First of all, what is "nano-thermite?" I cannot find a definition of it--Wikipedia has no entry for it. (Conspiracy perhaps?)
secondly, why bother with a convoluted, dangerous, complex, risky, highly uncertain cover-up plan with hijacked airplanes if you meant to use this "nano-thermite" stuff all along? I mean, the airplanes essentially give an alert to everyone in the buildings to get the out, whereas quietly detonating thousands of tons of some mysterious explosive could probably kill the maximum number of people possible without risking the likelihood that several thousand would escape certain death, and certainly negating the need for 19 terrorists and a few hundred innocent civilians in the air to go through the motions and give their lives for something that would've been much easier to pull off without their sacrifice (and probably just as easy to blame on some "terrorist organization").
Thirdly, was there any of this "nano thermite" stuff found in the Pentagon too? Or was it just limited to airplane parts?
Fourthly, does some sweet sounding scientificy term like "nano" thermite make it sound more credible or something? What if we referred to the planes as "tactical hybrid missile-jets?" while calling "nano thermite" something like "really hot blow-uppy stuff?" I'm not even sure nanotechnology was sophisticated enough in 2001 to have something called "nano-thermite," let alone thousands of tons of it that could be invisibily and undetectably smuggled into two of the largest, most secure skyscrapers in the world at the time, and then rigged, with incredible precision, to bring down two buildings while at the same time making it look strikingly obvious that those very buildings were brought down by the weight of the floors above airplane impact crashing down like a million tons of bricks on a woven structure of steel and concrete?
Seriously.
yukii
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Seriously.
major +1
hasbone
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Thirdly, was there any of this "nano thermite" stuff found in the Pentagon too? Or was it just limited to airplane parts?
Fourthly, does some sweet sounding scientificy term like "nano" thermite make it sound more credible or something? What if we referred to the planes as "tactical hybrid missile-jets?" while calling "nano thermite" something like "really hot blow-uppy stuff?" I'm not even sure nanotechnology was sophisticated enough in 2001 to have something called "nano-thermite," let alone thousands of tons of it that could be invisibily and undetectably smuggled into two of the largest, most secure skyscrapers in the world at the time, and then rigged, with incredible precision, to bring down two buildings while at the same time making it look strikingly obvious that those very buildings were brought down by the weight of the floors above airplane impact crashing down like a million tons of bricks on a woven structure of steel and concrete?
Seriously.
right, i'm not one of them, but as far as i understand, nano-thermite just refers to really really really really really really really really really really really really tiny bits of thermite
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Oh man, do I have a deal or two for some of you guys...
...I hope it's the Brooklyn Bridge. :gsmile:
...De asini umbra disputant.
_____________
It doesn't refer to tiny, tiny bits of thermite, it refers to a compound mixed on a molecular level.
{b.s.e.}
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
First of all, what is "nano-thermite?" I cannot find a definition of it--Wikipedia has no entry for it. (Conspiracy perhaps?)
secondly, why bother with a convoluted, dangerous, complex, risky, highly uncertain cover-up plan with hijacked airplanes if you meant to use this "nano-thermite" stuff all along? I mean, the airplanes essentially give an alert to everyone in the buildings to get the out, whereas quietly detonating thousands of tons of some mysterious explosive could probably kill the maximum number of people possible without risking the likelihood that several thousand would escape certain death, and certainly negating the need for 19 terrorists and a few hundred innocent civilians in the air to go through the motions and give their lives for something that would've been much easier to pull off without their sacrifice (and probably just as easy to blame on some "terrorist organization").
Thirdly, was there any of this "nano thermite" stuff found in the Pentagon too? Or was it just limited to airplane parts?
Fourthly, does some sweet sounding scientificy term like "nano" thermite make it sound more credible or something? What if we referred to the planes as "tactical hybrid missile-jets?" while calling "nano thermite" something like "really hot blow-uppy stuff?" I'm not even sure nanotechnology was sophisticated enough in 2001 to have something called "nano-thermite," let alone thousands of tons of it that could be invisibily and undetectably smuggled into two of the largest, most secure skyscrapers in the world at the time, and then rigged, with incredible precision, to bring down two buildings while at the same time making it look strikingly obvious that those very buildings were brought down by the weight of the floors above airplane impact crashing down like a million tons of bricks on a woven structure of steel and concrete?
Seriously.
I'm surprised you wasted your time thinking of all that.
If you're not sure, you should probably research that unsurity, resolving any issues with ignorance that might arise in the future.
Ta ta..
Lebezniatnikov
This is a rare statement from me, but here it is anyway:
Shakka just won this thread.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Cannot answer that one can you, no screwloosechange links for this one right KFC?
actually, there is a deluge of information stating that ex professor jones found nothing of the sort. but you should know by now that im over responding to each and every lie you tell cretinrot!
there was no thermite found, and only ignorant fools like yourself are confused by the paper.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
actually, there is a deluge of information stating that ex professor jones found nothing of the sort. but you should know by now that im over responding to each and every lie you tell cretinrot!
there was no thermite found, and only ignorant fools like yourself are confused by the paper.
Absolutely wrong.
It was found and not by only Steven Jones, around 8-9 different scientists if I recall correctly. Apparently you cannot fuking read/comprehend the last few links {b.s.e.} posted up.
When I think about it I posted the same thing many pages back in this same thread.
