ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Chris Mohr , james millette , nanothermite , Niels Harrit , richard gage , steven jones , thermite , wtc dust

Reply
Old 6th June 2015, 06:40 PM   #81
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I was thinking it was a typo. NRO>>>> NWO.
North Western Ontario?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2015, 08:23 PM   #82
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
I ... am a declared 911 truth advocate.
...
As were the Boston bombers.

911 truth is a movement based on lies, ironically makes you a declared advocate of lies, and fantasy based on nonsense.

Ironically linking WTC, Flight 11 and 175, with the Pentagon Flight 77, and PA crash of Flight 93, dooms any argument for the inside job delusion. qd No supporter of CD at the WTC can touch flights 77 and 93 logically to form a single integrated operation plan; never has any 911 truth liar been able to link all the crazy 911 truth delusions into a single narrative based on evidence. There is the problem, evidence. Chris Mohr took the time to explain why the fantasy of CD and thermite were delusional nonsense. Ironically the thermite paper by Jones and his buddies debunks itself and offers no evidence for proof of thermite.

911 truth advocates who use critically thinking skills and logic, find out 911 truth is a fraud movement, and join reality in days or weeks after doing simple research. Like realizing you are rising in swamp water during your check out dive, the illusion of diving cause the bubbles beat you to the surface, you think you are going down, next thing you see is the surface, the illusion is figured out, and knowledge is gained, revelation, wake up... reality.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2015, 02:21 PM   #83
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,681
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
As a brief introduction, I work as a health physicist and am a declared 911 truth advocate. I have two Grandparents who were Senators, two who were war heroes, a mother in the CFR, and a deceased father who was a high ranking DOJ official and later VP for National Security at a large Eastern telecom.
Not just an appeal to false authority (health physicist?), but an appeal to your ancestors' authority? What in the world is this supposed to add to the discussion?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2015, 02:28 PM   #84
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,283
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Not just an appeal to false authority (health physicist?), ...
Maybe he designs MRI scanners? Just sayin
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2015, 02:41 PM   #85
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,304
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Not just an appeal to false authority (health physicist?), but an appeal to your ancestors' authority? What in the world is this supposed to add to the discussion?
Isn't knowledge accumulative?

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2015, 04:03 PM   #86
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,251
Well so far it has proven that the new guy can read and write and that he knows his family tree (or has a well developed imagination). No special competencies relevant to the subject matter though.

What does a health physicist do? Is that a fancy name for an x-ray technician, or something else?
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2015, 05:34 PM   #87
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,116
[quote=Notconvinced;10694837]
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Hey gang, wait a second! I'm not quite through YET. I imagine it will take some back-and-forth after people digest this new video, and I'll certainly stick around to see that unfold and try to respond to comments and questions.

Hello Chris and all here. As a brief introduction, I work as a health physicist and am a declared 911 truth advocate. I have two Grandparents who were Senators, two who were war heroes, a mother in the CFR, and a deceased father who was a high ranking DOJ official and later VP for National Security at a large Eastern telecom.

I've not familiarized myself with your rebuttal videos Chris, and promise to do so before continuing further, but I can state definitively that none of the debunking argumentation I've heard thus far has even remotely swayed me toward the official explanation of 'crush down, crush up' with respect to the WTC complex buildings, nor to the plausibility of the events in DC, Shanksville, and the NRO.

As this forum is clearly a place for information warfare, I acknowledge that I'll likely be up against formidable opponents, and hope that my contrarian views at the very least help to strengthen your counterpoints if not convince you to just out with the truth.

In other words, please don't metaphorically or actully drone strike me for choosing to debate. I understand I'm up against a far superior opponent. God bless America, and off topic... your 53rd division of a harmonic sounds phenomenal. As a connesour of music, thank you for that!

I'll watch your 23 videos, make notes, an then 'bring it on'.

Best,
FYP

There is no war, it was over before it started.
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2015, 04:34 PM   #88
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
The latest response to Chris's video on one of the sites I frequent:

"waste of time, mostly rhetoric from another physics chemistry dummy who cant tell the difference between probable and imagined.

Just more of the same rhetoric we see out here all time to pull the burden of proof away from the government claim it was 'fire' and that fire can cause symmetric freefall descent. "


Obviously the guy didn't even view it.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2015, 07:40 AM   #89
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
On another thread debunking Chris Mohr I just read that the government has a long history of secretly using thermite, including in 1951 when they used thermite to melt large amounts of Arctic ice to get at an alien spaceship that had crashed there.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2015, 09:09 AM   #90
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
On another thread debunking Chris Mohr I just read that the government has a long history of secretly using thermite, including in 1951 when they used thermite to melt large amounts of Arctic ice to get at an alien spaceship that had crashed there.
Which failed.

