response or even just read some of the attacks on me...you will see that a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy people are anti-Israel/Jewish and the basis for these theories are rooted in classical anti-Semitism.

2. I don't care if there are additional investigations. There was a lot that went wrong on 9/11, if people want to keep obsessing over ever little detail or question mark of what happened that's fine. If people want to keep unearthing more and more of how badly this country's (and all of Western Civilization's) leadership failed them all through the 90's, that's fine with me too. If people have questions that they want answered - they have all the freedom in the world to pursue those answers.

However.

It must be open-minded. No agendas. No finger-pointing at Jews or freemasons or illuminati or some shadowy mystery group that only they know about.

It can't cost me anything. No tax dollars can go into this. I'm comfortable with what I know. I don't need to know anymore and I certainly will not pay for it.

It must be done professionally. No nanothermite nonsense being published in fly-by-night science journals. No more of these word-of-mouth, rumor-mongering, attention-seeking clowns. Oh you were a window-washer on the WTC and you heard someone say that his boss didn't show up that day so BINGO smoking gun, it MUST mean he was forewarned which means it was a conspiracy and inside job. Enough with this circumstantial evidence already!

3. I've written about the resulting wars in passing - but the answer to this question deserves its own blog. In short, both were necessary and I believe they were building up to an attack on Iran from two fronts. Unfortunately, our inept leadership blew the Iraq war and the country turned on it. So now it's up to Obama to stand between Iran and nuclear weapons. Needless to say, I'm not optimistic about it.

4. You know I've wondered the same thing. I think I probably get more traffic than the other sites - as you can see by all the comments. A lot of my traffic comes from people emailing each other my blog and links from other sites. My guess is that it puts me in a good position for google rankings. Or maybe the government just likes what I have to say and forces google to put me at the top. And everyone at google keeps their mouth shut for some reason about this blatant government censorship/propaganda.

Because you know...IT people are well known for keeping their mouths shut about this kind of stuff.

Anyway, I don't find your questions naive. It's honestly a difficult, scary subject and there are a lot of questions about things that happened that day.

You just need to decide for yourself what makes more sense...

Was it an elaborate scheme by the government? Or just another catastrophic failure in a history of governmental catastrophic failures. Does it make sense that a group of super-geniuses who pulled off such an intricate conspiracy could bumble their way through the ensuing 8 years and the previous 100 or so?

Good luck figuring it all out...

RonMossad said...

By the way - one of the things I keep seeing from "truthers" is that they can't believe a jet liner that crashes into the Earth doesn't leave behind more debris. Apparently they can't believe all that's left is a crater.

Here's a link to a story (and some photos) on a recent crash of an Iranian plane:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/index.html#cnnSTCPhoto

From the article:

The plane "disintegrated into pieces," said Col. Masood Jafari Nasab, security commander of Qazvin, the city nearest to the crash site in northwestern Iran.

Disintegrated. Into pieces. Just like Flight 93. Except that this plane wasn't INTENTIONALLY crashed into the ground like Flight 93 was.

Maybe this was another conspiracy. Or maybe it's even part of the 9/11 conspiracy!

Enough already.

jimaneejeebus said...

OK

1- "a final word" turns out to be "a final word.....entangled with unscientific rhetoric, flame wars, and descending into a crescendo of maddening tempers"

2- I'm a bit of an 911 agnostic....

I do believe that the notion of an "inside job" is a little far fetched.
However...
I also believe that there should be a further line of enquiry;if for nothing else then just to put everyones mind at ease; and also so the "winning side" can retain bragging rites for eons to come...."i was right..911 was a conspiracy...man!"

3- I also believe that, because you are not a scientist, that you should be very careful about drawing your own conclusions based on a peer-reviewed journal (where ever it may be published)

Thats just science.....That is why there exists this peer-review framework. You can disagree with the conclusions, but you have to explain why.

So I was appalled to see a non-scientist come up with a pseudo-science theory (almost like a conspiracy theory of his own!) as to why those 6 year old samples could be no good: they were six years old!!
Just because something is six years old, doesn't make it any less observable than if it were smelted in gods own hand straight in front of you while watching judge judy!

Sure, the samples will be contaminated with all kinds of crap, but that did not detract from the fact that they appeared to be engineered.

4- Lastly another key point about scientists is our wording which a lot of your "final word" seemed to focus on. Scientists appear as though we know, with great certainty, that something is going to happen, but when we talk about out prediction we always proceed with caution, we almost seem a bit unsure about things (thats ususally because we are!). We use statements like..."we were reminded of" or "these findings suggest"

So when scientists say "These observations reminded us of.." they're not talking like how they might talk outside the lab.. "hi thee, when I observed you from afar, you reminded me of Nicole Kidman, now I'm not so sure".....!


So let the interesting debate continue, but please, for heavans sake leave science to the scientists.

Ron said...

A "little far-fetched" ? Ok.

The "peer-reviewed journal" was a sham. Read my comments to this post or the information I posted here for the details.

If the samples are contaminated, they could be contaminated with ANYTHING, including this mystery object that the scientists refer to as nanothermite.

I don't think you understand, it's not just that the samples are 6 years old it's that they were in the hands of lay-people who I'm sure didn't keep them in stasis. And that's not the only reason why I don't buy into this.

It's also not just about the language. The paper was entirely inconclusive in my opinion and in the opinions of several other people including scientists.

Finally, I would like to point out that your attitude (and that of other alleged scientists who have posted on this topic) of "only scientists can comment on science" pretty pretentious. I'm not reaching my own scientific conclusions as if I'm a scientist, I'm linking to and quoting scientists and scientific magazines.

Sorry that you think that "non-scientists" shouldn't be allowed to come up with theories but that's not how it works on my site here. By the way, if you think that this is anything other than a political discussion you are pretty naive.

jimaneejeebus said...

Ron said ""Sorry that you think that "non-scientists" shouldn't be allowed to come up with theories but that's not how it works on my site here""

LOL!!!... i'm expecting too much of this world!

Many people, on both the twooters and the de-bunkers side, latch onto good science in order to solidify their argument. The journal by Jones et all is not saying that the government planted explosives. It is simply stating that they found a highly engineered explosive. One that could not have made its way into the samples by contamination alone.

The articles that you cite as dis-proving Jones et all do nothing of the sort. The editor-in-chief left as she didn't want to be associated with the implications of the paper. In fact, as a researcher of nano-technology, you'd think that she would have plenty of expertise in dis-crediting Jones et all. But she did not. She distanced herself but never has she dis-credited it.

I know you'd rather keep this political, but I can't leave you without a few nuggets of science that may, hopefully, impel you to do your own research.

The NIST model of the WTC7 collapse completely ignores the laws of thermodynamics, (meaning they basically changed the laws of physics in order to satisfy the huge heat and pressures required for collapse. (bad science that pisses me off!)And also the "popular mechanics" report often cited by many as a de-bunking tool completely ignores Newtons third law as a means to satisfy the pancake collapse theory.

Bad science can be found all over the place. Jones et all is a lot more credible than you'd have us believe....

casey said...

hi ron,
first time reader!
to be fair i must confess to being a "truther."

i feel that at best the 9/11 commission report was designed to divert attention from the total and complete incompetence displayed by our elected and military leadership, or of course at it's worse, that the 9/11 commission report was used to divert attention from something far more sinister.

i have two questions, the first is in response to your insinuation that any inside job would be too vast, numbering in the tens of thousands, to be real. i ask why does the conspiracy have to be vast? how difficult would it have been for one person, say dick cheney or scooter libby to contact al qaeda and inform them that 9/11/01 is the day our nations defensives tied up playing war games, and terror attack simulations?

from reading your posts and responses, it seems that at the very least you'd agree that the 9/11 commission report lacked any kind of serious inquiry into the defensive failures of that day. if you don't agree, please explain why no one, not one person, was fired or demoted for the inaction of the american military.
if you do agree, why are you opposed to a new and independent investigation in to the tragic events of 9/11/01, considering that at best the attack was successful due in no small part to the incompetence of the u.s. military i would think that a thorough and independent investigation would be welcome to insure these failures do not happen again.

RonMossad said...

jimanee - you expect what, that you just say whatever you want and the rest of us do what exactly? Just listen? Thanks, but that's not a world I want to live in.

You keep harping on the fact that I said the samples could be contaminated and that the editor quit. What about all the people that called the actual methodology of the experiments? What about the people who found alternate explanations for these substances that don't involve a 10,000+ person conspiracy that has managed to be flawlessly executed by all involved over eight years.

By the way, the editor didn't quit due to the "implications" of the paper...she quit because it was submitted improperly and possibly fraudulently.

It's also very cute that you attempt to claim neutrality in this argument when you clearly are using the same recycled arguements as every other conspiracy theorist on this and other sites.

Finally - I have a question for you.

If I'm not a scientist and therefore I have no place to comment on this...are you a structural engineer? Is Niels Harrit? Because both of you have made comments about pancaking and building collapses and controlled demolitions. I'd like to know your credentials if you don't mind.

