Thursday, July 07, 2011

Vanity Fair on the Saudis

Interesting article on the Saudi connection to 9-11. A lot of it is familiar; for example the Bayoumi/Al Midhar/Al Hazmi menage. On the other hand, it does explain some of the supposed warnings that the Saudis claim to have given:

As the months passed, leading Saudis would suggest publicly that their nation had been entirely open with the United States on the security front all along—even claim that they had alerted Washington in advance to possible calamity.

A year after 9/11, Prince Turki expounded at length on the relationship the G.I.D. had had with the C.I.A. From about 1996, he wrote, “at the instruction of the senior Saudi leadership, I shared all the intelligence we had collected on bin Laden and al-Qaeda with the C.I.A. And in 1997 the Saudi minister of defense, Prince Sultan, established a joint intelligence committee with the United States to share information on terrorism in general and on bin Laden (and al-Qaeda) in particular.”

(two paragraphs snipped)

Though there was no official U.S. reaction to that claim, Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the C.I.A.’s bin Laden unit, later dismissed it in his book Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq as a “fabrication.”


It will be interesting to see the reactions of the various factions of the Truther brigades; I assume that the "Muslims didn't do 9-11" crowd will hate the article.

119 Comments:

At 07 July, 2011 09:40, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 07 July, 2011 11:36, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 07 July, 2011 11:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

The VF article highlights the need for the release of the redacted 28 pages from the Joint Intel Committee Inquiry of 2002. Why should a congressional/senate report be a state secret?

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland told PBS: "You can read between the lines and see that there were foreign governments that were much more involved in the 9/11 attack than just supporting Islamic fundamentalist teachings and schools. Now, that has been redacted. A whole 28 page section."

9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow blocked the 9/11 Commission investigators from accessing the redacted pages.

New Republic magazine cited an official saying that 9/11 went to the Saudi Royals.
http://www.tnr.com/article/28-pages

There's a lot more to 9/11 Truth than Lizards-from-Outer-Space and Attack Baboons.

 
At 07 July, 2011 12:27, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 07 July, 2011 13:46, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Best thing to do is don't feed the trolls (i.e. Brian and his sock Pat Cowardly)

This whole Conspiracy Theory thing has gone for the birds. No evidence in almost 10 yrs. Truthers fighting with each other and then getting to the point where shooting and killing people is the best idea to get their views across.

Truhers are just as bad (or worse) than the Terrorists.

 
At 07 July, 2011 14:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, it's a fact, not a theory, that 28 pages of a congressional investigation has been redacted, and the available information suggests that these pages reflect participation by Bush's buddies, the Saudis, in 9/11. 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were Saudis, and most of them got their visas in Jedda. Prince Turki bin Faisal was reliably reported to have met with Osama bin Laden in Dubai two months before 9/11, and later Prince Turki became Saudi ambassador to the USA. Two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, are believed to have received funds from the wife of Prince Bandar, who was so close to the Bush family that he was known as "Bandar Bush".

RGT, what matters is that the 9/11 Commission answered the questions about NORAD by inventing their own datapoints to create a story that made sense to them--because NORAD's stories were lies. Maybe you're satisfied with "answers" like that but there's no reason for anyone who believes in democracy to accept them.

 
At 07 July, 2011 14:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, it's a fact, not a theory, that 28 pages of a congressional investigation has been redacted, and the available information suggests that these pages reflect participation by Bush's buddies, the Saudis, in 9/11.

Care to source this info or are you going to sit there typing away on your keyboard and telling me you think it's "fact"? I'm not here to amuse you Brian, put up or shut up!

 
At 07 July, 2011 14:05, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 07 July, 2011 14:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 07 July, 2011 14:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, 9/11 Commissioners Kean and Hamilton wrote that NORAD's lies were so disturbing to them that they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation. Do your homework.

But they didn't say anything about NORAD in their report in the Commission did they? Nope! You wanna know whay Brian? Because you quote-mined their statement and are accusing them of "covering it up".