Yes, that is where the "Thing" killed some of the recovery crew...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thi..._Another_World

It is on wiki, it has to be reality...

They failed to realize the ship was made out of "super-nano-nano-thermite"...

Quote:
They try deicing the buried craft with thermite heat bombs, but only ignite its metal alloy, causing an explosion that destroys the saucer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thi..._Another_World
Someone has a sense of humor. Who could it be now
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2015, 09:48 AM   #91
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,139
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
On another thread debunking Chris Mohr I just read that the government has a long history of secretly using thermite, including in 1951 when they used thermite to melt large amounts of Arctic ice to get at an alien spaceship that had crashed there.
LOL

Using thermite would be about the least efficient and most dangerous way to melt ice
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2015, 10:04 AM   #92
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,681
Or to demolish a high-rise building, for that matter.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2015, 02:13 PM   #93
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,258
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Which failed.

Yes, that is where the "Thing" killed some of the recovery crew...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thi..._Another_World

It is on wiki, it has to be reality...
Oh my...

Well spotted, Beachnut.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2015, 02:33 PM   #94
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,152
Thanks for all of your hard, honest work, Mr. Mohr. That you were willing to look at the evidence objectively, and do so much research is impressive. More work than I would ever consider doing on this subject.

Impressive, and you handle your critics with class, something I plan to learn from.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2015, 02:34 PM   #95
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
LOL

Using thermite would be about the least efficient and most dangerous way to melt ice
You mean, steam explosions and the rapid release of heat to a small area, as opposed to a longer release of heat in order to use that energy towards melting ice rather than also making steam?

Here's a thought for better efficiency in using thermite's energy output to melt an iceberg.
1) enclose iceberg in an insulated container.
2) calculate mass of ice
3) calculate calories required to raise that mass of ice to 0.5 degrees Celcius
4) load an amount of thermite that will release that calculated amount of energy (+10% to be sure) into enclosed container
5) ignite thermite

Container should have a vent PV=nRT after all.

Note I said it would be a more efficient use of thermite's energy output. I did not say it would actually be efficient over all.

ETA: forgot one step
6) RUN!

Last edited by jaydeehess; 10th June 2015 at 02:37 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2015, 02:59 PM   #96
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,139
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
You mean, steam explosions and the rapid release of heat to a small area, as opposed to a longer release of heat in order to use that energy towards melting ice rather than also making steam?
...
As for losses: Yes, unnecessary boiling of water, + intense radiation, + unnecessary reduction of water
As for dangers: Yes, Steam explosions, + hydrogen explosions

(At the temperatures the thermite reaction reaches, both the educt Al and the product Fe will crack H2O)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2015, 03:39 PM   #97
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
On another thread debunking Chris Mohr I just read that the government has a long history of secretly using thermite, including in 1951 when they used thermite to melt large amounts of Arctic ice to get at an alien spaceship that had crashed there.
LOLOL, that's one I've not heard yet!
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2015, 07:18 PM   #98
Playing Games
Thinker
 
Playing Games's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
On another thread debunking Chris Mohr I just read that the government has a long history of secretly using thermite, including in 1951 when they used thermite to melt large amounts of Arctic ice to get at an alien spaceship that had crashed there.
LOL! Hilarious! Where did that come from?
Playing Games is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2015, 05:23 AM   #99
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Dang I went back and couldn't find where that post about the Arctic spaceship crash and thermite in 1951 came from! But Beachnut figured out the joke and I didn't. See post 90 above. I have a sense of humor all right but I sure missed the joke! Thanks Beachnut. If I could re-read the original post I might realize the author was a debunker with a sense of humor!!
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 11th June 2015 at 05:25 AM. Reason: spelchek
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2015, 08:00 AM   #100
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Dang I went back and couldn't find where that post about the Arctic spaceship crash and thermite in 1951 came from! But Beachnut figured out the joke and I didn't. See post 90 above. I have a sense of humor all right but I sure missed the joke! Thanks Beachnut. If I could re-read the original post I might realize the author was a debunker with a sense of humor!!
A comment near the end of the post by Chief 911 truth Liar Kevin Ryan. It is amazing how dumb 911 truth leaders are, and how stupid followers have to be to fall for the BS they manufacture effortlessly.