Thanks.

RonMossad said...

Hi Casey - I didn't say that I was against further investigation. Go right ahead. Good luck. It's a complete waste of time, but you're free to do whatever the hell you want in this world. Just please don't use my tax dollars for this wild goose chase please.

Remember, it's a two-way street. You're free to investigate, I'm free not to pay for it.

By the way this blog post is almost FOUR MONTHS old.

Maybe you want to check out a newer article instead of this insanity.

Thanks for stopping by.

jimaneejeebus said...

RON SAID "The paper was entirely inconclusive in my opinion and in the opinions of several other people including scientists."


In my opinion...(happy now), the few scientists who actually made a reasonable effort at refuting Jones et al did a bad job of it, neglecting evidence when it did not fit, and resorting to personal attacks when cornered.


I don't agree with what Jones et al are implying, but I agree with their methods and proofs, which have yet to be dis-proved....(by scientists anyway)


There are many scientists out there (including me) who are watching this debate ferverantly, not because of political affiliation, (i am, contray to what you might believe, neutral) but just to confirm our worst suspicions...the world is going insane.

You, with a playful dis-regard for science and an unwavering sense of political and religious superiority, are half of the problem.

Anonymous said...

Hello jimaneejeebus,

I'm also a scientist doing my second postdoc and I agree that RonMossad has a disrespect for science. He does not understand what a scientific argument is. He lies and tweak when he does not want to see the obvious. Yes, people like him is part of the worlds problem.

Use pages like this one to spread information instead of arguing with the willingly stupid RonMossad's.

Cheers and take care!

Anonymous said...

"He seemed it at first but his militantly narrow interpretation of Occam's Razor and subsequent departure from the realm of science really hurt his credibility."

RonMossad, all scientific terms are meant to be narrow and strict. They are precisely defined and should be used only in that way. Haze's use of the term is the correct one, not yours.

The fact that you allow yourself a "liberal use" of the term does not speak in your favor. Please use Occam's razor the way scientists use it or don't use it at all.

jimaneejeebus said...

Hi anon....thanks for the kind words

the reaon he is liked is because he spews right wing religious fundamentalism as bad as any terorist group.....he incites hatred which, in turn, polarises prople, which leads to more hits, which leads to an illusion of popularity. I for one do not agree with this kind of "shock headline-polarise peope" approach.
Bloggers like these are only here for one reason......to increase their own sense of importance.
"Hey look how much hate I've created today with my incendiary remarks" yada yada yada

RonMossad said...

Jimanee 1st post - looks like we have a difference of opinion. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree......

Jimanee 2nd post - Please point out with specific examples where I am spewing "right wing religious fundamentalism as bad as any terorist (sic) group". As an alleged scientist I'm sure you're very familiar with the concept of backing up your statements with proofs. Please quote the specific instances where I've "incited hatred" and/or have said anything that is factually incorrect.

In addition, I noticed you failed to reply to some of my issues that I raised for you:

1. The fact that you mis-characterized the departure of the Bentham editor. My statement about her departure was based on quotes FROM HER and can be found here. Your statement about her departure was based on either not reading the link or ignoring the information contained within. Furthermore she was not a "nanothermite expert" - there are no "nanothermite experts" because only Niels Harrit and Steven Jones actually think this substance exists.

The same link contains an article that claims that Harrit's paper actually proves that the mystery substance is paint. Do you agree/disagree? If not, why not?

2. Since according to you I'm unqualified to comment on this topic due to my area of expertise being "hate-mongering" could you please share with us what your area of expertise is so we can stick to it? You seem to feel you are qualified to discuss physics, chemistry, structural engineering and psychology. How much time did you actually spend in school? By my math, at least 20 years.

3. Which of these topics is Niels Harrit an expert on? Some of them? All of them? What about his team of "investigators" (sociologists and psychologists by the way, he's the only one on the panel with any expertise in chemistry).

4. What, specifically about the debunkers that I've referred to in this post or in the comments' methodology do you find to be a "bad job" ?

Aside from all that, this article proves that the "science journal" Harrit chose above all others to publish his paper is an absolute mockery.

Finally the anonymous guy wasn't saying that people LIKE (as in, approve of) me, he was saying that people LIKE me (as in, similar to) are the problem in the world. You know for a "scientist" you sure do a poor job of reading comprehension. It's a wonder you haven't blown yourself up in your lab by mistakenly mixing the wrong chemicals together.

RonMossad said...

Wow, how strange that this new Anonymous poster immediately replied back to a comment of mine from months ago that was addressed to haze. And it concerns Occam's Razor. What an odd coincidence.

I already shut you down on that topic a long time ago, Occam's Razor is not a "scientific term" - it was named after a monk! It's used in science, yes but it is not exclusive to it.

By the way I hope you realize that you've contradicted your new BFF over here. When you say

all scientific terms are meant to be narrow and strict.

and he says

we almost seem a bit unsure about things (thats ususally because we are!). We use statements like..."we were reminded of" or "these findings suggest"

there seems to be a disconnect here because none of those statements "narrow" or "strict". In fact they seem quite open to interpretation.

So which of you is the fake scientist who has no idea what he/she is talking about?

Thanks for stopping by, yet again.

RonMossad said...

By the way you two - keep posting on my site and keeping my rankings high. As much as I hate this topic, this post has a nice spillover effect of bringing in people who then click on some of the topics I actually care about.

Like the never-ending Hamas/Fatah battle

The recent fake Iran "election"

Why the two-state solution in Israel has failed for the past 60 years

Why the settlers in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are/were NOT the problem in the Middle East, contrary to what you might have heard

And this breakdown of several popular myths that Israel is repeatedly accused of (one of my personal favorites).

I truly appreciate all the support - your posts are really helping me to get the message out.

Thanks so much guys!

jimaneejeebus said...

I' ve said what I've needed to say.
As for my credentials....I started out as an Industrial Engineer, and then went on to study computer science. I now work for a notable soft/hardware company in R&D.


I am NOT the other anon poster (if that is what you're implying)


Jones et al have yet to be dis-proven (by scientists at least)

You wrote a whole article based on why you think they were wrong, when scientits cannot even say they were wrong.

The reason why they published in Bentham was no-one would touch this topic with a barge-pole.


"a final word on Judaism...."

Quit with you religious jibbery jabbery fundamentalist bullshit fool!
It serves no other purpose other than to divide even futher the continuing rift between Israel and the Palestinians (the rest of the sane world as well)

The Jews took over Israel without even asking the palestinians...nice of them wasn't it?

why do Jews get to have a spiritual home anyway?
why can't the protestants?

I'm an atheist....I decree that all atheists should have a spiritual home In the middle of Israel.
See how you'd like it if a load of atheists came into your land?

But of course you will say "the Jews were there for thousands of years before the Arabs"

So what! quit your bitchin n accept it.....countries throughout history get conquered by various groups all the time. I'm from Ireland.....we've been conquered by the Vikings, the Normans, the British. Part of our country is still governed by the British. Does anyone give a shit about this? Not one freaking bit.

Sure, British-Rule was an issue for a lot of us, that's because a lot of the oppression happened in modern history (700 years ago until 1916). When was Israel created ?!?

jimaneejeebus said...

anyways I'm done now with my rant. I'm pretty positive you won't agree with me on any of the above. Can't be arsed fighting with you. I'm outta here.....peace!

RonMossad said...

Another satisfied customer.

Thanks for proving my original point, yet again with your absurd, baseless, factless, anti-Israel rant. Please don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Cheers mate!

jimaneejeebus said...

I'm not anti-israel....I'm anti-fuck people out of their own homes.....douche. Don't play the racism card when it is clearly not racist what I am asking you,,,, It may sound absurd to you but what I've said is certainly not baseless.
Why were the Arabs not asked?
Why is the Map of Israel completely different from the one drawn up by the Balfour agreement?
Why didnt you just take the 6000 sq miles assigned to you in Africa?
Why can't the protestants have their holy land in the middle of Israel. (that last one was a joke..don't even answer that)

No wonder you think the world is against you. Stop sulking like a baby and take the criticism. If you espouse to those elitist imperial views, I cannot help you. You are the racist. You are the bigot. Think about it for a minute. Why does the vast majority of the world disagree with the recent invasion of palestine.
Why was zionism almost made a racist movement by the UN?
Why did Britain u-turn on their initial support for a state of Israel?

you answer these questions fairly to yourself and you will understand why you feel "the world is against us"

Don't ever imply I'm racist, douche.

RonMossad said...

You say you are not a racist. Fine. I never said you were.

But here are some FACTS.

FACT: You are anti-Zionism.

FACT: Zionism is about Jewish self-determination and independence.

FACT: For 2,000 years when there was no Zionism, Jews were brutally slaughtered, Holocausted, Inquisitioned, Pogromed, Crusaded and forcibly converted.

FACT: Therefore, if you do not support Zionism, if you are anti-Zionist/Israel (which you have now stated for the record) you are BY DEFAULT in favor of all those things I just mentioned.

