"if there is simply no way you can claim victory yourself, claim it by proxy"
Nanothermite and the World Trade Center
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
This isn't about 'victory', Jazzz, it's about you peddling ridiculous stories (theories is far too scientific a word for this rubbish) that don't stack up in the light of cold, hard, scientific facts."if there is simply no way you can claim victory yourself, claim it by proxy"
You don't like that we're not agreeing with you so you respond by ignoring valid questions, posting snide comments and making personal attacks. You started this thread - do you want a debate or do you want to just put your hands over your ears whilst shouting 'la la la I can't hear you'?
Graymalkin
Ironclad Activist
I think I recall Jazzz offering some vague explanation on the Jazz vs Architect thread. However I've noticed that this is a general characteristic of conspiracy theories. Either there is no actual counter-narrative explaining what exactly happened or there are multiple narratives held by various groups of conspiracists. I think the JFK conspiracies are a good example of this and they demonstrate another aspect that other posters have alluded to. see here, I know it's wikipedia but it is extensively cited. Scroll down and look through all the different groups implicated: right wing Cuban exiles, the CIA/Secret service etc, Military industrial complex, right wing shadow government, Organized crime, Lyndon Johnson, The soviets, communist Cubans, and (of course) the Jews. I listed them in that order because I think that people with a left wing political disposition (leaving aside for a moment the inherently right wing nature of conspiracy theories) are more likely to subscribe to the former theories while right wingers are more likely to believe the latter theories. There's even a theory for Ron Paul libertarians that blames the federal reserve. I'm not suggesting that all conspiracy theories end up creating schisms like this but we have seen it happen with conspiracy theories surrounding both 9/11 and Barack Obama. I think that, over time conspiracy theories evolve and specialize to fit the needs of their adherants, they are a shortcut for people who are unable or unwilling to use actual analysis to engage with the world but nevertheless need a solid framework for understanding it. It's a potentially dangerous and vulnerable mindset since even though it is often unable to create a unified narrative for the conspiracist community the logic of conspiracism trends towards the authoritarian in the manner in which it dismisses anything that tries to challenge or contradict it and in the arrogance and bravado it engenders in its adherents. I've also noticed in other conspiracists I've encountered that the ability to subscribe to these outlandish and often contradictory ideas means that they have a hard time sticking to any principled positions since their world view revolves around the conspiracies rather than a core set of values. I saw this on the facebook feed of a former co-worker of mine who has been on a kind of downward spiral. One minute he will post something that expresses support for the idle no more movement or make some lofty statement about solidarity and the next he'll post some fucked-up anti abortion poster or another complaining about people being 'dependant'.
anyway, If anyone is interested there is a recording here of a really good, if incomplete, presentation on all the ways that conspiracist thinking trends towards the authoritarian. The recording is a little over two hours and is more than eight years old and so doesn't discuss more recent conspiracies.
oh for god's sake, I've been dealing with a lot of really hand-waving from you, and quite patiently. And your idea of such a terrible personal attack is to be called 'silly'! Well, I don't know WHAT you have been expecting here on urban75 but if you think that that is so horrendous I suggest that you check over some other threads and see what I get called, and just wave off.
No-one with any capacity for independent thought believes the official theory of 9/11 - that's what it is, a theory.
I said that we needed an investigation into 9/11. You said there had been an investigation into 9/11. I asked you a question, which was asking what you were referring to, the NIST investigation into the collapse of the towers, or the 9/11 Commission?
You have failed to answer so far, I don't understand why, as that is a simple question. And it's only me asking. Now how do think it might be taking on all-comers, as happens in these threads?
shifting gears
Well-Known Member
For the second time, and as someone with no history of baiting you:
Your theory? Please.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Let's address this vitriolic outburst, shall we?
Handwaving? No, I've been demolishing your argument - excuse the pun - with facts. If you don't like this, don't post crap. And for the record I never said you made a personal attack on me in this thread. You have called me silly and seem to think it's hilarious to do continue to do so after I have made it clear I find it unacceptable as you are using it in a manner that could be perceived as sexist. I take criticism a lot better than you do. Plus, for the record, on recent threads I have asked that other posters do not descend into personal attacks on you, because I do not think it helps anything. You have conveniently forgotten that.
Have you polled the entire planet to be able to make this statement with such certainty, or are you just implying that anyone who questions you is part of the 'sheeple'?