Quote:
The Thing From Another World
This was a film made in 1951, I think, and curiously, members of the Air Force used a "thermite bomb" to melt ice in order to recover a crashed flying saucer. 1951!!! http://911blogger.com/news/2013-12-0...k-wtc-thermite
I saw the movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5xcVxkTZzM



Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
...
I'll watch your 23 videos, make notes, an then 'bring it on'.

Best,
Where did "bring it" go? The videos must of cured the cult thermite CD explosion syndrome.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 11th June 2015 at 08:03 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2015, 08:34 AM   #101
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,139
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
A comment near the end of the post by Chief 911 truth Liar Kevin Ryan. ...
I don't get what you are referencing there - the 2013 post by KR at 911Blogger doesn't fit the description "near the end of the post".

Link and quote? Sorry if I am too confused
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2015, 08:46 AM   #102
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I don't get what you are referencing there - the 2013 post by KR at 911Blogger doesn't fit the description "near the end of the post".

Link and quote? Sorry if I am too confused
A comment at the end of the page; search, "used a "thermite bomb""

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-12-0...k-wtc-thermite

Quote:
The Thing From Another World
This was a film made in 1951, I think, and curiously, members of the Air Force used a "thermite bomb" to melt ice in order to recover a crashed flying saucer. 1951!!!
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2015, 08:53 AM   #103
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,139
Ah ok, I thought you were talking about a comment by Kevin Ryan
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2015, 11:51 AM   #104
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
A comment at the end of the page; search, "used a "thermite bomb""

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-12-0...k-wtc-thermite
I have to appreciate this comment from 2013:
Quote:
Undebunkable Thermite
All scenarios for the WTC destruction involve thermitic materials. Kevin Ryan has provided overwhelming evidence for thermite and clear instructions for how someone could go about trying to debunk it. Good luck with that. Basic scenarios:

1. These were demolitions using exclusively thermitic materials, however there were also bombs in the buildings for reasons not necessarily part of the demolitions. (terror, etc.)

2. These were demolitions carried out exclusively with thermitic materials, which accounts for all the blast damage and pulverized dust. There were no bombs in the basement or elsewhere. (Which means that police and news reports of trucks and vans at the WTC believed to contain explosives are wrong --- despite the fact that truck bombs and van bombs were in NYC on the morning of 9/11 with apparent foreknowledge of the WTC attacks). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDqNLrOd_SY

3. These were demolitions carried out with a combination of nanothermite and conventional explosives.

Regardless, nanothermite is part of the equation. The two scenarios that are clearly false are.....

4. These are demolitions which did not use thermitic materials.

5. These are not demolitions.

Submitted by RL McGee on Thu, 12/26/2013 - 11:58am.
"What heck, Bob, I know we already rigged these buildings to collapse due to thermite melting steel and pulverizing concrete flooring, but I wanna blow some extraneous #### up. Just in case a few people in the area don't get frightened enough at the sight of three large skyscrapers, two of them the largest in the world, collapsing."

Last edited by jaydeehess; 11th June 2015 at 11:57 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2015, 12:40 PM   #105
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,258
"But let's make it silent, ok?, ya know, because we don't want to blow everyone's ears too... and ya know, the noise really adds nothing"
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2015, 12:48 PM   #106
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,681
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
"But let's make it silent, ok?, ya know, because we don't want to blow everyone's ears too... and ya know, the noise really adds nothing"
Well, since everyone looking at the building would have been blinded by the thermite flashes, it was quite benevolent of our ninja explosives team to consider that they might need their hearing in future.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2015, 02:55 PM   #107
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Nice video, Chris! I finally got time to watch my downloaded copy last night during the flight to Buffalo for the Reason for Change conference.

This morning, as I was taking the elevator to the ground floor of the Marriott, Richard Dawkins stepped into the car. Now that doesn't happen every day!
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2015, 07:27 PM   #108
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
I don't know about that. Dawkins probably steps into an elevator multiple times every week.

In fact likely at least twice on the day you saw him.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 13th June 2015 at 07:29 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2015, 08:03 PM   #109
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I don't know about that. Dawkins probably steps into an elevator multiple times every week.

In fact likely at least twice on the day you saw him.
Well played, jaydeehess. Well played.
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2015, 08:06 PM   #110
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I don't know about that. Dawkins probably steps into an elevator multiple times every week.

In fact likely at least twice on the day you saw him.

...and the moral of the story???

"If you are going to drop names - don't leave yourself open for come-backs."


EDIT - PS

Curses - the man himself beat me to it.