As an alleged scientist you should have no problem following that logic. You may in all honesty not even realize what you're saying - but try to follow me here, if you're anti-Jewish state and anti-Jewish army, you're PRO-Jewish annihilation because historically that's what happens when those two things do not exist.

RonMossad said...

In answer to your questions now.

Why were the Arabs not asked?
- They were. It was called the UN partition plan and the Arabs responded by trying to throw the Jews into the sea.

Why is the Map of Israel completely different from the one drawn up by the Balfour agreement?
- I'm not sure what "Balfour agreement" you're referring to. If you're talking about the Balfour DECLARATION...Mr. Balfour only referred to "Palestine" not any specific borders. If you're referring to why today's Israel is different than the one drawn up by the United Nations in 1947, please see my previous answer.

Why didnt you just take the 6000 sq miles assigned to you in Africa?
- Because that's not the Jewish homeland. Why don't you pick yourself up and out of Ireland and move to Argentina or some other arbitrary country that you have no ties to and no Irish population to speak of.

There were always Jews in Israel...there was an uninterrupted Jewish presence in the land that predated any Arabian invaders in the 600s. Forget the Bible, archeology and history proves it. And those same Jewish families continued living in Jerusalem, Tzfat, Hebron, Tiberius and various other places all the way until the Zionist immigrations of the 1800 and 1900's.

Furthermore, what about the people who live in Uganda (the African land-locked country you wanted us to take)?? There are over 30 million people living there today...I just want to get this straight...are you OK with displacing Ugandans but not Arabs? Or do you expect the Ugandans to not care about an independent Jewish state simply being dropped on them out of nowhere?

Why can't the protestants have their holy land in the middle of Israel?
- Because they already have their holy land in Massachusetts. The Puritans, remember?

RonMossad said...

Continuing on.

Why does the vast majority of the world disagree with the recent invasion of palestine?
- Why does the vast majority of the world need oil? Why did the vast majority of the world sit by and allow 6 million Jews to be killed by Hitler? Why did the the vast majority of the world persecute my ancestors for 2,000 years? Why does the vast majority of the world have absolutely no knowledge of the facts, history and reality of the region? Why did the vast majority of the world mourn for Michael Jackson? Why did the vast majority of the world embrace Christianity at one point? Why did the vast majority of the world embrace Islam at another point? Why didn't the vast majority of the world care about "Palestine" until there were Jews living there? Why for that matter was there never an independent state of Palestine in the history of mankind? Why didn't that ever bother anyone until 1947?

These are all great questions to ponder, however I'm not sure what the relevance of them is why Israel needs to defend innocent men, women and children from indiscriminate rocket attacks fired from the one part of the region that the Israelis gave the Palestinians exactly what they wanted.

Why was zionism almost made a racist movement by the UN?
- It wasn't "almost made" it WAS made. It was later overturned. By the way, the United Nations is probably the most hypocritical institution ever created in the history of mankind.

Why did Britain u-turn on their initial support for a state of Israel?
- Because they decided they needed oil more than they needed Jews. Also, the chaotic, bloody Arab riots of the 20's and 30's gave them cold feet and they decided that the Jews just weren't worth it. Further proving my point that Jewish self-determination (ZIONISM) is the only answer. Wishing and hoping and relying on the whims of the rest of the world hasn't worked out so well for us in the past.

No more.

Don't ever imply I'm racist, douche.

Or else what? Is this some kind of threat? Not very scientific of you, buddy boy.

Hope you enjoyed my answers to your question. Speak to you soon.

Anonymous said...

RonMossad doesn't get the point that most people a pro humans, which means pro black, white, jewish, arab, red, yellow,...) and because of that we are against the terror of Israel.

Violence in any form should always be rejected and never justified as RonMosssad is trying to do.

The jewish people with their difficult history of persecution, do not have the right to abuse and kill Arabs.

It would not be hard to have world peace. But then again we have people like RonMossad around. People like him do not care about the Arabs in Gaza, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq.

Anybody who does not reject violence in any shape or form, does not, deep down, want peace. They are fine with war and slaughter as long as they are not affected.

RonMossad, do you reject the violence of Isreal? Or do you support it?

RonMossad said...

There's a difference between violence and self-defense.

If you hit me in the face, you have committed an act of violence. If I hit you back in an attempt to prevent you from doing so again to myself or anyone else, I have not committed an act of violence...I have committed an act of self-defense.

Likewise, Hamas and Hizballah thugs who shoot rockets indiscriminately in an attempt to murder innocent men, women and children are vile terrorists committing acts of violence.

Israelis who respond by attacking their bases in an attempt to prevent them from doing so again are heroic soldiers committing acts of self-defense.

You see the difference?

Of course you don't.

By the way, they aren't Arabs in Afghanistan or Pakistan. They are entirely different nations and cultures. Read a book.

Anonymous said...

people have an impression that all the Asians are the same. Their thinking is alike, they eat same food and they have same culture. But reality is very far away. My Blog : earn money chao!

Anonymous said...

Israel kill 30 times as many as the Palestinians. Isreal has settlements spread out all over the Westbank, not just on its borders.

This is not self defence. It's an invation.

Read a book.

RonMossad said...

Sorry that my army is better trained than your terrorists. Maybe you shouldn't pick a fight with someone 10 times as strong as you.

Also, what do settlements have to do with the 50 years of Arab wars and riots BEFORE there was a single settler in the West Bank or Gaza?

Also, the Palestinians have "settlements" spread out all over Israel-proper as well. They're in neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Haifa, Acco, Yafo as well as entire CITIES in the Galilee...Umm el Fahem comes to mind.

jimaneejeebus said...

Wow..RonMossad said >>>

"There's a difference between violence and self-defense."

wow


I'll say it again

WOW

Do you know who else said that?
Hitler.


That sure was great self-defending alright. Invading the West Bank like that and killing all those innocent people....

To which RM will probably reply "uh doh they did it to us first"
(we could argue about this all day, )...

I'm so tired of all this.

Violence is not a means to justify the end....civilization needs to move on otherwise history will talk of more murders, more bloodshed and little (if any) progression.

Killing in the name of Ideals is not the answer.....In modern society, all forms of it should be looked on as a kind of physcological disease....something not unlike being insane

To which RonMossad will most definitely reply (if you don't believe me just look at our discourse above)

"what about Hitler, now he WAS insane.....persecuting us Jews like that"

To which I would finally agree

"Yes Ron, Hitler was most definitely Insane......"

Anonymous said...

RonMossad is clearly now justifying killing people: "We have the guns and therefore we have the right to occupy and abuse." This is what one expects from a morally challenged person. He care not for the dead of people belonging to different religions and races.

This is the evil we are facing today. And as long as it is there we will have endless wars. And RonMosssad will always support them.

Instead of spending a trillion dollars a year on war we could explore space and develop fusion reactors, and other renewable energy sources.

Anonymous said...

Here's why the red/gray chips aren't paint.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/

RonMossad said...

Jimanee - when did Israel invade the West Bank and "kill all those innocent people" exactly? Do you have any concept of what you're saying?

Can you please link to the exact context of the alleged Hitler quote you are referring to?

Can you also please give me the context of when I advocated killing in the name of idealism? Can you also please explain the connection between the pacifist Jews of Europe who never hurt anyone over millennia and the terrorists of Gaza who shoot rockets on a daily basis into the homes and schools? Can you also please explain the connection between the Nazis who attempted to exterminate the aforementioned innocent men, women and children and the Israeli military who is forced by the aforementioned terrorists into a conflict where the terrorists hide behind the people the allege themselves to protect?

This is what you don't understand.

One side kills in the name of ideals and religion. The other side (the Israelis) just tries to stop that from happening. If the Arabs stopped shooting rockets at Jews the Jews wouldn't have to respond. It's that simple.

No rockets

No suicide bombs

No retaliation

Endofstory

By the way, that was a truly lovely conversation you had with yourself. Too bad you need to create a version of me that argue with, instead of actually debating with me or responding to ANYTHING I say.

RonMossad said...

Hi again Mr./Mrs. Anonymous - can you please direct me to where you pulled that quote from? Because it certainly wasn't from this website.

On the other hand I love your exploring space/fusion reactor idea...did you come up with that yourself or did you just finish playing Civilization for the first time? Also, the 1990's called, they want their naivete back.

Anonymous said...

So.

How much you get paid for this desinformation?

And do you realize that by protecting the true responsible people for 9/11, you are the accessory to the murder on 3000+ workers in WTC complex?

I say, the ones buying your lies are desperate for the truth not to be true.

RonMossad said...

Millions!

Anonymous said...

"when did Israel invade the West Bank and "kill all those innocent people" exactly? Do you have any concept of what you're saying?"

AMAZING!!! The ignorance (or more likely dishonesty!) of RonMossad is simply mindbending. Any fool can get a detailed map of the Israeli occupation of the westbank, with all the military borders, ...

