Friday, December 06, 2013

Metabunk, 12/6

Almost forgot I need to save this, given the way Mick is.

Saving the comment above mine also:  
Hello Jay,

When you have time, I'd appreciate a response to the points I made above. I think for the thermitic theory to even have a faint fighting chance, there would have to be enough Fe and Al by % for a thermitic reaction.
And yet,
It ignites at 430C.
It produces iron microspheres.
It has a greater energy density than conventional thermite.
It is composed of nanoparticulate Fe2O3 and elemental Al.
It was in all the WTC dust samples studied by the Harrit team.
Yet, the substance in question has no known manufacturing correlate.

I appreciate your confidence in this knowledge claim, but how do you account for the fact that the substance contains free Al, relatively uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles and produces iron microspheres as a by-product? You cannot simply leave these facts unreconciled. That is your current stance, which indicates you have no interest in doing science. You like to sound scientific, yet you fail to take into account actual experimentation.

If you don't think the label "thermitic" should not apply to the material because it was burned in an ambient atmosphere, that's fine. It's still unlike any paint known.

Again, a very confident-sounding claim, but have you taken a piece of dried primer (of a LaClede formula variant) and tested to see what temperature it ignites at? Or if it produces IRON MICROSPHERES upon ignition? That would be a DECISIVE VICTORY to put to bed the notion that the red-gray chips are some unexploded, experimental military-grade thermal bridge material FOREVER! But we both know the reason no one has done that is because that's not what dried paint or primer paint does when it ignites.

If they were just some "variant of the LaClede formula," why was Dr. Millette unable to make that connection?

So, any material with organic binder is like any other material with organic binder? That's so clearly not true, it pains me to have to point it out.

Again with your "Anybody who knows can tell you..." argument from authority. And yet, why has not a SINGLE EXPERIMENT been done to confirm what "any decent materials scientist" can spot right away? Maybe because it's not true. Maybe no one has done an experiment to show how the LaClede formula burns at 430C and produces IRON MICROSPHERES because it simply doesn't do that. Maybe you have to stuff your posts with so much bluster and fluff about how "obvious it is to any expert" because you don't have a real argument to stand on.

People who are paying attention can see the difference between an argument with no substance and an argument with real empirical tests underpinning it. You can quote all the percentages of material composition, but it gets you no closer to dismissing the red-gray chips as evidence of a criminal conspiracy attempting to hide underneath the hijackings.

Except you don't mean "empirically." You mean it has detractors, such as yourself, who have no empirical basis WHATSOEVER to make claims of the insignificance of this evidence. And yet again, you make my point by trying to make the red-gray chips, as well as their by-products unimportant in the framework Official Conspiracy Theory.

If you take away all your appeals to authority, all your bare assertions stated with nothing but a salesman's confidence, there is no substance behind anything you say. You can't expect anyone to take your position seriously if you have nothing to back up your claims.

I see you bowed out of the discussion already, and that's the only smart move you can make at this point. The science clearly undermines your position. Your official theory is no help. All you can do is say things with a sense of authority and disappear--hoping some weak-minded individual who doesn't have the will to think for himself will agree with you. That's what "victory" looks like to you.

This is why I don't engage with people whose clear purpose is to persuade--not to disambiguate. I'm of the opinion that when facts are laid bare, people can tell the difference between bull and sense. I'm not selling a goddamned thing. If you have a problem with the arguments I make, let's take a look at them and break it down to the most understandable pieces we can. I don't fear that. I relish it.
You like this.

mynym Active Member


What if they just simulated some of the chips weakening steel columns and changed variables until their simulation weakened them enough to "explain" everything else that was observed? Apparently that would be a scientific investigation, from some perspectives. And from your simulated perspective it seems clear that you wouldn't need a "red layer of the chips" painted on during asbestos abatement work, given that all you would in some cases would be "office fires." Perhaps when NIST demonstrates, experimentally, that office fires can essentially "cut through" thick structural steel columns then AE911 types will be obligated to put a "red layer of the chips" or thermite on some columns to demonstrate that it can "cut through" them in the same way?

