9/11 Truth movement holds series of press conferences
333 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25140315]Disagreeing with you =/= being uninformed. He's better informed than you because you think a lot of the bullshit we constantly discredit is valid after being discredited.[/QUOTE]
Waiting for you to discredit my sources, speaking of.
[editline]11:39PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25140122]Okay.
[URL="https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf"]Characterization of the compound described in the post.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/"]More thermite findings.[/URL]
Anything else while I'm at it?[/QUOTE]
in case anyone forgot, these are completely new sources as per your request
[quote=Yahoo Questions User]What happened on 9/11?[/quote]
[quote=Anonymous Yahoo Questions user]Martians[/quote]
[quote=Anonymous Yahoo Questions user]Two planes crashed into the twin towers[/quote]
[quote=Anonymous Yahoo Questions user]the pres. orderd and air strike[/quote]
[quote=Anonymous Yahoo Questions user]Potatos tapdanced on the top and made it fall[/quote]
[quote=Anonymous Yahoo Questions user]It fell :(([/quote]
It went something like this
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;25140355]Thermite,
[B]BILLIONS OF TONS OF IT[/B]
suddenly i am credible and not a total jack ass.[/QUOTE]
Ohh, in a previous thread, someone actually tried telling everyone that they found millions of tons of thermite. I called them out and next they said it was hundreds-of-thousands of tons of thermite. I called them out again and they said it was thousands of tons. I called them out again and they just disappeared.
they forgot to cite their sources. :eng99:
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25140380]Waiting for you to discredit my sources, speaking of.
[editline]11:39PM[/editline]
in case anyone forgot, these are completely new sources as per your request[/QUOTE]
The basic bias behind those sites is more than enough to discredit them, not to mention [b]they've been discredited so many fucking times, that the only people that support that side are the people heavily involved.[/b]
[QUOTE=Zeddy;25140407]Ohh, in a previous thread, someone actually tried telling everyone that they found millions of tons of thermite. I called them out and next they said it was hundreds-of-thousands of tons of thermite. I called them out again and they said it was thousands of tons. I called them out again and they just disappeared.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's this guy. The same guy.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25140468]Yeah, it's this guy. The same guy.[/QUOTE]
MILLIONS OF TONS? Even a thousand tons of it wouldn't fit in the basement, let alone the entire building, but millions of tons even being POSSIBLE?
AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:downsbravo: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ShukaidoX, you will never ever be taken seriously.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25140466]The basic bias behind those sites is more than enough to discredit them, not to mention [B]they've been discredited so many fucking times, that the only people that support that side are the people heavily involved.[/B][/QUOTE]
No one has discredited them a single time, as I mentioned before,[B] these are new sources. [/B]One of them is even a .gov site for crying out loud, how can you be so naive to say that any source I posted has already no basis in reality. Really, that astounds me.
[editline]11:51PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25140468]Yeah, it's this guy. The same guy.[/QUOTE]
lol source?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24713022]You guys aren't getting the big picture. The thermite found was ranging in the THOUSANDS OF TONS. What they found was straight forward government issued nano thermite used for demolition. Nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]
Source motherfucker, now you provide one for your fucking bullshit claims
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25140564]these are new sources. [/B]One of them is even a .gov site for crying out loud[/QUOTE]
Do you really even know what you're talking about? The first source is called 'Synthesis, Safety and Characterization'. What does this have to do with anything, exactly? 'Oooh, a university is talking about THERMITE.. therefore, THEY DID 9/11"
You're a joke. The sooner you're perma'd, the better.
Now, I really AM going to go back to my naked ladies, dammit.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25140122]Okay.
[URL="https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf"]Characterization of the compound described in the post.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/"]More thermite findings.[/URL]
Anything else while I'm at it?[/QUOTE]
The first source simply explains what "Energetic Nanocomposites" are and the second one says that the fires burned for longer than what was expected, [i]possibly[/i] due to an explosive compound, and then says [i]possible[/i] proof might be in
1. "Witness testimony sightings of white dust clouds, molten metal and explosions", which can be explained by the fact that and airplane hit the tower and exploded. The witness testimony is probably unreliable.