And what about Gaza? Are you going to deny the x-mas invasion too? OMG!!! So ignorant!

RonMossad, I'm proud to be one of the "naive". We will never give in to cynical and destructive people like you. People like you (regardless what race they belong to) represent true evil on this planet. Human life of the other races does not mean anything to you.

How can you lie like this given your race's tragic history? Have you learned nothing? Have you no self-respect?

I'd wish you'd join us and say NEVER AGAIN! Regardless of race or color. But you won't do that...

RonMossad said...

Excuse me, I never said there were no Israeli soldiers in the West Bank. I was asking what specific incident the anonymous poster was referring to when he made that comment. I take it by his/her lack of response that he/she was just throwing around generalities with no facts to back them up as I initially suspected.

"Denying" the recent Gaza incursion would be absurd as I have several entries from that period that specifically cleared up a lot of the nonsense you are throwing around right now. I invite you to read those posts. Here are some I recommend:

This one debunks several of the myths you seem to believe in

On the media's ignorance and the reality of living under constant rocket attack

On the Israeli soldiers you malign

On your Hamas heroes executing innocent civilians

More on Hamas executing innocent Palestinians

STILL MORE reports on Hamas hurting their fellow Palestinians - are you outraged yet?

On fake moralizing and crocodile tears over terrorists while millions die all over the world at the hands of true murderers

Hmmmmm.

Perhaps...it's not I that am "cynical and destructive" afterall.

Anonymous said...

RonMossad,

Everybody knows what's going on. Sending more propaganda and justifications for the abuse and killings of the Palestinian won't change things.

How do you stop the Palestinian's from shooting rockets and hating Israel? Well, first get out of the Westbank (yes you are everywhere *inside* the Westbank and not just on the borders. Are you going to deny this too?). Secondly, give aid to Gaza, financial and medical. Also, convince the UN and the US to support the peace activists in Israel and Palestine.

Convince the Israeli government to stop stop *paying* Israeli's to move to the colonies.

You, on the other hand think, that you can extinguish hatred by killing people and abuse them. You are so confused.

I'd wish you'd join the Jewish people who are demonstrating against the crimes of the Israeli government. Instead of propagating this hatred with this website start reporting posetively about the brave Israeli's who risk their lives rebuilding the houses in the Westbank that the Israeli military bulldozer.

But sadly your interest is not in peace. It is in regional dominance.

Felix said...

Unreacted Nanothermite was found in the rubble.
Its molecular structure was specific to nanothermite, not thermite or structure rust or paint.
Explosive detecting dogs are not trained to detect aluminium and iron oxide, so the nanothermite could have been there for months undetected.
The detonators could have been placed in the 5 days before impact, when dogs were retired from duty.
I did not need that additional evidence to understand that the three buildings where brought down by controlled demolishion.
The fact that they were specifically designed to whitstand fire and airplanes crashes is incompatible with the speed at which they fell down, escpecially WTC7.
I am sure that if one day the true 9-11 perpetrators admit their crimes, the conspiracy theorists (those who believe in the conspiracy by arab hijackers) will still deny the truth

RonMossad said...

Great - back in this post yet again. Let's get on with it.

"How do you stop the Palestinian's from shooting rockets and hating Israel? Well, first get out of the Westbank (yes you are everywhere *inside* the Westbank and not just on the borders. Are you going to deny this too?)."

I'm sorry, but did you just attempt to justify Hamas shooting rockets into Israel because Israel is present in the West Bank?!!?! Just to be clear...you're saying that you won't stop shooting at my civilians within my own territory until I evacuate more civilians from territory you don't own, that I've been holding for 40 years?

So you're threatening me with violence in order to achieve your political gains. Excellent. You have just fit the exact definition of a terrorist.

"Secondly, give aid to Gaza, financial and medical."

Why? You're already receiving billions of dollars in aid - financial and medical. You have received this aid since at least 1993. Start using it for something other than bombs.

"Also, convince the UN and the US to support the peace activists in Israel and Palestine."

No I don't think I'll be supporting these "peace activists" at this time.

"Convince the Israeli government to stop stop *paying* Israeli's to move to the colonies."

This hasn't happened in decades. So, already done.

"You, on the other hand think, that you can extinguish hatred by killing people and abuse them. You are so confused."

Can you please show me where I said either of these things? I've asked you several times now to back up your allegations of racism and you have failed each time.

"I'd wish you'd join the Jewish people who are demonstrating against the crimes of the Israeli government."

Keep wishing.

"Instead of propagating this hatred with this website start reporting posetively about the brave Israeli's who risk their lives rebuilding the houses in the Westbank that the Israeli military bulldozer."

You are insane.

RonMossad said...

Felix - the dogs were not removed. Only the additional dogs that were there responding to a bomb threat left. The WTC was still subject to the standard bomb-detection practices that kept is bomb-free since '93.

Also, if you really think that you could wire a building the size of the WTC, let alone two, let alone THREE for detonation in 5 days without anyone noticing you need to learn to use google better.

RonMossad said...

You guys all need to watch 9/11: Science and Conspiracy by National Geographic. They address the thermite nonsense as well as the rest of what you kids like to scream about.

Anonymous said...

So I checked the cite "9/11: Science and Conspiracy"

"Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the checmical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes."

WOW!!! Gullible little RonMossad believes anything he reads. Of course you can determine if it was one or the other. Only an person completely ignorant of chemistry could swallow such a load of crap, head and tail.

These "scientists" the refer to have not even examined the samples. They don't even follow the scientific method.
The only scientific analysis is done by Harrit et al. The rest only blog and blog and never request do what a proper scientist should do: check these things in the lab. The dust is there for people to examin you know. You can actually study carefully this issue in the lab. Not just blabber and guess as RonMossad is doing.

And yes, only crackpots says its paint. RonMossad, do you still claim that the red/gray chips are paint?

But then again you are not a scientist. Just a blogger who thinks he has a lot of "common sense". All crackpots think they're clever...

Anonymous said...

Haha, just saw NG's experiment to show that steel can deform under fire (who would have thought that!!!). But then they use a ridiculously small steel beam and higher temperatures! WOW that's genius!!!

So how on earth is this relevant? How could anyone possibly believe that this demonstrates anything whatsoever about the huge steel beams in the WTC? Underwaters lab actually carried out the full scale experiments with longer and hotter fires. But since the outcome of the experiment (only minor sagging) I guess they had to call in the amateurs to do a crackpot experiment with a tiny steel beam!

Haha, this is so ridiculous! What junk! Who are these amateurs doing these "revealing" experiments?

Man, is this really the best debunkers can do? Incredible! Aren't you embarrassed? But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt though. Perhaps you only advertised the documentary but did not watch it yet. So please watch it!

RonMossad do you really support this crap? If so, state it again and you'll look like a complete idiot once again!

Anonymous said...

"So you're threatening me with violence in order to achieve your political gains. Excellent. You have just fit the exact definition of a terrorist."

So you cannot read either? I'm pro-peace on either side. The Isreali government has to stop its abuse of the Palestinians. A smaller problem (but still a significant problem) is the Hamas rockets. They shoot rockets because you have invaded their land. Just because you've occupied it for 40 years doesn't mean you have the right to it.

In reality, you are the terrorist. You are the one who supports the killing of innocent people for your ideology and geopolitics.

The Israeli government pays people today to go to the settlements. They even have big billboards on your highways!

RonMossad said...

Are you all the same person that just keeps coming back here to annoy me?

Assuming you are...you said the following:

"How do you stop the Palestinian's from shooting rockets and hating Israel? Well, first get out of the Westbank"

What you're saying here is that you won't stop shooting rockets at civilians, innocent men, women and children until y our demands (Israel leaving the West Bank) are met.

That's T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-M.

You can say you're pro-peace all you want. Building a house is not a violent act. Shooting a rocket is.

As for the "deforming" steel column...

I don't know what to tell you. Their experiment showed jet fuel burning outdoors at much higher temperatures than the truthers claim it burned inside the oven of the WTC. It showed steel buckling without melting, something I've seen backed up by dozens of scientists all over the place.

Keep dreaming...

Anonymous said...

In a just-released book, Ground Truth, John Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission and now dean of Rutgers Law School, declares that at an early stage in its investigation, the Commission "discovered that what had occurred that morning — that is, what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue ... At some level of the government, at some point in time ... there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened."

The publisher of the book, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, states:

"Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security."

Anonymous said...

You kill 30 times as many as the Palestinians and this for geopolicalt political reasons.

That's T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-M.

RonMossad said...

First Anonymous guy - that I could almost accept. I am POSITIVE that there's more to the story that the government is telling us...but it's only to protect their own political careers, not to coverup some horrible conspiracy. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that we were even less prepared for 9/11 than the official story makes us out to be. And let's be fair, it doesn't make us out to be very prepared at all...

Second Anonymous guy - not for geopolitical anything. It's for self-defense. And it's only 30 times more because our side knows how to aim.