And besides, you failed to give me a source where it says that the Saudi's knew of the 9/11 attacks. Quit fucking stalling and show me a source you limp dick bastard.

 
At 07 July, 2011 14:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 07 July, 2011 14:41, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The 9/11 Commission said plenty about NORAD, and they said that what NORAD told them was wrong. You really don't know beans about 9/11, do you?

That wasn't until AFTER they left the 9/11 Commission because I'm looking for them on Google as I type this, it says "FORMER 9/11 COMMISSIONERS". That means they said about NORAD after the Commissions final statements and I've looked at the Official Report and nothing in the report suggest Kean and Hamliton said anything about NORAD.

I gave you a cite upthread to the New Republic article.

Fucking liar, no you didn't!

 
At 07 July, 2011 14:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

http://www.tnr.com/article/28-pages

And it says: August 2003

Where the fuck is the CURRENT 28 page article Brian?

 
At 07 July, 2011 14:46, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

We need a CURRENT 28 page article Brian. Do you know what the word "CURRENT" means? Do you know what "UP-TO-DATE" means?

It means we need an article from 2010 or 2011, not an article that was written in 2003. For fuck sakes Brian can't you fucking read?

 
At 07 July, 2011 16:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Maybe you're satisfied with "answers" like that but there's no reason for anyone who believes in democracy to accept them.

There's no evidence the unanswered questions are important. You're just chasing your tail. It's like watching Pulp Fiction and obsessing over what was in the briefcase.

 
At 07 July, 2011 16:19, Blogger Pat said...

I have removed the irrelevant comments about NORAD, which is not the topic of this post. Brian is right about the redacted pages which are mentioned in the article that is the focus of this post, and I agree that they should be released.

 
At 07 July, 2011 19:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sorry, this comment is off-topic.

Yo goat molester,

Get your ass back to the thread titled, Not Just Another in the Long Line, where I just proved that barite (BaSO4) was found at Ground Zero, not barium nitrate or barium oxide.

And I expect an apology for the myriad lies you told about the alleged presence of "barium nitrate and barium oxide" at Ground Zero.

 
At 07 July, 2011 20:02, Blogger Track said...

One key aspect of the Saudi ties is how they affected pre-9/11 al Qaeda investigations. Summers current article and Graham's novel Keys to the Kingdom (in addition to book tour interviews) do not address this issue.

 
At 07 July, 2011 20:24, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, I am still not getting how they think that showing that even more Islamic fundamentalists were connected to 9/11 is going to help their cause.

 
At 07 July, 2011 20:38, Blogger paul w said...

OT

Aplogies if this has been covered; truther clusterfucks are many and varied.

'Canadian Public Broadcasting TV Station TVO Interviews Gage, Zwicker, Zarembka with Hit Piece Author Kay'

http://www.911oz.com/

On the same page, the truthers are outraged that the FBI could set up Muslim youths.

Basically, the FBI pretended to be terrorists, and supplied fake explosives to some young men, who were willing to use it.

Truthers are calling it entrapment.

Now, let me ask you, what person, other than a would-be terrorist, would agree to this?

 
At 07 July, 2011 23:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the Senate/House Joint Investigation was released in 2002. The New Republic commentary about it in 2003 is as current today as it was then.

James B, coverups of Saudi participation in 9/11 show that the government has been lying to us and that we need new, honest investigations uncorrupted by the personal ties the Bush cabal has with the House of Saud.

Paul w, the legal definition of entrapment rests on the question of whether the defendant would likely have committed the offense absent of the sting. For instance, suppose a loyal and faithful husband who is not likely to seek sexual outlets outside his marriage. But somebody installs the most gorgeous woman in the world as a business associate and she pesters and pesters and gets him drunk and finally he gives in. That's entrapment, and to claim that he's a born adulterer in those circumstances is just circular reasoning.

 
At 08 July, 2011 03:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 July, 2011 03:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sorry, this comment is off-topic (but it's relevant nonetheless).