Ironic: "If you insist on experimental testing to prove anything...." (There again, maybe that's not really evidence of irony and it's just a simulation of being ironic.)

Is it possible for "experimental evidence" to prove anything about thermite in the first place? If they did take some of the chips and weakened steel with it (perhaps to the same extent as apparent furnaces of fire that can be generated with office furniture alone, etc.), then what? I suspect that your quasi-magical standard for supposed experimental evidence ("Office fires... yeah." vs. "Thermite, impossible!") and verifiability/falsifiability isn't what you seem to be imagining it is.

So what are you supposedly imagining that you would conclude if they actually did take a "red layer of the chips" and "cut through" or weakened steal with it? It seems unlikely that you would necessarily then be capable of imagining that thermite was used on 911 and therefore begin to be able to look for or at lines of evidence that it was, in fact, used.

You also added claims about the hijackers and all the rest to try to show that a simulation of an investigation has been entirely sufficient, case closed. The conclusion of the official story being that evidence of thermite or any other incendiary or use of explosives generally need not or cannot be looked for in the first place. Yet those claims were basically all false, so false assumptions seem to be shaping your view of any evidence that thermite may have been used. With respect to thermite and the technical details of finding evidence of its use, what would be a reason to look for evidence of thermite in the first place and what would subsequently look like evidence that it had been found?

Right. You argue that if they "cut through" a beam with it then the official story would be falsified. Curious that you don't have the same experimental standards for the imaginary furnaces of fire that can apparently be created out of office furniture and donuts, though. Would you also want NIST to stop running simulations long enough to demonstrate their claims experimentally as well?

 That's it from Metabunk.

But here is some investigative journalism on the same topic:  As the application of the super-thermite must have occurred during the months prior to 9-11, I have used FOIA and other means to try to find who could have been doing such work in the towers during 2000-2001.  There was one significant clue at the very beginning.  Two days after 9-11, Engineering News-Record (ENR) reported that an asbestos abatement and demolition company called LVI had done extensive asbestos abatement work in the World Trade Center:
AMEC Inc., Turner Corp. and Bovis Lend Lease were set to assume "lead roles" in the cleanup effort, says Lee Benish, AMEC vice president. "From the very beginning, we've been deeply involved with the city department of emergency services," he says. "They're sorting through who will be doing what." LVI Services Inc., New York City, which has done extensive asbestos abatement work on the towers in the past, is involved in similar work now as well as other cleanup efforts.

LVI was immediately a suspect because it does a great deal of pre-demolition work in which it prepares buildings for demolition.  LVI has done several large demolition jobs with Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Maryland.

Partin concluded: “The Murrah Federal Building was not destroyed by one sole truck bomb. The major factor in its destruction appears to have been detonation of explosives carefully placed at four critical junctures on supporting columns within the building. The only possible reinforced concrete structural failure solely attributable to the truck bomb was the stripping out of the ceilings of the first and second floors in the ‘pit’ area behind columns B4 and B5. Even this may have been caused by a demolition charge at column B3. It is truly unfortunate that a separate and independent bomb damage loads of debris were hauled away, smashed down, and covered with dirt behind a security fence . . . All ambiguity with respect to the use of supplementing demolition charges and the type of truck used could be quickly resolved if the FBI were required to release the surveillance camera coverage of this terribly tragic event.” ( 
Soon after the explosion, Controlled Demolition Inc. was called in to destroy those parts of the building which had remained standing, and to speedily dispose of all the rubble of the building. 
This, of course, prefigures the blatant tampering with a crime scene which became the hallmark of Mayor Giuliani’s approach to the World Trade Center, again using CDI.

(Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2012-04-12). 9/11 Synthetic Terror)

No comments: