To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King mob you don't look hard enough.

Yup. All of them disprove your theory in that case.

Thermite cannot produce rivers of molten steel.
Controlled demolition cannot produce rivers of molten steel.

Those eyewitnesses disprove your idea.
Are you calling them liars now?

King Mob

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why don't you just answer the questions that you have been asked instead of constantly deflecting?

Cause he can't. He knows he can't. But he can't admit this.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why don't you just answer the questions that you have been asked instead of constantly deflecting?

He claimed no firefighters heard explosions false I showed him one pdf with 118 accounts all names are listed.

If he actually researched 9/11 he would not be stating false narratives and asking dumb questions

There multiple videos like this one online.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He claimed no firefighters heard explosions false I showed him one pdf with 118 accounts all names are listed.

If he actually researched 9/11 he would not be stating false narratives and asking dumb questions

There multiple videos like this one online.

And again you deflect, start with answering the questions you have been asked then you may be able gain some credibility, otherwise you just come across as someone shouting loudly about everything BUT the topic being discussed!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He claimed no firefighters heard explosions false I showed him one pdf with 118 accounts all names are listed.

If he actually researched 9/11 he would stating false narratives and asking dumb questions

There multiple videos like this one online.

Lol. We were talking about the supposed rivers of molten metal. But I guess now it's explosions.

I never said people didn't hear explosions. That's a bald faced lie on your part.

They also disprove your theory.
As 1. Thermite does not explode
2. Controlled demolitions use explosives all at once, not randomly over the course of a day.
3. Demolitions cannot produce molten steel...

Again your own arguments show you up.
It's embarrassing.

You have also left a bunch of questions behind.

How much explosive and nano thermite was used? Where was it placed? When? How?
Was it Nano thermite? Thermite? Thermate? Gel Thermite? When was it set off and by what mechanism?
What explosives were used? When were they set off? Where from and by who?

Why did you reject Dr Judy Wood: Expert Extraordinaire's research again?
Cause she couldn't answer questions like those?

I'll help you.
"I don't know."
and
"Yes."

If those are the correct answers, please just ignore the question and we can ignore you just like you think we should do with the space laser theory.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And again you deflect, start with answering the questions you have been asked then you may be able gain some credibility, otherwise you just come across as someone shouting loudly about everything BUT the topic being discussed!

Kingmob claimed thermite can not melt steel.

I proved him wrong by producing this video of engineer cutting steel beams with thermate. The steel even melted.

No evidence will convince you guys.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob claimed thermite can not melt steel.

I proved him wrong by producing this video of engineer cutting steel beams with thermate. The steel even melted.

No evidence will convince you guys.

Thermite or thermate? Make up your mind please.

No one denies thermite can melt steel its a well known fact, can you link me to kingmobs post where he claims thermite cannot melt steel?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Thermite or thermate? Make up your mind please.

No one denies thermite can melt steel its a well known fact, can you link me to kingmobs post where he claims thermite cannot melt steel?

I not going to scroll back to just to find that. He also claimed thermite was never used in demolition before. I gave him two examples ignored of course.

Kingmob keep saying thermite I don't claim thermite. I said nano-thermite was found he doesn't the know the difference between them.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I not going to scroll back to just to find that. He also claimed thermite was never used in demolition before. I gave him two examples ignored of course.

Kingmob keep saying thermite I don't claim thermite. I said nano-thermite was found he doesn't the know the difference between them.

Evidence of the nano-thermite being found please?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Evidence of the nano-thermite being found please?

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/bentham_open/ActiveThermitic_Harrit_Bentham2009.pdf


This is a good debate between a well-known debunker of this paper and a supporter of this paper. In my opinion, the conspiracy side won the debate. The other guy left the debate because he could not handle the facts and science.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289588

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/bentham_open/ActiveThermitic_Harrit_Bentham2009.pdf

Thats a link to a pdf, im asking you to post the relevent evidence that states (100%) that nano thermite was used please

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Thats a link to a pdf, im asking you to post the relevent evidence that states (100%) that nano thermite was used please

Thats a scientific paper of the red/grey chips (nanothermite) tested under lab conditions. That how you do science, not on Skeptic forum.

They tell you in this paper all tests they have done on the nano-thermite.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr reading the debate probably the best way for you to understand this. Both guys know the topic.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Thats a scientific paper of the red/grey chips (nanothermite) tested under lab conditions. That how you do science, not on Skeptic forum.

They tell you in this paper all tests they have done on the nano-thermite.

Now I'll admit I'm no scientist but i do know a little about cross contamination.