2. "Extremely high temperature fires", explained in previous threads as probably due to burning jet fuel. Jet fuel burns hot.
3. "Unusual spikes in 'volatile organic chemical emissions'..." Wikipedia describes this term as:
[quote]Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) refers to organic chemical compounds which have significant vapor pressures and which can affect the environment and human health. VOCs are numerous, varied, and ubiquitous. Although VOCs include both man-made and naturally occurring chemical compounds, it is the anthropogenic VOCs that are regulated, especially for indoors where concentrations can be highest. VOCs are typically not acutely toxic but have chronic effects. Because the concentrations are usually low and the symptoms slow to develop, analysis of VOCs and their effects is a demanding area.[/quote]
Major sources are:
[quote]
[b]Paints and coatings[/b]
A major source of man-made VOCs are solvents, especially paints and protective coatings. Solvents are required to spread a protective or decorative film. Approximately 12 billion liters of paints are produced annually.
[b]Chlorofluorocarbons and chlorocarbons[/b]
Chlorofluorocarbons, which are banned or highly regulated, were widely used cleaning products and refrigerants. Tetrachloroethene is used widely in dry cleaning and by industry. Industrial use of fossil fuels produces VOCs either directly as products (e.g. gasoline) or indirectly as byproducts (e.g. automobile exhaust).
[b]Formaldehyde[/b]
Many building materials such as paints, adhesives, wall boards, and ceiling tiles slowly emit formaldehyde
[/quote]
"...suggesting abrubt, violent fires on specific dates". Again, consistent with a building catching a stray airplane and burning.
4. "Unusual species in environmental monitoring data". A building collapse will throw up all kinds of nasty shit, surprisingly.
I think someone already explained the possible thermite reaction earlier in the thread, so I'm not going to go into that again.
I'm no chemist, but it seems your sources are still meaningless speculation.
I'm still calling bullshit.
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;25140667]Source motherfucker, now you provide one for your fucking bullshit claims[/QUOTE]
I already have.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25140564]No one has discredited them a single time, as I mentioned before,[B] these are new sources. [/B]One of them is even a .gov site for crying out loud, how can you be so naive to say that any source I posted has already no basis in reality. Really, that astounds me.
[editline]11:51PM[/editline]
lol source?[/QUOTE]
[b]Holy fuck are you braindead? Yes, the one about nano thermite was a .gov source, and holy fuck, it does not say it acts like the high explosive YOU NEED IT TO BE FOR THE WHOLE FUCKING ARGUMENT.
Seriously, read it yourself, it doesn't say it's a fucking high explosive, and it certainly does not fulfill that goal.
And millions of tons of thermite? Hahahahahahahahaha.[/b]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25133767]Who do you think those people are? They have no political affiliations. These are just scientists, military officials, and citizens with some common sense coming forward with their side of the story based on evidence they've gathered. How is that at all biased?[/QUOTE]
One physicist, an actor and some fuck ups.
lol
[quote=humanabyss;25140761]and millions of tons of thermite? Hahahahahahahahaha.[/b][/quote]
[b]No I mean thousands of hundreds of tons... honest!
[/b]
Shu, you've made this whole thing go to shit. The last thread that you abandoned, I actually learned something. Now you're just resorting to pissing people off just so you can affirm your position among the conspiracy elite by getting everyone to dislike you. Martyrdom, or the like.
I'm making a request for everyone to ignore this ass.
Oh, yeah, and the standard ad hominem. u ass :cawg::downsbravo: :shivdurf:
[QUOTE=Greenen72;25140875]
Oh, yeah, and the standard ad hominem. u ass :cawg::downsbravo: :shivdurf:[/QUOTE]
I noticed that and was going to call him out on it, but I forgot the term. :saddowns:
Good job.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25140761][B]
Seriously, read it yourself, it doesn't say it's a fucking high explosive, and it certainly does not fulfill that goal.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I was sourcing a post that was quoting me, whatever part of it he was asking for, I'm not sure. But since no one asked for another source regarding that post till now, [URL="http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf"]i'll be happy to oblige.[/URL]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25140975]I was sourcing a post that was quoting, whatever part of it he was asking for, I'm not sure. But since no one asked for another source regarding that post till now, [URL="http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf"]i'll be happy to oblige.[/URL][/QUOTE]
"Hi, I'm ignoring my sources because I had to have them pointing out to me that they're baseless and pointless to my argument, thanks guys!"