Last edited by ozeco41; 13th June 2015 at 08:07 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2015, 03:11 AM   #111
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...Nowhere in this entire context does Chris talk about aluminium compounds, nor does he quote, show or mention Millette identifying compounds. The entire section talks about elemental aluminium, and since neither Chris nor Millette nor Harrit, Farrer or Basile are shown speaking of compounds, it is highly dishonest of you to claim, falsely, that Chris made "it appear as if authors of Harritīs paper confirmed Milletteīs finding of an aluminum compound". This is your private and malevolent reading of something that's not said...
Of course Chris did not mention that Millette identified an al-compound. Had Chris been honest and done that his quote from Prof Jones about finding no al compound would have debunked Milletteīs alleged finding of kaolin and therefore his whole report.

Donīt try to tell me that you do not know by now that Millette claims to have identified kaolin, Oystein. And donīt try to play dumb and pretend to not know that kaolin is an aluminum compound of al-si-o.

This forumīs entire case against Harritīs finding of elemental aluminum plates has been based on the notion that he found plates of an aluminum compound instead - a compound called kaolin.

The finding of pure aluminum in the plates automatically debunks claims of compounds such as kaolin and vice versa. One cannot claim to debunk pure aluminum without automatically confirming a compound. Chris cannot claim to debunk aluminum without supporting claim of a compound.

Chris Mohr twisted a quote from Prof Jones to give the appearance that Jones was "admitting" that they found no elemental aluminum in the plates, which would mean they had to have found a compound.

There is no way around this Oystein: Chris Mohr took a quote from Prof Jones wildly out of context to give the appearance that Jones debunked Harritīs and his finding of elemental aluminum in the plates. Thatīs absolute BS. See below..

Quote:
Oystein said: "Consider the context: Jones and Harrit claim that there was elemental aluminium in the chips.

...XRD is capable of identifying both elemental Al and Al compounds, provided they have some crystal structure, so the Jones-quote "no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results" plausibly includes elemental Al (or rather no clear pattern of any elemental Al), for IF there had been a clear pattern of elemental Al, of course Jones would have shouted it all over the place."
Yes Oystein, lets consider the context, as Chris Mohr should have done, especially since it had been pointed out to him before very clearly.

Letīs consider what Prof Jones was ACTUALLY saying: the XRD did not recognize any form of aluminum, and you are right that this means the XRD did not recognize any known form of either elemental or compounds of aluminum.

Does that means all the XEDS AND TEM analysis that showed aluminum signals - by both Harrit et al AND Millette - was wrong and that there was no form of any kind of aluminum, not even a compound like kaolin?

Of course not. The aluminum signal showed by both EDS and TEM is still there and still true. Prof Jones was saying the XRD was not able to identify what kind of aluminum is there. It could not say if the plates have pure aluminum or some compound. It was completely inconclusive. It gave no result. It was useless!

Why was the XRD completely useless? You gave a hint which I hilited above: The XRD identifies crystaline materials. The most obvious conclusion from a "no reading" would be that the material is not crystaline, which means amorphous, and that is exactly what Prof Jones pointed out.

Chris Mohrīs attempt to give the appearance that Prof Jones said he found no aluminum is extremely dishonest and would be a very clear example of academic misconduct - if the setting were academic. Fortunately for Chris, itīs just BS claim on YouTube.

And BTW: XRD can normally read and identify kaolin but Prof Jones XRD analysis could not identify kaolin. Feel free to put that into Millette context if u want to go down that road

Last edited by Ziggi; 15th June 2015 at 03:26 AM.
Ziggi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2015, 04:07 AM   #112
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,737
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Of course Chris did not mention that Millette identified an al-compound. Had Chris been honest and done that his quote from Prof Jones about finding no al compound would have debunked Milletteīs alleged finding of kaolin and therefore his whole report.

Donīt try to tell me that you do not know by now that Millette claims to have identified kaolin, Oystein. And donīt try to play dumb and pretend to not know that kaolin is an aluminum compound of al-si-o.

This forumīs entire case against Harritīs finding of elemental aluminum plates has been based on the notion that he found plates of an aluminum compound instead - a compound called kaolin.

The finding of pure aluminum in the plates automatically debunks claims of compounds such as kaolin and vice versa. One cannot claim to debunk pure aluminum without automatically confirming a compound. Chris cannot claim to debunk aluminum without supporting claim of a compound.

Chris Mohr twisted a quote from Prof Jones to give the appearance that Jones was "admitting" that they found no elemental aluminum in the plates, which would mean they had to have found a compound.