We all know you are not here to actually debate the hard facts, otherwise people like you would not exist at all in the home you call the internet. It's the only place trolls can thrive and feel important.
pkcRAISTLIN
the properties of thermite are indistinguishable from innumerable ingredients that would be found in any building collapse. there was no thermite, thermite isn't capable of bringing down buildings, cretinrot sucks cocks.
pkcRAISTLIN
let's continue the lulz
quote:
Editors quit after fake paper flap
The editor-in-chief of an open access journal has stepped down from his post after learning that the journal accepted a fake, computer-generated article for publication. So has an editorial advisory board member of a second journal published by the same company, Bentham Science Publishers.
Bambang Parmanto, a University of Pittsburgh information scientist, resigned from his editorship at The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ) after reading a story on The Scientist's website yesterday (June 10) that described a hoax paper submission to the journal. Editors at journal claimed to have peer reviewed the article and slated it for publication pending the submission of $800 in "open access fees."
"I didn't like what happened," Parmanto told The Scientist. "If this is true, I don't have full control of the content that is accepted to this journal." Parmanto said that he had never seen the phony manuscript that was accepted by TOISCIJ. "I want to lessen my exposure to the risk of being taken advantage of."
Parmanto, who became editor-in-chief of TOISCIJ when Bentham launched the journal last year, said that he had reviewed manuscripts for inclusion in the journal previously, but that he made up his mind to resign from his volunteer position "because of the potential for abuse," of the kind uncovered by the hoax.
Parmanto did add, however, that the perpetrators of the hoax -- Cornell grad student Philip Davis and Kent Anderson, executive director of international business and product development at the New England Journal of Medicine -- were also guilty of some degree of unethical behavior. "This is a process based on trust," he said. "An author should submit something legitimate, and the process on the review side should decide if a paper is worth publishing or not. In this case, the process was broken on both sides."
Parmanto isn't the only one to react to the news of Bentham's ignominy by terminating his association with the publisher. Marc Williams, an immunologist and stem cell researcher at the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry who served on the editorial advisory board of The Open Stem Cell Journal (OSCJ), another Bentham publication, resigned as well. After reading the story of Davis and Kent's "little experiment" yesterday, Williams "immediately requested my name to be removed from the journal's editorial board."
"What upset me was the fact that this happened at all, in any of [Bentham's] journals," Williams told The Scientist. "It really informs us that it may be a company policy that this is permitted in general."
Williams, who had served on the OSCJ editorial advisory board since the journal's inception last year, said that in his 15 or 16 months on the job he has not reviewed a single manuscript submitted for publication, though the journal has only published one volume containing five articles since its inception.
Both Parmanto and Williams said that they support the idea of open access journals. "The open access system is definitely the way forward," said Williams. "At face value, it is an extremely valuable way of making scientific data widely available."
But Parmanto, though he said that he "believes in the open access system," noted that the business model of charging authors fees to publish in OA journals might become problematic. "I see that [Bentham would] have the incentive to maintain the credibility of the journal, but I also see the potential for abuse."
Parmanto said that upon reading the story about Davis and Andrew's hoax on our website yesterday, he contacted the publisher of TOISCIJ to ask what was going on. Parmanto said that he was told that "someone on the editorial board reviewed" the fake paper. I contacted Parmanto yesterday in reporting the original story, but the researcher told me today that he wanted to hear from TOISCIJ's publisher before getting back to me.
this is one awesome journal you guys have going! :stongue:
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the properties of thermite are indistinguishable from innumerable ingredients that would be found in any building collapse. there was no thermite, thermite isn't capable of bringing down buildings, cretinrot sucks cocks.
And you are a scientist that can dis-prove this right? LOL. Sure troll, I am going to take your word over eight reputable scientists on this one.
Reading that from JREF and screwloosechange has to be the most hysterical I have seen in years. I already looked at these sites you get this retarded info from and it's basically KFC multiplied by 1000 in there. A bunch of trolls in denial who cannot live with the fact that there was a cover up so they have to lie and convince themselves by posting this type of bull.
The funniest and most entertaining posts on these websites are now trying to convince everyone that nano thermite was found because of the natural aluminum chloride that was present in the trade towers.
So what these idiots like KFC are basically claiming on these websites is that building collapses create high grade military thermite naturally from the building materials already present in the structure itself.
Someone pass me another bag of popcorn quick and let these morons continue posting harry potter pictures in here. I have had my entertainment for the week by just spending a measly 10 minutes on these legit websites where KFC gets his "FACTS" from.
:stongue:
culorut
Sorry I have too. LOL.
Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple
As this simplified summary of the findings of the paper, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,' shows, the distinctive red-gray chips found consistently in dust samples from the destroyed Twin Towers are clearly an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material. It is not even remotely possible that the material could have been formed spontaneously through any random process such as the total destruction of the Twin Towers. Nor is it possible that the material was present in the Towers for some innocent reason. The chips are clearly the unexploded remains of a pyrotechnic material -- likely a high explosive -- that was present in the Twin Towers in large quantities.
Introduction
The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers. Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure, chemical composition, and ignition behavior.
The basis and validity of this identification can grasped quickly by anyone with a working knowledge of physics and chemistry. They need only read the paper's one-page conlusion, and perhaps its section describing the provenance of the dust samples.
But what of the reader whose strong suit isn't the hard sciences? Does one have to be an expert to understand the findings and evaluate the many claims thrown up by "debunkers" to dismiss those findings?
Fortunately, the answer is no. The central observations of the paper can be understood by any intelligent person with some effort. In this thumbnail summary of the paper's findings, I focus on three easy-to-remember features of the red-gray chips established by the paper -- features that undeniably show that the chips are a high-tech engineered pyrotechnic material. Because my description includes some technical language, I have provided a glossary for the benefit of the non-technical reader.