From page 2

It was learned that a number of people had saved samples
of the copious, dense dust, which spread and settled across
Manhattan. Several of these people sent portions of their
samples to members of this research group}/b]. This paper dis-
cusses four separate dust samples collected on or shortly
after 9/11/2001.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Now I'll admit I'm no scientist but i do know a little about cross contamination.

From page 2

That discussed in the paper.

Read the debate as you will see the Skeptic side arguments and conspiracy side arguments.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That discussed in the paper.

Read the debate as you will see the Skeptic side arguments and conspiracy side arguments.

Nowhere in that pdf you linked does it say its 100% definitely thermite, just that the chips contained the ingredients that can be used in thermite.

Again i will ask, show your proof that thermite was used on 9-11 please.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nowhere in that pdf you.linked does it say its 100% definitely thermite, just that the chios contained the ingredients that can be used in thermite.

Again i will ask, show your proof that thermite was used on 9-11 please.

You did not read the paper. One red/grey chip is the size of a pencil head. You need a microscope to see what it made of. The thermite is contained in a small particle. It reacted at low temp (can't be thermite because that ignites at high temp) the ingredients match perfectly to cause a thermite reaction. When they heated the nanometer particle up it released a very high energy.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You did not read the paper. The red/grey chips are a size of a pencil head. The thermite is contained in that small particle. It looked reacted at low temp (can't be thermite because that ignites at high temp) the ingredients match perfectly to cause a thermite reaction. When they heated the nanometer particle up it released a very high energy.

Quote the part that states they found thermite, 100% positive confirmation that thermite was contained in thise chips.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Quote the part that states they found thermite, 100% positive confirmation that thermite was contained in thise chips.

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 aluminium is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminium is present. The iron oxide and aluminium
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/ grey chips. The red portion of these
chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Keywords: Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy,

banie01

FFS Cheerful Spring, that paper has been addressed earlier in this thread.
It is not credible. There was no actual peer review and it was published in by a bloody vanity press that is struggling to regain any shred of credibility since. Indeed the managing editor resigned on foot of that papers publication in their journal, but as you said, she couldn't handle the truth.

The samples used have no chain of custody.

The aluminium is not elemental, and iron oxide is the other ingredient, that is fairly ubiquitous in a modern disaster and recovery site.

As was pointed out to you earlier in one of the posts you conveniently ignored...

banie01 wrote: »

It is not false, chain of custody was never established for the Harrit samples.
That Milettes samples matched is a happy coincidence as it debunks the Thermite claim made by Harrit.
He also confirmed that whilst the samples he tested to replicate the Harrit study were consistent with Harrit et al. that there was no evidence of elemental aluminum in any sample tested and that the samples were categorically not Thermite or Nano Thermite.

Just to be very very clear in terms you can grasp.
Iron oxide is not "proof" of thermite, thermate, nano thermite or any other magic silent boom powder.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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 aluminium is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminium is present. The iron oxide and aluminium
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/ grey chips. The red portion of these
chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Keywords: Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy,

Do you know what else those ingredients are used in? Do you know what else is a thermitic material? Welding..... do you think maybe that there may have been a weld or 3 in those buildings?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

FFS Cheerful Spring, that paper has been addressed earlier in this thread.
It is not credible. There was no actual peer review and it was published in by a bloody vanity press that is struggling to regain any shred of credibility since. Indeed the managing editor resigned on foot of that papers publication in their journal, but as you said, she couldn't handle the truth.

The samples used have no chain of custody.

The aluminium is not elemental, and iron oxide is the other ingredient, that is fairly ubiquitous in a modern disaster and recovery site.

As was pointed out to you earlier in one of the posts you conveniently ignored...


Just to be very very clear in terms you can grasp.
Iron oxide is not "proof" of thermite, thermate, nano thermite or any other magic silent boom powder.

Where they posted it doesn't invalidate their conclusions. They wanted their paper to have open access full transparency so everyone can read it. It would not have got published it not peer-reviewed.

NIST uploads one peer review paper to ASCE and you can't read until you pay a fee.

Editor of Chief she was French and she was a consultant for the French military. Her experience was in chemistry. I don't know this for sure she probably believes the 9/11 story is true. Others published the study.

You want me to believe 14 scientists lied about aluminium been present in the red/grey chips?

I should believe the one scientist who says otherwise, Dr Milette? A guy who by the way promised the Skeptics he would release a peer review paper in 2012. Of course, that never happened but maybe in 2019, we might it see it;)

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Where they posted it doesn't invalidate their conclusions. They wanted their paper to have open access full transparency so everyone can read it. It would not have got published it not peer-reviewed.

NIST uploads one peer review paper to ASCE and you can't read until you pay a fee.

Editor of Chief she was French and she was a consultant for the French military. Her experience was in chemistry. I don't know this for sure she probably believes the 9/11 story is true. Others published the study.