By the way, have you loony tunes checked out Charlie Sheen's bizarre fantasy interview with Barack Obama about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Good for a few laughs.

Anonymous said...

re: "First Anonymous guy [that would be me] - that I could almost accept."

Whether you accept it or not makes no difference. The plain fact is that the government's story is total BS. It's no longer even arguable.

re: "I am POSITIVE that there's more to the story that the government is telling us...but it's only to protect their own political careers, not to coverup some horrible conspiracy."

Given that Mr. Farmer has stated that "At some level of the government, at some point in time ... there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened", we're talking a conspiracy right there. And the fact that the government has now been revealed not only to have lied thoroughly about the events of 9/11, but also engaged in a conspiracy to lie about it, pretty much means that we can't believe anything they might say on the matter. Their credibility on the subject is now officially zero. As in, destroyed. Therefore, we can rule out nothing insofar as what may or may not have occurred on 9/11. You cannot say, without it being purely speculative, that "it's only to protect their own political careers". We know only that whatever they told us is a flat-out collection of lies.

As such, a real investigation of the events of 9/11 must be undertaken. This is in fact what many serious researchers (like Harrit, et al) have attempted to do over the years, but they were always marginalized by so-called "debunkers" (like you) who defended the official version of the events of 9/11 and swept all who questioned it under the "wacko conspiracy theorists" rug. No more.

The shoe is now firmly on the other foot. Get used to it.

RonMossad said...

Yes sure. Firmly on the other foot.

Bottom line for the "coverup" angle:

The government failed to protect us from murderers. The people who were most culpable don't want you to know how incompetent they are. Hence the secrecy. Endofstory.

In fact, your own movement is already turning on Harrit's ridiculous paper for the EXACT SAME REASONS I pointed out in this blog:

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/niels-harrit-is-a-weasel/

From the post:

Unexploded “thermetic” material? What does that mean they actually USED to bring the towers down? 100 tons? A thousand? It’s completely ridiculous, like Jim Hoffman’s “Plausible” hypothesis for how the “thermetic material” was used in the demolition. Remember that? 100s of “illegal aliens” running around at break-neck speeds planting 1.8 MILLION individual CEILING TILE BOMBS and kicker charges disguised as FIRE EXTINGUISHERS?!?

More:

He states that these red-grey chips are CLOSE in composition to the type of paint used on the IRON BEAMS in the Trade Centers but slightly different… WHAT HE DOESN’T tell you is that the paint used on the TRUSSES would be slightly DIFFERENT than the paint used on the columns, or BEAMS.

Not done yet:

That is why some of the red/grey chips are attached to the iron-rich micro-spheres; because they were BOTH created at the SAME TIME. The red/grey chips ARE paint, with a slightly different chemical make-up that what was used on the columns, and from the OTHER location that had red painted steel in the Twin Towers… the TRUSSES.

And the kicker:

Their own paper says that they can’t even be sure how it MAY have been used… they can’t even tell if it COULD have been used to blow up ANYTHING! Yet everyone runs around talking about this “highly thermetic material” as if it is the end all be all to the unofficial investigation.

Looks like someone's been reading the RONMOSSAD blog.

Have a ball with that one kiddies.

Now what?

Anonymous said...

re: "The people who were most culpable don't want you to know how incompetent they are. Hence the secrecy. Endofstory."

Sorry, but it's only the beginning of the story. Once it is established, as it has been, that the government engaged in a conspiracy to lie, and that virtually everything they said was indeed a lie, you cannot then simply dismiss it all by trying to limit the scope of their lies to ass-covering. They have NO credibility. Now, you may want it to be limited to ass-covering, but that's tough shit. What Farmer establishes (even if he did not intend to) is similar to a witness in a trial being proven to have committed perjury. ALL of their testimony is tainted. Got it?

re: "your own movement is already turning on Harrit's ridiculous paper"

I'm not aware of being a part of any "movement", unless wanting to know the truth of what happened on 9/11, given that the official story has now been shown to be a collection of lies, is somehow construed to make me part of a movement.

Insofar as the cited blogger's critique of Harrit, et al, what is his expertise? Where is his peer-reviewed paper?

Oh, that's right -- he didn't present one.

So, if you want to rely on opinions, here is another blogger's response to your blogger:

Debunking Scott Creighton's Debunking of Nanothermite

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/debunking-scott-creightons-debunking-of.html

As he points out, "Neils Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry" at the University of Copenhagen.

You may also find this of interest:

Neils Harrit Interview – NanoThermite and 9/11

We gave sceptical gulli users the chance to ask their questions directly to Dr. Niels Harrit, one of the scientists. The gulli users asked really tough questions and didn’t censor anything. We gave all those questions to Mr. Harrit and were really curious how he would respond. He answered. So now, here’s the promised interview.

http://conspireality.tv/2009/05/25/neils-harrit-interview-nanothermite-and-911/

As noted:

Dr. Harrit teaches "organic chemistry, photochemistry and photophysics to nanoscience students and chemistry students. [He also] supervise[s] master students and Ph.D. students. [He has also] published close to 60 papers in the best peer-reviewed journals."

You and your cohort, on the other hand, are merely deluded talking heads who want, in spite of the now irrefutable evidence to the contrary, to cling to the idea that the government's version of events on 9/11 is the truth.

The cognitive dissonance must be ripping your psyche apart.

RonMossad said...

Let's take this in two parts.


Part I (on conspiracy "coverups"):

Have you ever had a job? Ever screwed up? Ever watch someone else screw up and try to cover up why it wasn't their fault? Get real! You expect every human being to be 100% honest about every mistake and shortcoming - you really don't think it's more likely that the people who would be embarrassed by how unprepared they were would try to avoid blame...than it being a huge, massive conspiracy to murder thousands of people that would involve at least hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of people?

Which by the way, the alleged perpetrators keep giving you clues for? Come on pal, this isn't the X-Files. Rule number 1 of having a conspiracy:

DON'T TELL PEOPLE IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!

Part II (on debunking nanothermite)

Thanks for that link...did you read the entire debate between my guy and your guy? You should be aware that in the end it turns out that even the illustratious Stephen Jones has turned on the whole nanothermite silliness:

I think that super-thermite “matches” of this type could very well have been used to trigger more conventional explosives such as C4 in the WTC buildings.

… A real demonstration would involve a C4 shaped charge applied to a steel column, with the cutter charge ignited by a highly-reliable super-thermite match


Oh snap! So now nanothermite isn't what brought down the towers...it's just the "match" that ignited the C4 or whatever. Which basically puts us back exactly where we started.

The only "cognitive dissonance" in this case my friend is how you can believe that nanothermite is both an explosive and a detonator at the same time.

Anonymous said...

"DON'T TELL PEOPLE IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!"

Now Farmer didn't do that did he. Farmer said that the 9/11 commission was compromised and what really happened did not come out.

What Farmer is doing now is called damage control. He knows everybody knows that the commission was compromised. Only gullible people like RonMossad will continue to defend the 9/11 commission report.

For the rest of us, the rationally minded, we want an independent investigation.

And now we can already hear RonMossad's answer "yeah I knew they were lying, but that doesn't matter since what they told us is true anyway. So we shouldn't investigate 9/11 further. We already know the truth."

This is what "being rational" means to RonMossad.

RonMossad said...

Don't you understand that Farmer calling attention to the investigation as flawed proves that there is no conspiracy in the way you present it?

In your world, for him to say this means only 1 of 2 things:

1. He is part of the conspiracy and is so inept that he's giving fuel to bored internet detectives all over the world

2. He's NOT part of the conspiracy and has stumbled on the truth, in which case the conspirators (who already have the blood of 3,000 people on their hands) should have killed him long ago

His mere existence either means your conspirators are inept (IMPOSSIBLE if they could pull off such a complicated scheme) or merciful (IMPOSSIBLE since they killed 3,000 innocent people for some deranged motive that no one can explain to me still). Ridiculous!

That being said...I don't believe the official story for my own reasons as I've already laid out I don't trust the politicians and the bureaucrats. I don't need their "official story" because long before I heard it I knew exactly who was behind this. I also have said numerous times within this comment section that if you want to keep investigating you should go right ahead. You're wasting your time, but go ahead.

After all it is a free country - this conversation is proof of it.

You know I've noticed that I'm getting a lot less nanothermite defenders lately on here...it's just the good old-fashioned "inside job" silliness...could it be that this fad is finally passing???

Anonymous said...

re: "a huge, massive conspiracy to murder thousands of people that would involve at least hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of people?"

Oh, REALLY?

According to the official conspiracy theory, it involved 19 hijackers and a couple other dudes. THAT'S IT. So where are the required (by you) "hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of people" in the government's official bedtime story?

Hmmmm?