The goat molester squeals, "...circular reasoning"?!?!?!?

Why should anyone believe you, goat fucker? And who are you to accuse ANYONE of "circular reasoning" (or any logical fallacy, for that matter)?

After all, you talk out of both sides of your mealy mouth. For example,

"...UtterFail, I never said barium oxide was found at Ground Zero. You're a liar." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line," 07 July, 2011 23:23.

Moi? A liar?

Really? No kidding?

You never claimed that "barium oxide was found at Ground Zero"?

What's this, goat molester?

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

If that doesn't prove that you're an insane liar who talks out of both sides of his mouth and wears women's underwear, I don't know what will.

Can you say liar? I knew you could. (My sincere apologies to Mr. Rogers. LOL!)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop it, goat fucker, you're killing me! I'm going to die laughing!

Beyond parody.

 
At 08 July, 2011 10:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, the Senate/House Joint Investigation was released in 2002. The New Republic commentary about it in 2003 is as current today as it was then.

Brian, policies change, and so do articles.

So you don't have an up-to-date nor current article which you can say for certain that the Saudi's are linked with 9/11?

 
At 08 July, 2011 11:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, it seems you don't get it that Osama was a Saudi, 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were Saudis, and al Qaeda operated largely on Saudi money. You're ignoring the meeting between Prince Turki and Osama, Princess Haifa's financial connections to alleged hijackers. Take a look at Senator Bob Graham's book, "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, The FBI, Saudi Arabia, and The Failure of America's War on Terror". See also Philip Shenon's book "The Commission", particularly chapter 9.

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Says the psychopath and compulsive liar who wears women's underwear. So tell us, Pinocchio, how does it feel to know that your alleged "credibility" is measured in negative engineering units?

Give it up, goat molester. After all, you're a proven compulsive liar. No sane person will believe one word you write.

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

My credibility is not the issue here. Are you questioning Philip Shenon's and Senator Bob Graham's credibility? Are you going to claim they wear women's underwear?

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Your "credibility" is ALWAYS an issue, goat fucker. After all, you're a proven compulsive liar.

Only a fool would believe anything you've ever written.

 
At 08 July, 2011 13:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not asking anyone to believe me. I'm asking them to check what Mr. Shenon and Mr. Graham have to say.

You're not a very good reader, are you?

 
At 08 July, 2011 14:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...I'm not asking anyone to believe me."

Not to worry, goat fucker. After all, I can personally assure you that no one believes a word that emanates from your sperm encrusted keyboard--you pseudo-educated onanist.

The goat fucker continues to squeal, "...I'm asking them to check what Mr. Shenon and Mr. Graham have to say."

And the investigation will lead the honest researcher to discover the EXACT opposite of what you claim. After all, you're a PROVEN compulsive liar.

The goat fucker squeals, "...You're not a very good reader, are you?"

Squeal squeal squeal.

I'll hold my undergraduate degree and two masters degrees up to your pseudo-education any day of the week, Pinocchio.

Now get out of here and go spam a troofer website with your readily verifiable bullshit.

 
At 08 July, 2011 15:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if you had half the education you claimed, you'd recognize that the unverifiable claims of credentials by anonymous internet posters are meaningless.

 
At 08 July, 2011 15:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squeal squeal squeal.

No facts, and no evidence. Just hot air. That's all you have, goat fucker.

Once again, you FAIL--you pseudo-educated gasbag.

 
At 08 July, 2011 16:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nice job of flipping. My logical analysis is just "hot air".

Your claimed credentials are just hot air, Mr. Obese-fingers.

 
At 08 July, 2011 16:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Really? No kidding?

That's not what the diplomas on the wall of my study say, goat fucker.

But who cares what you think? After all, you're a failed janitor, junior college dropout, proven liar, sex stalker and closet homo who wears women's underwear.

Thus, your idiotic opinion isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

 
At 08 July, 2011 16:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

If you had half an education you'd know that the claims of an anonymous internet poster as to the diplomas on his wall are meaningless.