There is no way around this Oystein: Chris Mohr took a quote from Prof Jones wildly out of context to give the appearance that Jones debunked Harritīs and his finding of elemental aluminum in the plates. Thatīs absolute BS. See below..



Yes Oystein, lets consider the context, as Chris Mohr should have done, especially since it had been pointed out to him before very clearly.

Letīs consider what Prof Jones was ACTUALLY saying: the XRD did not recognize any form of aluminum, and you are right that this means the XRD did not recognize any known form of either elemental or compounds of aluminum.

Does that means all the XEDS AND TEM analysis that showed aluminum signals - by both Harrit et al AND Millette - was wrong and that there was no form of any kind of aluminum, not even a compound like kaolin?

Of course not. The aluminum signal showed by both EDS and TEM is still there and still true. Prof Jones was saying the XRD was not able to identify what kind of aluminum is there. It could not say if the plates have pure aluminum or some compound. It was completely inconclusive. It gave no result. It was useless!

Why was the XRD completely useless? You gave a hint which I hilited above: The XRD identifies crystaline materials. The most obvious conclusion from a "no reading" would be that the material is not crystaline, which means amorphous, and that is exactly what Prof Jones pointed out.

Chris Mohrīs attempt to give the appearance that Prof Jones said he found no aluminum is extremely dishonest and would be a very clear example of academic misconduct - if the setting were academic. Fortunately for Chris, itīs just BS claim on YouTube.

And BTW: XRD can normally read and identify kaolin but Prof Jones XRD analysis could not identify kaolin. Feel free to put that into Millette context if u want to go down that road
Edx and TEM can not tell Aluminum from the Aluminum Oxides, and Silicates, XRD can,
The fact that Jones did not produce data showing the clays which he obviously found
Does not surprise me at all.
Finding Kaolin Aluminum silicates would have shown the chips to have been nothing
More than paint.
Jones's careful manipulation of the data, just like his failure to ignite a chip under Argon,
Only shows how dishonest his claims are and points to his deliberately misleading people
Into his false assumptions.
Jones & Harrit were nothing more than frauds, the big joke is though they may have
found a couple thermitic chips, that were there by accident, and convinced themselves,
They were on to something, and it blew up in their faces, because they are pesudo scientists
Nothing more.
Individuals attempting to use science to promote purely political goals, frauds and
Fakes using achedemic credentials, to hood wink the gullible.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2015, 05:31 AM   #113
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,139
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Of course Chris did not mention that Millette identified an al-compound. Had Chris been honest and done that his quote from Prof Jones about finding no al compound would have debunked Milletteīs alleged finding of kaolin and therefore his whole report.
Nonsense. Jones' XRD results simply yielded nothing - no pattern of anything Al, if we can believe him. You can't conclude anything from this non-result - neither that there was elemental Al, nor that there was no Al-compound. At most it would speak for there being no Al at all, but if the same sample showed Al in an XEDS plot (which we do not know afaik, but it's at least reasonably possible), then all we know is that XRD did not work with that sample. Perhaps sample was too small, operator incompetent...

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Donīt try to tell me that you do not know by now that Millette claims to have identified kaolin, Oystein.
Please keep the goal post where it was: Chris showing that the Bentham authors FAILED to show evidence for elemental Al.

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
And donīt try to play dumb and pretend to not know that kaolin is an aluminum compound of al-si-o.
Irrelevant and dishonest, this continued attempt to move the goal post. Noted with disgust.

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
This forumīs entire case against Harritīs finding of elemental aluminum plates has been based on the notion that he found plates of an aluminum compound instead - a compound called kaolin.
This is FALSE.
And an irrelevant attempt to move the goal posts.

One of the many pieces of evidence against Jones, Harrit and gang is their, and everyone else's failure, to unequivocally demonstrate the presence of elemental Al. This is independent of the additional finding of kaolin by Millette, which nonetheless is corroborated by Farrer's SE and BSE images (morphology), XEDS map (Figure 10), XEDS spot measurement (Fig 11) and TEM-XEDS quantification (which Farrer said, according to Jones' paraphrasing at 911Blogger, is consistent with kaolin in that the atomic ratio of Si:Al in the platelets is consistent with 1:1).
You need to address all the evidence and statements provided by Jones, Farrer and Basile, in addition to Millette, that they all can't really find elemental Al in any of the chips (with the possible exception of the MEK-chip, which however has very little overall Al; the SEM work on that specimen is of much worse quality than that on the others).