The other varaiation I've heard of this particular lame attempt at "debunking" is: "The government is too incompetent to have pulled this off." -- But yet, the official story is that a bunch of cave-dwelling suicidal Arabs WERE! Yep, those wacky terrorists were cool, calm, collected, totally focused, extremely intelligent, perfectly coordinated -- unlike the Pentagon, CIA, FBI...


re: "nanothermite isn't what brought down the towers"

Perhaps not. But until you present a peer-reviewed paper on the subject, I'll cast my lot with those who have some scientific expertise who have actually studied this and published such a paper.

One thing is for sure, though: Aircraft smashing into the towers didn't bring them down. WTC-7 proved that. And it's funny how they were all thoroughly pulverised as they fell neatly into their own footprints.

Here's a theory that satisfies your refusal to blame anyone but crazed Arabs AND incompetent, ass-covering government officials: The crazed Arabs were actually very sophisticated -- so sophisticated that they were able to pre-plant demolition charges of the type that in fact would be required to bring down such structures neatly and completely into their own footprints. The asleep-at-the-wheel government knows this, but cannot acknowledge it for fear that it would make them look even more incompetent than we already know they are. So they lie through their teeth, arrange to have all of the steel (the direct evidence in the biggest crime ever committed in America) quickly hauled off and shipped away and then start a war against Iraq that they've been itching to start but needed a reason to do so.

No, wait, don't tell me you believed all that "Saddam has WMDs" malarkey too?

I mean, we know you're gullible and lap up government propaganda like a trained seal, but THAT gullible?

RonMossad said...

Ok we're doing the point-by-point thing now...

According to the official conspiracy theory, it involved 19 hijackers and a couple other dudes. THAT'S IT. So where are the required (by you) "hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of people" in the government's official bedtime story?

The controlled demolition is what adds the absurd extra layers to it. And that's just this version of the fairy tale...what about the remote controlled/hologram planes? The cruise missiles? The passengers and crew that never died? I explained here how many conspirators would probably need to be involved in the tamest and most "logical" of the "inside job" scenarios and it's somewhere between a few hundred and a thousand.

In addition, there's your theory of who benefits from this whole mess which includes who? New World Order? Neo-cons? Evil Zionist Jews? Who is it? You need to add all those people to the conspiracy as well.

And finally, you must understand the difference between a terrorist conspiracy and an inside job conspiracy. The biggest PROBLEM with a conspiracy of this scale (which in fact is why it would be a conspiracy at all) is that in your world it needs to be kept a SECRET. The perpetrators (all of them!) would have to stay silent for 8 years with the blood of 3,000 people on their hands...which is...IMPOSSIBLE. In my world (the real world) there is NO CONSPIRACY because there is NO SILENCE. The perpetrators take CREDIT for their work because they are PROUD of it! It is not a secret conspiracy it is an OPEN WAR that has been declared on us since at least 1996!

The other varaiation I've heard of this particular lame attempt at "debunking" is: "The government is too incompetent to have pulled this off."

Please show me where I stated this. Please do not respond to statements I have not made. If you want to argue with the person who made them please visit their site and do it there, not here. Thanks.

Perhaps not. But until you present a peer-reviewed paper on the subject, I'll cast my lot with those who have some scientific expertise who have actually studied this and published such a paper.

The "peer-review" was a JOKE. The editor resigned in protest after she felt she was manipulated by the publishers. It was a pay-to-publish journal, which anyone with a scientific background will tell you has no credibility. Furthermore, please check out this person's claim that he submitted a completely nonsensical computer generated paper to Bentham, which was accepted and "peer-reviewed" as long as he were willing to pay them their money. An excerpt of what he submitted:

In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].

Furthermore...

The manuscript was given two co-authors, David Phillips and Andrew Kent. Any similarity to real or fictitious, living or dead academics is purely coincidental, as was their institutional affiliation: The Center for Research in Applied Phrenology based in Ithaca, New York. If the acronym didn’t reveal the farce right away, phrenology is the pseudoscience of reading personality traits from the lumps on one’s head.

Ok? That NONSENSE was also accepted by Bentham and was also apparently peer-reviewed. You believe in phrenology too??

By the way, I already went through this with someone else in the comments section. This is getting boring for me. Hopefully now that JONES AND HARRIT THEMSELVES have changed their story and have ADMITTED that nanothermite couldn't bring down a building you guys will shut up about it! Doubtful...but hopeful...

RonMossad said...

One thing is for sure, though: Aircraft smashing into the towers didn't bring them down. WTC-7 proved that. And it's funny how they were all thoroughly pulverised as they fell neatly into their own footprints.

That is not for "sure". Is there a "peer-reviewed" paper (hopefully published in a REAL magazine) that proves that? They were NOT "thoroughly pulverized" and they did not fall "neatly into their footprints" - but even if they did! Don't you understand that you're disproving your own theory?? It is MUCH harder to knock a building into its own footprint than not. MUCH harder. It takes skill and practice. WHY would a government go through all the trouble of making it LOOK LIKE a bunch of Arabs flew planes into buildings to knock down towers only to screw themselves entirely by demonstrating a controlled demolition?? Why?!?! Why not just wire up the buildings to blow up and collapse all over the city??? What, they suddenly felt BAD for the other innocent civilians?

The asleep-at-the-wheel government knows this, but cannot acknowledge it for fear that it would make them look even more incompetent than we already know they are.

Maybe...but not likely. Take out your controlled demolition scenario and leave it at just planes flying into buildings and one or two American lunatics not warning the public for whatever deranged ideals you want them to have and we could have something to talk about. The only way this scenario works is if it's limited to 1 or 2 people who have fore-knowledge of a plot and don't forward it up the chain because they don't take it seriously or something like that. Either way we're still in the realm of negligence, not conspiracy.

So they lie through their teeth, arrange to have all of the steel (the direct evidence in the biggest crime ever committed in America) quickly hauled off and shipped away

Do you live in the area ? You obviously don't because if you did you would know that a) the wreckage was still there for MONTHS during a large portion of which it was still burning and thus unable to be move and b) IT'S STILL IN STATEN ISLAND!!!!

RonMossad said...

No, wait, don't tell me you believed all that "Saddam has WMDs" malarkey too?

Well, it's an established fact that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on both the Kurds and the Iranians - in fact we even found some his leftover stockpile. However, we obviously didn't find what we expected to and there is no evidence that he was pursuing any nuclear or biological weapon ambitions. At least not anymore. Then again maybe not.

Then if you read the accounts of the guy who interviewed Saddam - you will find that he himself admitted to misleading the world because he thought it would make him stronger. So now, Saddam is also part of the conspiracy? Certainly, the guy that interviewed him would be. Ridiculous.

I mean, we know you're gullible and lap up government propaganda like a trained seal, but THAT gullible?

This is the most depressing part of all. I'm the gullible one you say. But I spend my life living and working and trying to move past one of the worst days of my (and the country's to say nothing of the survivors and victim's) life. You internet detectives spend hours upon hours arguing with an annoying me with this nonsense...all the while buying books, movies, t-shirts, magazines and everything else that goes along with this...and the people who you're buying from are getting RICH off of you. RICH. Somehow you don't see that. Somehow, we're the gullible ones even though your faith in Steven Jones, Niels Harrit and the rest of these buffoons is what keeps them in business. You don't see that. I do.

9/11 wasn't the conspiracy. The REAL "conspiracy" is the idiots who make millions of dollars off you "trained seals" who rush out to buy the latest and greatest "proof" that perpetuates your fantasy. Oh it was holograms. Oh it was nanothermites. Oh it was a cruise missile. But then it wasn't. The story always changes, but you kids keep rushing out there to sign up for the next one. Paying big bucks to read a story that changes every day.

Open your eyes. The real perpetrators are the idiots you support that keep screaming for attention and ripping you off.

Now if you crackpots have nothing new to add PLEASE stop wasting my time! I've been over all of this before within the comments section of THIS VERY post.

Anonymous said...

I came here in hopes of finding some real arguments or constructive criticism towards the paper that Niels Harrit and the others released. Sadly your blog did very little. It's a shame your blog comes up so high on google's results.

RonMossad said...

"It's a shame your blog comes up so high on google's results."

You're telling me. Everyday I have to put up with stupid comments from you lunatics.

Anonymous said...

"Don't you understand that Farmer calling attention to the investigation as flawed proves that there is no conspiracy in the way you present it?"

You really think the PROVES that there's no conspiracy?

This really shows that you cannot reason properly. I fact, you would have said exactly the same thing if he didn't say anything: "since none of the commissioners have said anything that means that there's no conspiracy since if it were then some of the commissioners would have told us."

What it does show conclusively is that the 9/11 commission cannot be trusted and that we need an independent investigation. But then again, you are paid to try to convince people that a new independent investigation is not necessary. The logic and soundness of your arguments are secondary.

Anonymous said...

re: "PLEASE stop wasting my time!"

Translation: "Your superior logic has reduced me to gurgling."

It's pretty clear that you have no critical thinking skills. Your lame response to the Saddam/WMD crap proves it. Anyone who cared to read the mountains of widely available information knew that this guy had been disarmed long ago (of the chemical weapons he used WHILE HE WAS A U.S. ALLY!), and was in 2003 nothing but the toothless old man that he was shown to be.