 
At 08 July, 2011 16:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, keep repeating the same nonsense ad nauseum.

Why aren't you scouring the internet for the "thermate analogue" datasheets I asked you for, goat fucker?

I left the door wide open for you to substantiate your propaganda; yet, you can't produce the relevant "thermate analogue" datasheets. Why? Are you lying to us again, Pinocchio?

Instead, you're babbling nonsense.

So where are the alleged "thermate analogue" datasheets, Pinocchio?

And remember, troofer theories don't count because troofer theories are a circle jerk, and your opinion doesn't count either. After all, you're a proven compulsive liar, failed janitor, college dropout, sex stalker and closet homo who wears women's underwear.

Either produce the alleged "thermate analogue" datasheets, or you forfeit the debate because you can't substantiate your idiotic argument.

Go for it, Pinocchio.

 
At 08 July, 2011 18:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

NWOR. There's GutterBall's idiotic "forfeit the debate" nonsense again.

 
At 08 July, 2011 19:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE GOAT FUCKER CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS.

FAIL
.

Once again, you lose, goat fucker.

 
At 08 July, 2011 19:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Hey look! It's Spammy McSpammer spewing nonsense again!

 
At 08 July, 2011 19:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not evidence, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

FAIL

 
At 08 July, 2011 20:13, OpenID 188ee47e-76b1-11e0-94a6-000bcdcb2996 said...

L

 
At 08 July, 2011 20:34, OpenID 188ee47e-76b1-11e0-94a6-000bcdcb2996 said...

Snug,

Why are you arguing that the the terrorists were heavily connected to saudi arabia? You don't believe terrorists did 9/11, you think that "Bush and his buddies" did it. Having read many of your comments Snug, I don't think your that dumb or that your a compulsive liar. But I do think that you live an empty life, and that being a truther is your last hope to feel important. Snug, you need a dose of reality. Get off truther websites and spend some time in the real world. It'll help you realize that you're wasting your time with 9/11 truth. btw 9/11 truth is basically dead because it is a joke, it hasn't gotten serious attention (not that the attention was ever that serious) since 2008. Snug, it is painfully obvious what happened on 9/11, and I'm not sure why you want the government to be behind it. Can you please answer these questions:

-How can you watch close up videos of the towers collapsing and think it was a controlled demoliton? You can literally see the building fail right where the plane impacted. You see steel snap and fall. There are no visual or audio signs of explosives. If it was a controlled demolition, why was the base of the building and parts of the core still standing after the collapse? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
Please watch a real controlled demolition.

-Truthers always say that "sheep" ignore the evidence right in front of their eyes. But why do truthers choose to ignore the fact that every single body from flight 77 and flight 93 was identified (including the terrorists)? In the end, those truthers who have to face the reality that the bodies were identified just revert back to the "There were no bodies visible!!" statement. I watched the loose change vs. Mark Roberts debate. On the topic of flight 93, the host says to loose change, "But the bodies of everyone on flight were identified." He is wondering why loose change doesnt get that fact. Jason Bermas looks frustrated and then says "no, not in that open field, there were no bodies." He simply does not believe there were body parts identified because he doesn't want to believe it.

 
At 09 July, 2011 09:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, it seems you don't get it that Osama was a Saudi, 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were Saudis, and al Qaeda operated largely on Saudi money.

And those hijackers were probably drug runnr or dealers within Saudi borders. Boy you can't think outside the box for just a minute can you Brian?

You're ignoring the meeting between Prince Turki and Osama, Princess Haifa's financial connections to alleged hijackers.

Source please and make it snappy!

Take a look at Senator Bob Graham's book, "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, The FBI, Saudi Arabia, and The Failure of America's War on Terror". See also Philip Shenon's book "The Commission", particularly chapter 9.

What about Chapters 1-8? Did you even read them?! Tell me what was said in Chapters 1-8 please.