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
The finding of pure aluminum in the plates automatically debunks claims of compounds such as kaolin and vice versa.
Silly nonsense, easily refuted:
A dust particle might contain both kaolin AND elemental Al. Finding one does not in itself debunk the other.

More important however is the failure by Jones, Farrer, Basile and Millette to find unequivocal evidence for elemental Al.
Kaolin on the other hand has been unequivocally identified by Millette, and strongly corroborated by Farrer's data.

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
One cannot claim to debunk pure aluminum without automatically confirming a compound. Chris cannot claim to debunk aluminum without supporting claim of a compound.
Strawman.
Chris argues that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR elemental Al.
This stands on its own: Jones's admitted failure to ID the Al by XRD; Farrer's admitting that the burden of proof is still on Harrit et al; Basile explaining that there really is no evidence for elemental Al.
You, Ziggi, need to deal with those claims made by Chris when you criticize that section of the video, and not move the goal posts.

That Chris can indeed confirm an Al compound is another, second line of evidence in addition to the lack of evidence for elemental Al despite several researches trying to find it. It compounds the case against elemental Al, if you allow the pun.

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Chris Mohr twisted a quote from Prof Jones to give the appearance that Jones was "admitting" that they found no elemental aluminum in the plates, which would mean they had to have found a compound.
I am not sure I can read Chris' mind and so do not pretend to know his intentions as you do, Ziggi.
Whether intentional or by luck, Chris is correct however: Jones telling us that XRD found no pattern of any Al-compound implies that he also found no pattern of any elemental Al.

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
There is no way around this Oystein: Chris Mohr took a quote from Prof Jones wildly out of context to give the appearance that Jones debunked Harritīs and his finding of elemental aluminum in the plates. Thatīs absolute BS. See below..
It was actually YOU who quoted Chris AND Jones out of the context that Chris quoted Jones in: The actual context is the failure by Jones, Farrer, Basile and Millette to identify elemental Al using competent methods. One such competent method is XRD. Jones failed to ID elemental Al in the chips using XRD, and that, understandably, disappointed him.

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Yes Oystein, lets consider the context, as Chris Mohr should have done, especially since it had been pointed out to him before very clearly.

Letīs consider what Prof Jones was ACTUALLY saying: the XRD did not recognize any form of aluminum, and you are right that this means the XRD did not recognize any known form of either elemental or compounds of aluminum.
Thanks for confirming that the Jones quote applies to the context in which Chris used it.

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Does that means all the XEDS AND TEM analysis that showed aluminum signals - by both Harrit et al AND Millette - was wrong and that there was no form of any kind of aluminum, not even a compound like kaolin?

Of course not. The aluminum signal showed by both EDS and TEM is still there and still true. Prof Jones was saying the XRD was not able to identify what kind of aluminum is there. It could not say if the plates have pure aluminum or some compound. It was completely inconclusive. It gave no result. It was useless!
Exactly, I fully agree! Wow!
Jones was unable to ID elemental Al using XRD, because the XRD yielded no usable pattern.
So Chris was 100% correct to use that quote as part of the evidence that Jones, Farrer, Basile and Millette all FAILED to confirm the presence of elemental Al in the chips.

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Why was the XRD completely useless? You gave a hint which I hilited above: The XRD identifies crystaline materials. The most obvious conclusion from a "no reading" would be that the material is not crystaline, which means amorphous, and that is exactly what Prof Jones pointed out.
This may be a possible explanation, but equally possible is that the sample simply wasn't good enough (too small, not representative, whatever) for the method to yield anything useful.

Jones is merely guessing, claiming with very weak evidence. More importantly: He has been holding back this data for many years now, so it can't be scrutinized! We know nothing about the specimen(s), nothing about the hardware, nothing about sample preparation, and of course we don't have the data! You know that holding back scientific results, even and specifically negative ones, is considered unethical, or don't you?

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Chris Mohrīs attempt to give the appearance that Prof Jones said he found no aluminum is extremely dishonest and would be a very clear example of academic misconduct - if the setting were academic. Fortunately for Chris, itīs just BS claim on YouTube.
No. Actually, fortunately, Chris never claimed that "Prof Jones said he found no aluminum".
Chris claimed he could not identify elemental Al.

Ziggi's attempt to give the appearance that Chris Mohr said that Prof Jones said he found no aluminum is extremely dishonest and would be a very clear example of a malevolent lie.