In this context I am clearly referring to the NIST report because it examined in detail the construction materials of the towers. If you knew the difference between the two reports you would know that. Also, don't bitch about not getting immediate answers to questions when you have ignored ayotallah's question about your thought on the bigger picture behind 9/11.
Don't know what you're going on about here, but stop playing the victim.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I fully agree there should be an investigation into 911, and tbh I agree that at a minimum, Rumsfeld and Cheney were complicit in enabling it to happen (probably Bush as well, though I just don't really credit him with sufficient intelligence, cold war cunning and contacts to come up with the idea).
But not in any way that you've ever really mentioned to my knowledge.
IMO from the moment they took office they deliberately stood down the Clinton era focus on Al Queida in order to give them space to mount an attack on the USA that would then give them free reign to do what they wanted in terms of Afgahnistan and more importantly Iraq.
Clinton at his handover gave Al Queida as being the biggest threat to US national security, yet the neocons failed to even arrange a top level meeting to discuss their strategy towards AQ until something like 2 weeks before the attacks, or 9 months after they took office, having chosen instead to focus their attentions on Iraq and finding ways to justify attacking it in those 9 months.
Either that's deliberate, or abject incompetence, but given the combined experience of Rumsfeld and Cheney, I simply don't believe it was incompetence - they were told of the major threat, and they deliberately ignored it.
The basic facts of this are outlined in at least 3 books on the subject by Bob Woodward (embeded with Bush and team to write a book about his election campaign and first period in office), Hank Poulson (Treasury Secretary at Cheney's request), and erm someone who was the head of the senate intelligence committee at the time (Bob something), though obviously no proof in those that they did this deliberately.
IMO virtually all the bullshit that Jazz and his ilk have come out with over the last decade is just blatant chafe thrown out to distract attention from the real crime / conspiracy that went on here, and discredit by association anyone who might try to see through that chafe to show what they actually were complicit in.
Far from being truth seekers, Jazz and his ilk unwittingly enabled the neocons to get away with it.
But not in any way that you've ever really mentioned to my knowledge.
IMO from the moment they took office they deliberately stood down the Clinton era focus on Al Queida in order to give them space to mount an attack on the USA that would then give them free reign to do what they wanted in terms of Afgahnistan and more importantly Iraq.
Clinton at his handover gave Al Queida as being the biggest threat to US national security, yet the neocons failed to even arrange a top level meeting to discuss their strategy towards AQ until something like 2 weeks before the attacks, or 9 months after they took office, having chosen instead to focus their attentions on Iraq and finding ways to justify attacking it in those 9 months.
Either that's deliberate, or abject incompetence, but given the combined experience of Rumsfeld and Cheney, I simply don't believe it was incompetence - they were told of the major threat, and they deliberately ignored it.
The basic facts of this are outlined in at least 3 books on the subject by Bob Woodward (embeded with Bush and team to write a book about his election campaign and first period in office), Hank Poulson (Treasury Secretary at Cheney's request), and erm someone who was the head of the senate intelligence committee at the time (Bob something), though obviously no proof in those that they did this deliberately.
IMO virtually all the bullshit that Jazz and his ilk have come out with over the last decade is just blatant chafe thrown out to distract attention from the real crime / conspiracy that went on here, and discredit by association anyone who might try to see through that chafe to show what they actually were complicit in.
Far from being truth seekers, Jazz and his ilk unwittingly enabled the neocons to get away with it.
Edward Kelly
Well-Known Member
good points and as most here would already know, that just powdered iron in the air with a starter (such as an oxy torch )One of the qualities of "nano-thermite" is the scale of the particles. What jazzz doesn't appear to get is that fine powders, of a majority of substances, are explosive in and of themselves without certain precautions being taken, hence the elaborate powder-trapping and damping arrangements in flour mills throughout history (some of us have embarrassing stories from our youth about blowing up a garden shed with a bag of flour, a battery and a brillo pad), so not only would you have to have the same sort of production safeguards as any gunpowder or cordite mill, to counteract any flash-explosion of the powderised thermites, you'd also need to scale production (in "clean room" facilities with all the usual asd precautions) so that you were never producing enough to give the potential for more than a certain size of blast. You'd also have to store (unlike with plastics) the powders in containment vessels, and take a great deal of care where the vessels were stored.