 
At 09 July, 2011 09:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I'm not your librarian. Learn to google. Read a few books.

 
At 09 July, 2011 10:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I'm not your librarian. Learn to google. Read a few books.

So you've not read Chapters 1-8 then?

Why did you skip those chapters and straight onto chapter 9?

Was it your intention to pursue your grand illusions about 9/11 because you felt it nessesary to skip 8 chapters because you felt lazy not to look at the whole issue?

Why should I read a few books? I've read alot in the past 10 years that you couldn't possibly hold in that pea sized head of yours.

 
At 09 July, 2011 10:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

So, Brian, what's your excuse of not reading the 8 chapters?

 
At 09 July, 2011 10:39, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

*Crickets*

Brian's scared of being questioned.

BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK

 
At 09 July, 2011 10:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, we were talking about the Saudis. Chapter 9 of Shenon's book is about the Saudis. Chapters 1 through 8 are not. I read the book years ago.

UtterFail, if you would bother to take a peek into Kosanke, "Pyrotechnic Chemistry", you would see that you have been very foolish.

 
At 09 July, 2011 13:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 July, 2011 13:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...UtterFail, if you would bother to take a peek into Kosanke, "Pyrotechnic Chemistry", you would see that you have been very foolish."

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

Are 100% fact-free non sequiturs all you have, goat fucker? After all, I've forgotten more about inorganic and organic chemistry (to say nothing of quantitative analysis) than you'll ever know.

So goat fucker, if you'll bother to take a peek into your ass, you'll find your head.

And, once again, you've completely failed to substantiate your idiotic 100% fact-free argument--your latest attempt to pass off evasion as "debate" notwithstanding.

FAIL.

 
At 09 July, 2011 14:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if you would bother to take a peek into Kosanke, "Pyrotechnic Chemistry", you would see that you have been very foolish.

You don't even know what an elemental analysis is, and you expect people to believe you've had quantitative analysis.

Give it up, GutterBall. Your ignorance, your laziness, your dishonesty and your inability to admit that you're wrong are just a recipe for humiliation, frustration, and unhappiness.

 
At 10 July, 2011 11:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, repeat yourself ad nauseum, while providing not a shred of verifiable evidence to substantiate your assertions.

Isn't it convenient that you cite a textbook THAT NO ONE CAN ACCESS ON LINE AS "EVIDENCE."

You're a liar.

If we can't link to it, don't cite it as evidence. You are not a trustworthy witness, you're a proven compulsive liar, and the "evidence" you cite isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 11:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 July, 2011 11:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if you'd bother to look you'd find the textbook online. You're not much of a researcher, are you? Is there anything you're actually good at besides being bitchy?

 
At 10 July, 2011 12:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...UtterFail, thermite reacts at 4382 K."

YOU ARE A LIAR.

Here's a link to the Google web page you're misrepresenting.

The same textbook, titled Pyrotechnic Chemistry
By K. Kosanke, B. J. Kosanke, etc., reads as follows:

"...The characteristics that distinguish a thermite reaction are:

[1] An almost complete absence of gaseous products after combustion

[2] A high reaction temperature (typically 2000-3000 degrees C..."


Source: Google Books: Pyrotechnic Chemistry.

ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE CAUGHT RED-HANDED MISREPRESENTING YOUR ALLEGED "SOURCE."

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and lie.

All you have are lies, goat fucker.

Once again, you

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 12:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

It would help matters if you would read my corrections before spamming your misinformation across all the threads on the board.

I didn't misrepresent anything. The source says exactly what I said.

The book (chapter 8, p. 18) cites a paper by Fischer and Grubelich which calculates a reaction temperature of 4382 K for thermite.

The book's own calculations result in a reaction temp of 4770 K.