And, of course, he had zip to do with 9/11.

Your gullibility apparently knows no bounds.

Buh bye!

RonMossad said...

You really think the PROVES that there's no conspiracy?

Did I say that? Or did I say that it proves your version of the conspiracy can't be accurate? Explain to me please why a member of your conspiracy to kill 3K would notify the world of a coverup. How does that fit into the grand plan?

This really shows that you cannot reason properly. I fact, you would have said exactly the same thing if he didn't say anything: "since none of the commissioners have said anything that means that there's no conspiracy since if it were then some of the commissioners would have told us."

No. It proves that you've created a false choice. Him saying nothing proves nothing. Him saying something proves he is either not part of the conspiracy and is lying or is part of the conspiracy and it's not what you think it is. Because if it's what you think it is he either would never say anything or would be silenced immediately. Again I ask you, please explain to me how Farmer talking about a coverup helps the conspirators or if it doesn't - why he is still alive or why he was even able to say anything to begin with.


But then again, you are paid to try to convince people that a new independent investigation is not necessary.

LOL! If only! How much do you think they pay me? Who are they by the way - I think they owe me quite a bit of backpay...if you could direct me to "them" I would very much appreciate it.

Translation: "Your superior logic has reduced me to gurgling."

OR...maybe if you read some of the other comments you would say that you're just rehashing what others have said.

But why even bother? You haven't responded to any of my points. You haven't followed any of my links. You haven't done anything but repeat the same stupid truther talking points that dozens before you have already blabbed about.

Anyone who cared to read the mountains of widely available information knew that this guy had been disarmed long ago (of the chemical weapons he used WHILE HE WAS A U.S. ALLY!), and was in 2003 nothing but the toothless old man that he was shown to be.

What a disingenuous statement. Would you care to qualify your statement with this "mountain of facts" from 2003 that contradicts the 500 chemical weapons that they found after 2003? Or any of the other points I brought up?

You keep accusing me of defending the government's story or being gullible but I'm not defending any official party line. You, on the other hand are still clinging to a theory that the people who publicized it are now backing off from. How pathetic!

Now go back to designing new and improved tinfoil hats and let the rest of us continue living in reality.

Anonymous said...

"You keep accusing me of defending the government's story or being gullible but I'm not defending any official party line."

Good! Are you supporting a new independent investigation then?

What part of the official version do you reject?

RonMossad said...

READ what I SAID. Go ahead, do whatever investigating you want if it makes you happy - it's a free country.

As to what I reject? All of it. None of it. It's meaningless to me. I don't care what the government says happened - I saw what happened, I knew who was behind it before anyone announced anything.

I don't need anyone to tell me who failed who where and when. It's irrelevant. This was a massive screwup by the people who were supposed to defend us that goes back a least to the Clinton Administration. We deluded ourselves into thinking we were safe with the communists gone while all the while the bad guys were planning a huge event.

Did you read my first post on the topic? Anyone who has family in the Middle East has known this was brewing for years. Many of us tried to warn people but we were called racists or alarmists or worse.

Somehow you act surprised that the people that are elected to protect you are going to try and create the illusion that they are able to do so when in reality they were asleep at the wheel for over a decade. I don't care what the government says because I don't trust what they say because they have an AGENDA - namely to convince you that they are keeping you safe...when in reality they dropped the ball entirely. They're secretive about it because they don't want people to know how incompetent they are!

I don't know how many more ways I can say it.

Anonymous said...

RonMossad find out about how CIA issued VISA's to 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgYFo79q1Ek

Conspiracy theorist or not, this is unacceptable.

It is issues like this and others that 9/11 truth would like to be completely investigated.

RonMossad said...

Are you kidding me? Did you actually watch the video you referred to me? The guy allegedly worked for the CIA 20 years ago - and even HE doesn't say that the CIA gave them visas, just the same Consulate office he used to work at! That's the State Department, not the CIA.

Well, you think that might be the case because all 15 of those guys came from Saudi Arabia? And it's not like this is a secret, it's out there, it was addressed people were arrested.

It was just a SCREWUP. Exactly as I have been saying. This is a tremenedous screwup by our "leadership" that failed to do its job.

Anonymous said...

Here is more information on Michael Springman.

http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Springman,JMichael.shtml

RonMossad said...

Yes I know. All of this was covered in the pointless Youtube video you made me waste 8 minutes of my life on and in the article that I posted from National Review.

Springmann has no more access to any information on this topic than I do. Please stop wasting my time with nonsense.

In other news - why isn't anyone talking about nano-thermite anymore? I think you all owe me an apology. I know I won't get one but I'll settle for you guys just buying a t-shirt. I recommend the blue one.

Anonymous said...

Sure I'll buy a T-shirt! Do you have one that says "9/11 was an inside job"?

Anonymous said...

Here's more on nanothermite.

http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/norwegian-state-television-presents-911-truth/

Anonymous said...

Support and join the 9/11 victims families now on Sunday 27 in a March to support the formation of a fresh probe into the questions of 9/11.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/911-families-to-march-on-city-hall-as-city-seeks-to-stop-fresh-probe-of-attacks-from-going-on-november-ballot-61092957.html

This is important since the probe will have subpoena power.

Alternatively you can buy one of RonMossad's "9/11 was an inside job!" T-shirts! :)

RonMossad said...

Oh yes please do that. The "inside job" part is in beautiful white on white text that is only visible if you wear a tinfoil hat tuned to the frequency of Xenon.

All proceeds go to the "Defeat Flouride in our Tap Water/Fox Mulder Memorial" fund.

mkoswell said...

Thanks ever so much, very useful article. If you do not mind, please visit my article related to travel to Pandeglang district in Banten, Indonesia at Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang

Best regards

Anonymous said...

Education time. It is Nanothermite you foolish shill!!
Elemental aluminium that got mixed in due to the aluminium in the collapse would not be uniformly distributed in all chips at 40 nanometer scales moron! lol!
In order for the red chip samples to be as explosive as observed in the differential scanning calorimetry, exhibiting such high enthalpy it has to be mixed precisely at immensely high tech nano scales including a combination of gas producing organic materials in a silicon matrix to contribute to the intense explosive effect observed.
Also the Methyl Ethyl Ketone test (Solvent that should dissolve paint) did not dissolve the chips at all.
Sorry it's not paint, fact. Show me a dangerous, hi-tech nano-composite highly explosive paint that they would use in a high security building and I'll admit the chips are paint, ROFL!

Of course, you must know better than some of the top scientists in the world, including a nano technology specialist who published the findings in a peer review journal.
Puurrlleeeease shill!

Anonymous said...

Your comment: "The paper also never actually says that material in question is nanothermite or even regular thermite...rather that..."

From the conclusion in the paper:

"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material."

YOU FAIL!!!!!!!! YOU LIE!!!!! Wow! You've been caught lying, but then that's a common thing for your crowd.

Sad shillBerg

Anonymous said...

of course he lies. He HAS to lie if he wants to cover up jew crimes. Notice how he can't refute the fact that nano-thermite was found in the dust???

WHO put the nano-thermite in the WTC ron??? WHY would they put it there??? It wasn't CONSTRUCTION MORTAR or something that the building needed! It wasn't made on its OWN! SOMEBODY put it there

Kroll Associates was in charge of WTC security, a jewish zionist company.

Bollyn tracked the israeli terror network, all the jews involved in 9/11 here

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_57.htm


why were israeli agents so bent on getting the port authority contract for the WTC? Because this attack was planned over 20 years ago! Read the above link to find out

this "ron" ACTUALLY wants us to think that mossad is an honest, goody, fair, organization that doesn't do or hasn't done false flag operations in the past (NOT)

mossad practically INVENTED false-flag operations, it pioneered them and constantly found newer and newer ways to frame its enemies by attacking its allies. Israel is the mother of false-flag operations, it's part of their religious heritage to LIE to the goyim and circumvent them

Anonymous said...

I agree, there is strong evidence that the Jewish bankers and mossad are a major part of the New World Order machinations, 911, credit crisis, swine flu etc.

However, one of the major NWO tactics is to cloud the issue by turning it into a racial debate. A classic example is Jimmy "Puppet" Carter's comment about protests against Obamas health care plan being racially motivated, a complete ridiculous fabrication. Or Michelle "put muslims in concentration camps" Malkin attacking Obama using the racist opportunist card and attacking him on tax evasion etc.
This is a common and amateur tactic, attacking the villain but attacking a decoy or sacrificial supposed vulnerability to divert attention away from the true machinations or motives of the enemy(NWO).
Only an idiot doesn't realise that the political upheaval in Iran is due to Israeli/US intelligence agencies fanning the flames of unrest, and that Iran has NOT broken the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and DOESN'T have the capability of creating weaponised 95% enriched uranium(US Lies), it's all ultimately about power.