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25140975]I was sourcing a post that was quoting me, whatever part of it he was asking for, I'm not sure. But since no one asked for another source regarding that post till now, [URL="http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf"]i'll be happy to oblige.[/URL][/QUOTE]
[b]still does not say nano thermite is a high explosive.[/b] Take a guess why for me? [b]BECAUSE IT'S NOT A HIGH EXPLOSIVE BY ANY MEANS.[/b]
Shukaido, stop posting long fucking reports where .1% of it is your point. Pick it out and quote it.
And stop picking articles that explain what nano-thermite is. We know what nano-thermite is. Explain to us [i]why[/i].
[QUOTE=Snuffy;25141099]And stop picking articles that explain what nano-thermite is. We know what nano-thermite is. Explain to us [i]why[/i].[/QUOTE]
Because it's a high explosive obviously!
Okay, again, as per your request:
[Quote]A graph in an article on nanostructured energetic materials
[21] shows that the energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3
composite material exceeds that of TNT, HMX and TATB
explosives commonly used in demolitions (see Fig. (30)).[/quote]
I'm not arguing this thing is a literal equivalent to an atomic bomb, I'm arguing that this stuff has enough power to bring down a building (with enough of it, obviously.)
[editline]12:23AM[/editline]
The word I was looking for was 'pyrotechnic'
[quote]It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more
energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the
blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite
is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in
evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most
likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again,
conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas
super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for
rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive
[6, 24].[/quote]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141221]Okay, again, as per your request:
I'm not arguing this thing is a literal equivalent to an atomic bomb, I'm arguing that this stuff has enough power to bring down a building (with enough of it, obviously.)[/QUOTE]
Millions of tons of it? :smug:
The fact is that even THOUGH it has that, it doesn't react like TNT or anything else. We've SEEN nano thermite in use, it's NOT AN HIGH EXPLOSIVE.
Also, take look at this:
[IMG]http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=f67q6272583h86n4&size=largest[/IMG]
Wish I could highlight it, but read the part starting after 'introduction'. I shouldn't have to comment on the fact that a natural thermite reaction couldn't cause that.
[editline]12:27AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25141299]
The fact is that even THOUGH it has that, it doesn't react like TNT or anything else. We've SEEN nano thermite in use, it's NOT AN HIGH EXPLOSIVE.[/QUOTE]
You're right, it's a pyrotechnic. We're both right.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141338]Also, take look at this:
Wish I could highlight it, but read the part starting after 'introduction'
[editline]12:27AM[/editline]
You're right, it's a pyrotechnic. We're both right.[/QUOTE]
Thermal reactions created a good deal of thermite due to the abundance of rust, iron, and aluminum. Thermite was easily created by this in huge numbers.
It's simply not a high explosive, whilst it's a very intense and dangerous reaction, it's just not a "high explosive" reaction.
Yes, in natural occurring instances thermite could be categorized as such. The government has been developing super-thermite capable of such things recognized in the picture since 2000
Fuck it I'll post it again:
[quote=RBM11;24740384]The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated there were 141,200 architects and 1.6 million engineers in the U.S. in 2008 which gives a total of 1.75 architects and engineers in the U.S. at the time (it's expected to be larger now.) This means that .07% of architects and engineers have signed this petition. Even if we assume that ten times as many architects and engineers support the conspiracy but have not signed the petition only .7% support the conspiracy. And this is only engineers in the U.S. If the petition included members from other countries then the percentage would be even lower. The petition also includes "architectural professionals" which could probably add a solid 100,000 or more to the numbers. This is a similar situation as the number of "scientists" in general who believe in "intelligent design."
Sources:
[URL]http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm[/URL]
/thread[/quote]
Your list of 1000 Engineers and architects was bullshit and so are your other 9/11 truth organizations. Remember the scientists paid off by the tobacco companies to report that cigarettes don't increase cancer risks? This is similar to that.
We've discussed that scientists supporting creationism and scientists supporting 9/11 truth work under completely different modus operandi.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.