"Theoretical Investigations on Diffusion Induced Thermite Reactions of Core-Shell Aluminum/Palladium Nanoparticles" by
Ngoc Ha Nguyen1 and John Z. Wen cites even higher reaction temps:

Copper thermite: 5718 K
Tin thermite: 5019 K
Tungsten thermite: 5544 K

 
At 10 July, 2011 13:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 July, 2011 13:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 July, 2011 13:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Once again, UtterFail, you are simply spewing data in the erroneous belief that it means something and that it will make some fool think you know something. It doesn't and you don't. You have thoroughly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.

The partical atlas is incomplete. It says so in the second paragraph. Thus the absence of any particular compounds among their samples means nothing. And since their tin sample contains quite a lot of oxygen and copper both, that suggests the presence both of tin oxide and copper oxide.

Don't you have something better to do than make an UtterFool of yourself all day?

 
At 10 July, 2011 13:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 July, 2011 13:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool, the particle atlas is incomplete and if you'd read the second paragraph you would know that.

"While the list of spectra provided is comprehensive, it is by no means complete. Therefore, it is likely phases and compounds will be identified in the future that are not listed in this atlas."

Also, I shouldn't have let you mislead me.

Tin oxide, copper oxide, and Tungsten oxide are the reactants in, not the products of, their thermitic reactions. Thus you would't expect to find them in the dust.

The harder you try to look smart, the dumber you look UtterFool. Give it up.

 
At 10 July, 2011 14:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 July, 2011 14:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 July, 2011 14:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you make it worse and worse. You may as well retire your persona.

Copper thermite, tungsten thermite, and tin thermite all use aluminum just like iron thermite does. The metal oxide is the oxidizing agent; the reactant, not the product. Aluminum oxide and elemental metal are the result.


You're talking through your hat, and you're clearly not competent to read very simple scientific material that any layman should have no problem getting.

Why are you doing this? What do you get out of spewing nonsense? Are you Ian in drag?

 
At 10 July, 2011 15:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

False.

You're not only a liar, you're an idiot.

In the case of cupric oxide:

3Cu + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Cu

In the case of tungsten oxide:

W2O3 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 2W

In the case of tin oxide:

3SnO + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Sn

In each case, the product is aluminum oxide (al2O3).

So, once again, where's your evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide, goat fucker?

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

I'll tell you where your evidence for Al2O3 is, goat fucker. Its' up your ass.

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 15:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Correction:

That's 3CuO + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Cu

In any case, you're still full-of-shit, goat fucker.

So, once again, where's your evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide, goat fucker?

 
At 10 July, 2011 15:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's what I said, idiot. The oxidizer plus aluminum makes metal plus aluminum oxide. That's the opposite of what you claimed above, that the oxidizer (copper oxide, etc.) should be an end product.

You are just spraying fartwater to try to bury your incompetence. See, I have a lot of experience in dealing with bullshitters like you when I took down Willie Turdriguez, Craig Ranke, Kevin Barrett, and Rob Balsamo.

Aluminum oxide is a vapor at the reaction temperatures of thermite. Your own paper says the catalog is not complete.

Give it up, FartWater. You don't know what you're talking about. Are the Russians paying you to make debunkers look like idiots?

 
At 10 July, 2011 15:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Aluminum oxide is a vapor at the reactions temperatures of thermite."

False.

Fe2O3(s) + 2 Al(s) -> Al2O3(s) + 2 Fe(l)

Source: http://www.csub.edu/~agebauer/CHEM150/Stoichiometry_practice.pdf

Wikipedia wrote, "...Further, the low density of the aluminium oxide formed as a result of the reaction tends to cause it to float on the iron."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Thus, aluminum oxide is a solid at reaction temperature--your never-ending lies notwithstanding.

The goat fucker squeals, "...Your own paper says the catalog is not complete."

False.

The paper says "likely"; thus, the USGS's particle atlas has never been shown to be "incomplete," and the available spectra doesn't contain the aforementioned oxides.

Now answer the question--you God damned liar: Where's your evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), goat fucker?

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

You got the reactants mixed up with the products, Mr. Quantitative Analysis. The reaction temp of thermite is theoretically 4777 K, and the boiling point of aluminum oxide is 2977 C.