Plus, the military prefer "point and shoot" to materials that require skilled handling.
will burn causing a flash effect.I was a machinest for a while and rags used to clean up the stones horizontle grinder (for car engine flywheels) soaked with soluble oil would smoke and then ignite if thrown in the the bin and left. The chemical reaction would get hot enough for the rags to ignite.
So one can only imagine the dangers involved in working with very fine and very inflammible particles.
Flour and many other fine particle substances can do the same. oh, here it is here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_explosion
Nonsense.
The point you are currently resting on - that a nanothermite, a military high-grade explosive would be too dangerous to use or even prepare in large quantities - is really utter speculation on your part and poor one too. Of course, you have no evidence of any property of nanothermite that makes it unusable for a US special military operation with unlimited budget; you are simply hand-waving. Note that conventional thermite is not actually explosive at all, and is really quite hard to ignite. So why not have the more powerful and more easily lit nanothermite.
The point of course is that your scientific reasoning is backwards. You are trying to second-guess what would have been used to blow up the WTC from your preconceived ideas of possibility, instead of looking at the actual evidence. If nanothermite was there, then it is there. It doesn't become 'not there' because you would have used a different explosive.
Let's note that we have come from 'it's created by rusting steel' to 'it's far too dangerous to prepare'. Arguments that appear diametrically opposed.
The NIST investigation did nothing to look into the possibility of controlled demolition, which is strange because whoever flew planes into building may also have planted bombs in them. They dismissed it for towers 1 & 2 because the buildings came down from the middle!
NIST refuses to release evidence for independent analysis
NIST refuses to perform tests which other scientists are asking for
The NIST models of the collapses of WTC1 and 2 are NOT peer-reviewed and they refuse to release their data for it
They are also LIARS. Check out the body language...
Graymalkin
Ironclad Activist
No Jazzz, We have gone from pointing out that even if nanothermite was present in the buildings the residues would be indistinguishable from the burn products created when the rubble from a steel frame building office building that also contains lots of aluminum and other reactants is allowed to burn and cook underground for a couple weeks to pointing out that if the explosive you describe can't be handled by most explosives research labs due to safety concerns then it couldn't possibly have been used to bring the buildings down. If it can't be safely handled in the controlled environment of a research lab then it can't be safely deployed in an uncontrolled environment such as an office building. These two points are not in opposition.
From NIST's own Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation
This is the entire rationale for dismissing controlled demolition. It's worthless. There is no reason to assume that explosions could only occur from the bottom, and that they could not be set off at 56 minutes and 102 minutes because that's when they were programmed to or someone pressed the button then.
Substituting hand-waving for forensic investigation.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
There is no scientific evidence for anything you claim in the above post. What makes you say that NIST are liars? Where's your evidence for this statement - were they denounced widely in the worldwide media?
YOU are not looking at the evidence. YOU have preconceived ideas of possibility. YOU have no proof that nanothermite actually exists or can be made in the quantities required for this level of destruction.
In case that was too hard for you to comprehend, let's use the big letters for clarity:
YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT NANOTHERMITE CAN BE MADE IN THE QUANTITIES REQUIRED FOR THIS LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION.
Care to answer the question 'what's your theory as to why this happened?' as posters have asked on several occasions? Not in cut & paste odysseys from you-tube. You can't complain if people don't respond to your questions when you ignore theirs.
I am a qualified researcher and more that capable of logical reasoning based on neutral assessment of available evidence sources. I have seen no evidence that you can do the same.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Your statements are not backed up by the quotations you have made. I suggest you try again.
<gigantic size of letters reduced>
"Burden of proof" fallacy.
It is you who is employing the argument that it is impossible to make nanothermite in large quantities, hence it could not have been used at the WTC. Thus, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your premise, and not me to refute it.
If you accept that it may be possible to manufacture nanothermite in large quantities then your argument is invalid.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Jazzz. If you are postulating a 'theory' YOU lay out the evidence for it, not me. I've said this to you before on other threads you've started. It is up to you to convince people of why your argument is correct and so far all you have done is post links from various right-wing websites about non-believer argument types. Yes, I had a look at nizkor.com. Not impressed.
I can prove my premise, which is more than you can:
Here's a basic wikipedia link based on manufacturing capability in 2002, the year AFTER 9/11:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
https://stonybrook.digication.com/esm_213_studies_in_nanotechnology/Analysis2 - reference for production rate from Stonybrook University, NY.