Although the Jewish connection is informative from the standpoint of the formation of the NWO and the banking origins, ultimately racial wars only benefit the New World Order, diverting focus and dividing the population. There are many good people in every race who're having their freedoms crushed by the NWO.

911 is scientifically proven to be an inside job and that is the Rosetta stone to wake up the sheeple!!!

Son of Will said...

This was one of the most biased descriptions of a peer-reviewed article I have read in a long while - It is beyond obvious that you started with the premise that the paper was flawed, and then cherrypicked various quotes to "prove" your point - I feel dumber for having read as much as I did, but what's really important is the reception it gets in the REAL scientific community- and to date, almost six months later, not ONE scientist worldwide has been able to refute it in peer-reviewed procedure - Until that happens you're entitled to your opinion, but don't expect to command the respect of intelligent people

Son of Will said...

Despite your personal biased feelings on the subject, Real scientists have not yet refuted this article - and believe you me, in Academia, it is good for one's career to categorically disprove someone else's work, it gets you 'bonus points' in credibility - So don't for a minute that this is merely being ignored, bad science is JUMPED on, not ignored!

Anonymous said...

Crime is crime, and race, religious orientation, skin color, etc are all irrelevant. To start talking about conspirators being Jewish, Muslim, or what ever, is completely irrelevant. Under the law everybody is equal. By bringing in racial issues only creates a convenient diversion, an excuse not to look into the real issues.

RonMossad cashes in every time you mention "Jewish conspiracies". That's exactly what he wants you to say. That gives him the perfect way to side track people into pointless racial debates.

Divide and conquer...

9/11 truth is not about race, it's about prosecuting criminals.


And by the way: Fuck the Nobel committee for giving Obama the Peace prize.

And NO, that does not make me a racist!

LexAequitas said...

Wow. The truthers are really off their rockers.

I worked in the building, and escaped on that day. Plenty of unburned items from the planes were on the ground. I also personally knew Jewish people who died.

Easy explanation: the "nanothermite" was added later, some time between the collapse and the scientists' testing. Assuming it was nanothermite. Assuming there was indeed anything at all. Real scientists do not care about discrediting this article because it's not a reputable article to begin with.

The idea of a major conspiratorial coverup is bordering on lunacy. The unpredictability of the effect of such an attack make it dubious. The sheer number of people involved make it a ridiculous. The time and difficulty involved to carefully rig a building with explosives makes it absurd.

Eric144 said...

Ron. I know you are going to love this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_h2ltpM7fw&feature=PlayList&p=9AD6F42E39FC8A99

It features some of your pals.

Eric144 said...

Sorry

This is the correct link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_h2ltpM7fw&feature=player_profilepage

Anonymous said...

Dear LexAequitas,

It would be very valuable if you could make a public testimony about your recollections.

Would you agree to do a video interview?

It would be very intesting if it could be documented in detail about your experience and memories. Where were you? In what building, at what times? What did you do before, after? Who did you speak to after? Who can verify your story?

Anonymous said...

Please arange a debate with Niels Harrit and Steven Jones.

Anonymous said...

Hey LexAequitas,

People are interested in verifiable stories. If you are unable to do better than claiming that you were there, your testimony doesn't count.

So how about that video interview?

Anonymous said...

this blog: what a load of nonsense

Please keep us posted, I look forward to seeing Tsahal being humiliated again like in 2006 by the hezbollah or by any other organisation...

Anonymous said...

Good try mate but we are getting nearer the truth on 9/11. It has been a worthwhile exercise considering this 'event' was used to smash Iraq and murder, maim and disable innocent children while they ate breakfast.

Why Iraq? you tell me considering the 9/11 operation was planned in a cave somewhere in West Waziristan or was it Israel? Perhaps we will find out in twenty years eh?

Mark Golding
Chair
Children of Iraq Association
LONDON

RonMossad said...

What's to debate guys? The authors have already admitted that nanothermite couldn't have brought down the towers. This story is just BEYOND over at this point.

Find a new fantasy. You all have been embarrassed by your own yet again!

RonMossad said...

By the way, some fun select quotes from the last few posts:

"You've been caught lying, but then that's a common thing for your crowd."

My crowd, eh?

Sad shillBerg"


Ohhhh of course.

"Kroll Associates was in charge of WTC security, a jewish zionist company."

"Bollyn tracked the israeli terror network, all the jews involved in 9/11 here"

"why were israeli agents so bent on getting the port authority contract for the WTC?"

"Israel is the mother of false-flag operations, it's part of their religious heritage to LIE to the goyim and circumvent them"

"I agree, there is strong evidence that the Jewish bankers and mossad are a major part of the New World Order machinations, 911, credit crisis, swine flu etc."


LOL swine flu? Really?

"Only an idiot doesn't realise that the political upheaval in Iran is due to Israeli/US intelligence agencies fanning the flames of unrest"

"Please keep us posted, I look forward to seeing Tsahal being humiliated again like in 2006 by the hezbollah or by any other organisation..."

You can't make this stuff up, folks. Thanks again for repeatedly proving my original point you boneheads.

Anonymous said...

[The authors have already admitted that nanothermite couldn't have brought down the towers. This story is just BEYOND over at this point.]

WHICH authors admitted that nanothermite couldn't have brought down the towers?

the peer reviewed articles by Steven Jones et al, prove not only that THERE WAS nano-thermite but it very well could have been used to bring down the towers

WHY were there nano-thermite in the WTC dust???? WHO put it there? it's not CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL, it's not NATURALLY MADE. SOMEONE put it there

and why was israeli intelligence so bent on getting the port authority WTC security contract? And how did Harel accurately predict a terrorist attack on the highest building in NYC 25 years before the event? specifically mentioning arabs doing it???

let's see the facts:

1. israeli intelligence drive to get the port authority WTC security contract

2. harel's prediction 25 years before it happens

3. Ptech, the software company that was supposed to monitor inter-operability issues between the FAA, air force, exactly what failed on 9/11. This company was headed by a bnai brith zionist

4. why is every judge involved in the 9/11 litigation a zionist jew? why has not 1 single case gone to court for 9/11 due to these zionist jew judges?

[Likewise, two dedicated Zionists-cum-federal judges named Alvin K. Hellerstein and Michael B. Mukasey have overseen virtually all the litigation from the massive death and destruction of 9-11 as well as the 1993 false-flag incident at the WTC.



Small wonder there has yet to be a single trial for any of the 96 families who chose to seek justice through the courts rather than accept the government pay-out for the loss of their loved ones. Less than two months before the 7th anniversary of 9-11, fewer than 7 of the original 96 cases remain to be settled and still no trial is planned for any of the victims of 9-11.]

hellerstein and mukasey go to the same NYC synagogue which is pro-israel zionist

http://judicial-inc.biz/10_8..Bollyn.htm
[The Synagogue

The Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun is a Zionist synagogue, according to its mission statement. It defines itself as a "modern Orthodox" synagogue, which is "deeply committed" to "an unbreakable bond with the State of Israel and its citizens."

The orthodox branch of Judaism is a minority sect making up about 10 percent of American Jews. This minority sect, however, wields immense power in the government and courts of the United States.]


[Michael Goff was the key person at Ptech when it was founded in 1994. Goff, a young Zionist lawyer from Worchester, Massachusetts, subsequently worked for Guardium, an Israeli software company tied to military intelligence. This is the crucial connection that has helped expose the larger Israeli military intelligence network working behind the 9-11 scene.

Through Goff's connection to Guardium we can see how a nexus of senior officers of Israeli military intelligence agencies links all the key elements of 9-11. This connection also explains how dodgy Israeli enterprise spy software wound up on critical U.S. government and military computer networks.]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_57.htm



EVERY key connection with 9/11 involved zionist jews. COINCIDENCE???? All airport security for logan and newark were with the israeli security company doing baggage and passenger screening. NO wonder Patriot act made it law that you can't sue these companies for their failure on 9/11


EVERY person connected with the failure of 9/11 was a zionist jew. Where ever you turn a zionist jew is there blocking prosecution, blocking investigation, COINCIDENCE????

RonMossad said...

What is it like to be you? I mean is it hard to wake up every day and just KNOW that every aspect of your life is somehow controlled by some Jewish gremlin in a hive somewhere? Do you stare into the mirror as you brush your teeth and wonder if your Jewish overseers like what you're wearing to work today? Honestly...it must be exhausting. Jew Zionist judges indeed...my God.

Just one comment away from 200. I wonder what nutjob will claim the honor.

Mark said...

Hi Ron,

Just dropping by to say that although I can tell by reading your blog we disagree deeply on geopolitics, US foreign policy, Middle East politics, the Western world's relationship with Islam and, quite probably, the core issue of whether anchovies are an acceptable pizza topping, I greatly admire your patience and care in rebutting the absurdities of the conspiracy theorists in here.

I have tried to debate them online a few times in the past, but have generally given up due to their skill at raising a point and then abandoning it for another as soon as their fallacies are exposed.

It's a thankless task and this peacenik appeaser moonbat salutes you for taking it on!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 244   Newer› Newest»