You want me to believe 14 scientists lied about aluminium been present in the red/grey chips?

I should believe the one scientist who says otherwise, Dr Milette? A guy who by the way promised the Skeptics he would release a peer review paper in 2012. Of course, that never happened but maybe in 2019, we might it see it;)

Just what field do you believe someone who studies a chemical exothermic reaction and dismisses it's possiblity should be qualified in?

As a consultant to the French Military with a wide range of chemical expertise and experience of explosive design and use, she is probably the most experienced person available to support the thermite theory.
But because her resignation doesn't fit your construct, her expertise is dismissed?
Her resignation is a fit of pique?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Where they posted it doesn't invalidate their conclusions. They wanted their paper to have open access full transparency so everyone can read it. It would not have got published it not peer-reviewed.

NIST uploads one peer review paper to ASCE and you can't read until you pay a fee.

Editor of Chief she was French and she was a consultant for the French military. Her experience was in chemistry. I don't know this for sure she probably believes the 9/11 story is true. Others published the study.

You want me to believe 14 scientists lied about aluminium been present in the red/grey chips?

I should believe the one scientist who says otherwise, Dr Milette? A guy who by the way promised the Skeptics he would release a peer review paper in 2012. Of course, that never happened but maybe in 2019, we might it see it;)

Aluminium would have been all over that building, chances are any scoop of dust would contain aluminium. Again im STILL waiting for your evidence that proves (as you claim) thermite was used to demolish these buildings.

Ipso

What a case study in confirmation bias.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Just what field do you believe someone who studies a chemical exothermic reaction and dismisses it's possiblity should be qualified in?

As a consultant to the French Military with a wide range of chemical expertise and experience of explosive design and use, she is probably the most experienced person available to support the thermite theory.
But because her resignation doesn't fit your construct, her expertise is dismissed?
Her resignation is a fit of pique?

She quit because Bentham publishers did not inform her it published. She got upset. She also claimed she did not know if the paper was good or not. Who cares she left. She has her beliefs can't change that.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Aluminium would have been all over that building, chances are any scoop of dust would contain aluminium. Again im STILL waiting for your evidence that proves (as you claim) thermite was used to demolish these buildings.

Stop assuming this and that. I gave you a link to a debate where this topic is discussed read it or don't.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She quit because Bentham publishers did not inform her it published. She got upset. She also claimed she did not know if the paper was good or not. Who cares she left. She has her beliefs can't change that.

Ahhh so now you know those details?
The reasons why an eminent chemist would have issue with the fact that a journal she purportedly edits...
Would publish a paper based on flawed samples? With no established chain of custody.
Flawed chemical analysis, which is illustrated by the fact the scientists mounted the samples on an aluminium pedestal whilst searching for aluminium?
Think about that for a moment...

A team of in your opinion, eminent scientists...
Searching for the smoking gun of magic nano-thermite, take the iron oxide dust, mount it on an aluminium pedestal and then announce they found aluminium??!!

The paper is hokum, you have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of it.
And to top it off, you know claim that a chemist has no standing to investigate a chemical reaction?

Now do me and the entire thread a favour and answer me earlier question.

banie01 wrote: »

Just what field do you believe someone who studies a chemical exothermic reaction and dismisses it's possiblity should be qualified in?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Stop assuming this and that. I gave you a link to a debate where this topic is discussed read it or don't.

Why would i join another debate? You're making claims in this one so I'm asking you (and still waiting) for evidence to back your claims up. You have yet to answer one question or post evidence for your claims.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Ahhh so now you know those details?
The reasons why an eminent chemist would have issue with the fact that a journal she purportedly edits...
Would publish a paper based on flawed samples? With no established chain of custody.
Flawed chemical analysis, which is illustrated by the fact the scientists mounted the samples on an aluminium pedestal whilst searching for aluminium?
Think about that for a moment...

A team of in your opinion, eminent scientists...
Searching for the smoking gun of magic nano-thermite, take the iron oxide dust, mount it on an aluminium pedestal and then announce they found aluminium??!!

The paper is hokum, you have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of it.
And to top it off, you know claim that a chemist has no standing to investigate a chemical reaction?

Now do me and the entire thread a favour and answer me earlier question.

Waffle. She gave no opinion about the paper scientifically. If you find a quote that says differently please share it.

No chain of custody is nonsense.

Mark Basille a chemist also collected WTC dust independently from this study and he also found red/grey chips. The Skeptics don't disagree the red/chips were found in the dust they just side with Dr Milettee and Oystein conclusions (Oystein is a 9/11 debunker on the international sceptic forum.

Aluminium pedestal whilst searching for aluminium? Provide a quote for this information before I comment on this?