The university link further states that:
It's your argument that is invalid, Jazzz, not mine.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
In case you can't follow the logic of my argument, if the material could not have been made in sufficient quantities in 2002, it is impossible for it to have been used in 9/11 which occurred the year before.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
But I have. Primarily, the nanothermite which Harrit et al found and documented in four separate dust samples from around the WTC. If it's there, it was there.
You are trying to find an argument to counter it.
Fallacies are a matter of logic. The politics of nizkor are neither here nor there. It's no 'right wing' site anyway.
Great link.
Proving that nanothermite is viable for military use:
So let's forget the objection that it was impossible to handle (indeed your link and your quote from it describes how it can be made stable from static shocks).
Your premise is not proved at all. The fact is that you have no real idea what the total US military production of nanothermite has been pre-2001, or indeed that production methods are limited to ones that your link knows about. The raw materials are not scarce. It may not be easy to make, but there is no reason why tons could not have been made given enough effort and resources, just as the US military went to the most fantastic lengths to produce uranium-235 during WWII. Unless I'm mistaken, this paper https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf describes a production method not listed in your link.
I'm happy to stand corrected on that one. Of course, it matters not at all.
Even if it was there?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
That's "movement" as in "bowel movement".
prunus
Tick tock.
I feel a bit bad now. I've been rather enjoying laughing at these threads, but it is really just laughing at the afflicted, which isn't really on.
Jazzz - you are deluded to the extent that your delusion constitutes mental illness. Hopefully not badly ill enough to affect your ability to live a normal life, but ill nevertheless.
Why the ad hominem? Well, it's not so much an attack as it is analogous to for instance a person insisting that they were the reincarnation of Jesus and had godlike powers. One would not try to engage with the arguments as to why they thought this and prove them wrong, one would suggest that perhaps some medical help might be in order (or not - it is possible to live a life living with extensive delusions).
Jazzz - there is no evidence anywhere that you have presented or that is referred to in the various links and websites you've posted up (and I've spent many an entertaining hour reading and listening to them believe me) that the WTC towers' collapses were caused by anything other than the simplest observable explanation - aeroplanes crashed into them.
I completely understand the fun that can be got out of engaging in these threads, but I at least am going to (try to) stay off them - I feel they're a bit off, and for those trying to make the argument, remember you can't argue someone out of believing they're Jesus.
Jazzz - you are deluded to the extent that your delusion constitutes mental illness. Hopefully not badly ill enough to affect your ability to live a normal life, but ill nevertheless.
Why the ad hominem? Well, it's not so much an attack as it is analogous to for instance a person insisting that they were the reincarnation of Jesus and had godlike powers. One would not try to engage with the arguments as to why they thought this and prove them wrong, one would suggest that perhaps some medical help might be in order (or not - it is possible to live a life living with extensive delusions).
Jazzz - there is no evidence anywhere that you have presented or that is referred to in the various links and websites you've posted up (and I've spent many an entertaining hour reading and listening to them believe me) that the WTC towers' collapses were caused by anything other than the simplest observable explanation - aeroplanes crashed into them.
I completely understand the fun that can be got out of engaging in these threads, but I at least am going to (try to) stay off them - I feel they're a bit off, and for those trying to make the argument, remember you can't argue someone out of believing they're Jesus.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I agree with what you're saying, prunus, and where subjects like 9/11 are concerned, I think you've got a very good point.
But should we be quite so respectful of Jazzz's feeling when he starts on about cures for cancer, or mercury in fillings, or vaccination/immunisation, or other forms of quack medicine that could be dangerous if taken seriously? I wonder where the line needs to be drawn.
But should we be quite so respectful of Jazzz's feeling when he starts on about cures for cancer, or mercury in fillings, or vaccination/immunisation, or other forms of quack medicine that could be dangerous if taken seriously? I wonder where the line needs to be drawn.
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
Please do tell... (some of us have embarrassing stories from our youth about blowing up a garden shed with a bag of flour, a battery and a brillo pad
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Those threads should be summarily deleted with extreme prejudice. He was advising another poster (EG I think) who had been suffering extreme back pain to spend a substantial sum on a grounding mat or some similar nonsense a week or two ago. His post was the usual bollocks complete with links to crud sites and false medical claims.
This is where Jazzz's lunacy becomes dangerously unhelpful.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
And in any demo of a large metal-skeleton building.
Sounds like an excellent seasoning for scrambled eggs!
Similar threads