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
And BTW: XRD can normally read and identify kaolin but Prof Jones XRD analysis could not identify kaolin. Feel free to put that into Millette context if u want to go down that road
Quite easy, you said it yourself:
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
...the XRD ... gave no result. It was useless!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2015, 06:59 AM   #114
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Ziggi the easiest solution to this problem is to show us all proof that large amounts of elemental aluminum were found by Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Harrit et al. My main point in that section of my video was to show that elemental aluminum hasn't been proven. If Jones is saying the XRD was useless in finding evidence for either elemental aluminum OR kaolin, in the quote of his he is obviously expressing frustration and saying we are going on to more experiments. Which, by the way, he clearly is not. He has given up and moved on to free energy research, which is his right. But I can't imagine that Jones was frustrated at not finding kaolin when he wrote that quote. His core frustration is from not finding proof of elemental aluminum in any of several tests he has had a hand in. Am I wrong? Where has he found proof of elemental aluminum? Certainly not in Farrer's TEM results he never published. Nor in the outside experiment he did. Nor in any of Mark Basile's experiments so far. Basile himself has said they don't have proof of elemental aluminum. Unless I'm missing something, all that is offered up as "proof" of thermite is iron-rich spheres, but there is no direct proof from TEM, FTIR (both unpublished), XRD, etc.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2015, 08:01 AM   #115
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Nonsense. Jones' XRD results simply yielded nothing - no pattern of anything Al, if we can believe him. You can't conclude anything from this non-result - neither that there was elemental Al, nor that there was no Al-compound. At most it would speak for there being no Al at all, but if the same sample showed Al in an XEDS plot (which we do not know afaik, but it's at least reasonably possible), then all we know is that XRD did not work with that sample. Perhaps sample was too small, operator incompetent...
This. We don't have any details on the XRD experiment. We have no idea what the set up was, what sample was used or how that sample was prepared. The test was inconclusive and it can't be used. Arguing that the reason that no Aluminium was found because it is in an amorphous form is simply suggestion based on the preformed notion that Aluminium in a pure form is present. It's making stuff up.

Did they ever say whether they identified the iron oxide pigment or the oxidised steel in the same experiment?

First time I did any XRD was on Yttrium aluminosilicate glasses that had formed as a corrosion product on Silicon Nitride samples in the form of SiAlON, which had been exposed to high temperatures in a burner rig that simulated a combustion environment in a jet engine.

I had plenty of material to work with, but identifying phases was particularly difficult. Not helped by the fact that it was all done manually and no computer analysis was available.

XRD isn't as straightforward as SEM work.

XRD is used in forensic analysis of paint because the technique is able to distinguish between manufacturers, types etc, due to the fact that it will identify inorganic pigments based on their crystalline structure. It's one of the reasons why I called for it when the paper was released in 2009. Work was performed in the early 1980s with regard to databases of paint constituents.

I've read that sizes as small as 0.1mm2 can be analysed and if conditions are favourable then pigments and fillers can be identified.

However, they have to be mounted correctly in order to get 2 theta and d-spacing of all the peaks in the diffraction pattern. For the paint chip samples in Harrit et al to be analysed I'd expect the need for a lab that specialises in this type of work. Plenty of them about of course.

In fact this would be an excellent test for Mark Basile to have conducted by a lab that specialises in this type of work as it would confirm data gathered by FTIR.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 15th June 2015 at 08:04 AM.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2015, 08:02 AM   #116
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,258
Wow, so Ziggi actually debunks that the results show elemental Al. Too bad the video is already finished, Chris.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2015, 11:15 AM   #117
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Here is the quote from Steven Jones I used: “After our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments.”
So, in the context of me talking about not finding elemental aluminum, I bring forth a quote which begins by Jones saying he was looking to resolve the question of elemental aluminum. This is one of several quotes about not finding elemental aluminum, including one by Mark Basile, another by Jim Millette. Apparently, neither these XRD results nor the TEM results of Dr Farrer satisfied him in this search. I also point out that if the aluminum is in an amorphous form, then the aluminum and the iron oxide would not be in close enough proximity to maximize the energy potential of the thermite reaction.
Ziggi has told me months ago in private emails that I was taking Jones out of context, but I beg to differ. The main point is that he failed to find elemental aluminum. The fact that the test found no evidence of aluminum of any kind makes the test worthless, I agree, because there is aluminum in the chips in SOME form. But the burden of proof lies on the authors of the paper to find elemental aluminum, and I submit to you that this burden has not been met.
Ziggi, please stop using words like "dishonest." I would like to engage with you but if you keep ascribing evil intentions to my work, I will stop talking with you again. I may be wrong but I am not a liar.
In the meantime, if any of you agree that Ziggi has caught me on an error, please feel free to point it out right here. I will make the necessary correction on the video itself, as I have already done many times on other videos I have put out.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2015, 03:05 PM   #118
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post

