9/11 Truth movement holds series of press conferences
333 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141553]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[/QUOTE]
The "tell tale" sign of nano thermite is the one sided red particles, and those are also known to reside in some jet fuels(I've read at least, I've no idea the validity of it, but it sounds reasonable) and are quite easily created in the heats of jet fuel and themite fueled fire. They're not exactly a one off type thing.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141553]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[/QUOTE]
:what:
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141622]We've discussed that scientists supporting creationism and scientists supporting 9/11 truth work under completely different modus operandi.[/QUOTE]
That source has nothing to do with modus operandi. It's about comparisons.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141622]We've discussed that scientists supporting creationism and scientists supporting 9/11 truth work under completely different modus operandi.[/QUOTE]
That didn't address my point at all. You can find someone who believes a fringe idea in any professional field. That's the point. You literally are close minded as shit.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25141653]The "tell tale" sign of nano thermite is the one sided red particles, and those are also known to reside in some jet fuels(I've read at least, I've no idea the validity of it, but it sounds reasonable) and are quite easily created in the heats of jet fuel and themite fueled fire. They're not exactly a one off type thing.[/QUOTE]
Definitely sounds far-fetched to me, but personally, I think we're both biased. Find a source on that to find out for sure I guess. Those 'one sided red particles' huh?
[img]http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/9411/nanicq.jpg[/img]
Looks like a tell tale sign to me.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141622]We've discussed that scientists supporting creationism and scientists supporting 9/11 truth work under completely different modus operandi.[/QUOTE]
A fringe view is a fringe view no matter what. Open your fucking eyes.
[editline]05:45PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141724]Definitely sounds far-fetched to me, but personally, I think we're both biased. Find a source on that to find out for sure I guess. Those 'one sided red particles' huh?
[img]http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/9411/nanicq.jpg[/img]
Looks like a tell tale sign to me.[/QUOTE]
That's created elsewhere for different purposes. These red flecks don't make nano thermite special, so it's not absurd for them to be found in other reactions of similar situations.
[QUOTE=RBM11;25141697]That didn't address my point at all. You can find someone who believes a fringe idea in any professional field. That's the point. You literally are close minded as shit.[/QUOTE]
Okay, but you have still yet to acknowledge the difference between the two fringe theories. The creationists would devoutly defend their side because they have evidence they see as infallible. I don't operate in that manner. I look for solid evidence to support my claims and try to support them (as anyone reasonably arguing their side would) to the best of my ability. I don't have an ulterior motive to try and get more church-goers or what have you... I just hope to add a different perspective into peoples viewpoints about an event that was one of the worst things to happen to the country.
[editline]12:50AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25141729]
That's created elsewhere for different purposes. These red flecks don't make nano thermite special, so it's not absurd for them to be found in other reactions of similar situations.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck are you on about? That's quite obviously exactly what you were describing in your post under a microscope. Those particles were examined from dust gathered on four separate occurrences within a week of 9/11. Look at the bottom right frame. It shows a piece on its side, clearly demonstrating the 'tell-tale sign' (as you put it) of super-thermite.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141858]Okay, but you have still yet to acknowledge the difference between the two fringe theories. The creationists would devoutly defend their side because they have evidence they see as infallible. I don't operate in that manner. I look for solid evidence to support my claims and try to support them (as anyone reasonably arguing their side would) to the best of my ability. I don't have an ulterior motive to try and get more church-goers or what have you... I just hope to add a different perspective into peoples viewpoints about an event that was one of the worst things to happen to the country.[/QUOTE]
1). No, fringe groups are fringe groups regardless.
2). You've gone based on evidence, huh?
3). Sure, this is a different view point, and I have no problem with you holding that view point, but I can tell you it's not supported by anything at this point.
But if your solid evidence has been destroyed multiple times in multiple threads, and your only new evidence is some glowing metal and going on the Internet to tell everyone what thermite is...
Isn't that hypocritical?
"I don't operate like religious people. If my points are debunked then I change my views.... I STILL BELIEVE PRAISE JESUS"
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141858]
What the fuck are you on about? That's quite obviously exactly what you were describing in your post under a microscope. Those particles were examined from dust gathered on four separate occurrences within a week of 9/11.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about, that's a sign of picking out nano thermite, but it in and of itself isn't a special effect of nano thermite.