...Ziggi has told me months ago in private emails that I was taking Jones out of context, but I beg to differ. The main point is that he failed to find elemental aluminum. The fact that the test found no evidence of aluminum of any kind makes the test worthless, I agree, because there is aluminum in the chips in SOME form. But the burden of proof lies on the authors of the paper to find elemental aluminum, and I submit to you that this burden has not been met...
No Chris, there are 2 main points here: 1) Jones et al did find elemental aluminum and 2) you quoted Jones out of context in an attempt to give the appearance that Jones said he did not find aluminum.

The burden of proof does rest on Harrit et al and their paper meets that burden and explains the finding of pure aluminum quite nicely. Go to Figure 17 and try to understand the process of elimination: The aluminum is there all alone without silicon = not a silicon compound. Lack of oxygen means not an aluminum oxide compound = a large portion of the aluminum is pure.

The attempt to confirm this finding of aluminum with XRD is just an attempt to postively identify the exact form of aluminum with a more direct and sophistcated method. It is akin to running a DNA test on a blood sample. You would need that to identify exactly whoīs blood it is but if the police find no match in its database it would not mean the blood has proven to NOT be blood. But that is in effect what you tried to inferr.


Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
H
I also point out that if the aluminum is in an amorphous form, then the aluminum and the iron oxide would not be in close enough proximity to maximize the energy potential of the thermite reaction....
You say you "point out" but you might as well "point out" that pink unicorns make better aluminum. Whether or not the aluminum is crystaline or not has nothing to do with how close it mixes with the iron-oxide. It is time you reconsider who you are trusting as resources..


Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...Ziggi, please stop using words like "dishonest." I would like to engage with you but if you keep ascribing evil intentions to my work, I will stop talking with you again. I may be wrong but I am not a liar.
In the meantime, if any of you agree that Ziggi has caught me on an error, please feel free to point it out right here. I will make the necessary correction on the video itself, as I have already done many times on other videos I have put out.
Well Chris, you are already showing signs of using the same getaway strategy you used when I warned you about misquoting Jones on the XRD in our emails....Back then you started to get extremely sensitive about my language and you used that as an excuse to leave the discussion...and ignore your error...and eventually repeating it.

If you displayed 10% of that senstivity when it comes to your forum friends you would have abandoned the forum years ago.

BTW, how can you comfortably present yourself as a authortiative debunker of this very technical stuff if you do not feel comfortable about judging on your own whether or not you have made a mistake? And why did your trusted forum buddies not correct your erroneous XRD comment when you first presented it on the forum?
Ziggi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2015, 08:30 PM   #119
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
No Chris, there are 2 main points here:...
yes,

1. Jones made up thermite for no rational reason, four years after 911.
2. Jones has no clue who placed the thermite in his delusional lie for thermite destroying the WTC. Why can't the person who made up the fantasy of thermite explain the details? 7 years of fraud from Jones, lies which he never retracted before going on to the next BS project based on woo.

2 planes destroyed the WTC, Jones made up thermite; 13 years of solid perfected failure.

Jones lied about thermite, and fooled a few fringe paranoid conspiracy theorists who have done nothing. Chris did not have to debunk thermite, it was a lie Jones made up. Jones also thinks the USA caused the earthquake in Haiti; he likes nonsense. Where is Jones now?'


911 truth is best summed up years ago by Gravy...
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 15th June 2015 at 09:19 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2015, 05:06 AM   #120
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,737
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
yes,

1. Jones made up thermite for no rational reason, four years after 911.
2. Jones has no clue who placed the thermite in his delusional lie for thermite destroying the WTC. Why can't the person who made up the fantasy of thermite explain the details? 7 years of fraud from Jones, lies which he never retracted before going on to the next BS project based on woo.

2 planes destroyed the WTC, Jones made up thermite; 13 years of solid perfected failure.

Jones lied about thermite, and fooled a few fringe paranoid conspiracy theorists who have done nothing. Chris did not have to debunk thermite, it was a lie Jones made up. Jones also thinks the USA caused the earthquake in Haiti; he likes nonsense. Where is Jones now?'


911 truth is best summed up years ago by Gravy...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...kb/standup.jpg
Jones started with a pack of lies, and that is why he and the movement he founded, has
the most perfect record of failures.
Always loved that photo, from gravy, the four greatest debunkers always win.
Science, logic, reason, and the actual truth.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Đ 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.