There was a video up in one of the other 9/11 troof threads a while ago basically saying the same thing coming from a physicist or chemist or something. Maybe someone else remembers it.
No that just shows you don't know how to read. And apparently get finished with the lady pictures quite quickly. :v:
[editline]12:53AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25141916]But if your solid evidence has been destroyed multiple times in multiple threads, and your only new evidence is some glowing metal and going on the Internet to tell everyone what thermite is...
Isn't that hypocritical?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141858]Okay, but you have still yet to acknowledge the difference between the two fringe theories. The creationists would devoutly defend their side because they have evidence they see as infallible. I don't operate in that manner. I look for solid evidence to support my claims and try to support them (as anyone reasonably arguing their side would) to the best of my ability. I don't have an ulterior motive to try and get more church-goers or what have you... I just hope to add a different perspective into peoples viewpoints about an event that was one of the worst things to happen to the country.[/QUOTE]
You're supposed to look for evidence and draw conclusions from that. Looking for evidence that supports whatever view you may hold is just a bad idea.
also, source of my 'evidence being destroyed'
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141953]No that just shows you don't know how to read. And apparently get finished with the lady pictures quite quickly. :v:[/QUOTE]
Hey, I bore quickly. But seriously, you have no evidence.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141983]also, source of my 'evidence being destroyed'[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1007901[/url]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;25141976]You're supposed to look for evidence and draw conclusions from that. Looking for evidence that supports whatever view you may hold is just a bad idea.[/QUOTE]
You've got a good point there. But I want to point out that what I meant that was in the case of supporting my views on this thread, I look for evidence to support my conclusions. Not the other way around.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25142028]You've got a good point there. But I want to point out that what I meant that was in the case of supporting my views on this thread, I look for evidence to support my conclusions. Not the other way around.[/QUOTE]
You've done that fantastically well.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25142028]You've got a good point there. But I want to point out that what I meant that was in the case of supporting my views on this thread, I look for evidence to support my conclusions. Not the other way around.[/QUOTE]
You reached a conclusion before you looked for evidence?
I must agree if I may so myself, and so would the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark and the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University.
[URL="http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Harrit_active_thermite.pdf"]source[/URL]
You really should have thought about making this thread before actually making it.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;25142083]You reached a conclusion before you looked for evidence?[/QUOTE]
The threads were started with the evidence in mind. I suppose I should have clarified. :eng99:
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25142094]I must agree if I may so myself, and so would the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark and the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University.
[URL="http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Harrit_active_thermite.pdf"]source[/URL][/QUOTE]
Oh that source again.
Oh this rubbish about the University of Copenhagen saying it's true, too.
Make a new thread when you have some new, interesting evidence. Actually, stop making threads please.
Just because you haven't even read it doesn't mean it's rubbish. Hate to break it to you.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPvi8sOGN5U[/media]
Evidence of what really happened on 9/11
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141338]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]
You're right, it's a pyrotechnic. We're both right.[/QUOTE]
I already responded to that you dunce. Are you really just hand-picking whatever counter-argument suits your fancy?
I think you're deliberately ignoring our responses.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;25142207][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPvi8sOGN5U[/media]
Evidence of what really happened on 9/11[/QUOTE]
I really didn't think there was anyway to disprove that. I guess I'm wrong though.
I'd link to another video to show the similarities in the explosion, but I think that would be rather heartless. :smith:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk[/media]
More evidence!
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25142187]Just because you haven't even read it doesn't mean it's rubbish. Hate to break it to you.[/QUOTE]
"You disagreed with a bias report?! HOW DARE YOU! YOU'RE WRONG!!"
I'm not one for conspiracy theres, but I really wouldn't be surprised at anything the governments done. Jesus guys, you view america as a country that can do no wrong. You'd think after observing all the previous civilizations that have come before us you'd learn not to be surprised.. You're like a helpless wife who is shocked every time her abusive husband beats her.
[QUOTE=newbs;25143101]I'm not one for conspiracy theres, but I really wouldn't be surprised at anything the governments done. Jesus guys, you view america as a country that can do no wrong. You'd think after observing all the previous civilizations that have come before us you'd learn not to be surprised.. You're like a helpless wife who is shocked every time her abusive husband beats her.[/QUOTE]
Have you read any of the threads in this section? Hating America is hotter than Bieber right now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.