Other flavors of thermite have even higher reaction temps:

Copper thermite: 5718 K
Tin thermite: 5019 K
Tungsten thermite: 5544 K

The paper says the list is not complete, and it was likely that other compounds would be discovered. Was the atlas project terminated because it was politically damaging? Probably.

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You got the reactants mixed up with the products..."

No, I did not. You have no evidence to support that assertion; thus, you're lying.

Where are your links to support the claim that Copper thermite reacts at 5718 K?

FAIL

Where are your links to support the claim that Tin thermite reacts at 5019 K?

FAIL

Where are your links to support the claim that Tungsten thermite reacts at 5544 K?

FAIL

So far all you've given us is your lying opinion. And the paper titled "Pyrotechnic Chemistry" doesn't support your assertion.

FAIL.

No link to support your assertions, no cigar.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you're not even reading my posts. The thermite analogue reaction temps are given in "Theoretical Investigations on Diffusion Induced Thermite Reactions of Core-Shell Aluminum/Palladium Nanoparticles" by
Ngoc Ha Nguyen1 and John Z. Wen

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:31, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

Girls! Girls! You're both pretty! Could you refrain from the insults and stick to the facts?

It sure is odd the only people who claim to have found nano/thermite in the debris are both a)in the truth movement, b)have never submitted their work do any real independent, peer-reviewed journal, and c)number less than a dozen, despite the lots of pieces the gov't had no problems shipping to memorials and suchlike around the country. I mean, there were thousands of detectives and forensic experts at Fresh Kills searching for bodies with an estimated 1.5 million man hours, and not one of them found a detonator or wiring or other evidence, or they were all suppressed.

This is sarcasm, of course. The gov't would have kept a tight lid on the debris, instead of literally giving it out, and lots of the forensic experts would've noticed the signs of thermite or the remains of the charges.

And then there's the fact that thermite burns too chaotically to achieve the split second precision, too slowly to sever beams instantly, and leaves big ol' clouds of smoke and flame.

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not a link, goat fucker.

Where's the God damned link, goat fucker?

NOTE: The goat fucker will NEVER produce the link because he KNOWS that if he does, I'll prove he's lying.

Again, where's the God damned link, goat fucker?

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

John, why would you expect remains of detonators and charges? Don't you think those would be designed to self-destruct?

I'm not aware that thousands of forensic experts examined Ground Zero. I'm informed actually that FEMA said they were excluded from the site, and got nothing more than a one-day guided tour that sounds a lot like Libya.

The experiments of Jonathan Cole show that thermate can actually burn with great precision. See the youtube video "Incendiary Experiments". Thermate sprayed inside the hollow core columns could have been installed with great precision. Smoke and flame in the elevator shafts are of no consequence.

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if you're willing to admit that you can't find "Theoretical Investigations on Diffusion Induced Thermite Reactions of Core-Shell Aluminum/Palladium Nanoparticles" on google then you're about as dumb as I think you are.

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not a link, goat fucker.

Provide the link, or FORFEIT the debate.

End of story.

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

FartWater's making STOOPID ultimatums. Are the Russians paying him to make debunkers look like idiots?

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

End of debate.

You lose. No link, no cigar.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

So is Mr. IT admitting he can't find "Theoretical Investigations on Diffusion Induced Thermite Reactions of Core-Shell Aluminum/Palladium Nanoparticles" on google without my help?

No wonder he's so confused about 9/11!

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh, I found the paper, goat fucker.

Too bad the data you claim is found in the document isn't there.?

In other words, you're misrepresenting your source.

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

FartWater, thanks for further demonstrating your incompetence. You quoted a paper called "Molecular dynamics simulation of energetic aluminum/palladium core–shell nanoparticles". My paper was called "Theoretical Investigations on Diffusion Induced Thermite Reactions of Core-Shell Aluminum/Palladium Nanoparticles".

Are you sure the Russians aren't paying you to make debunkers look STOOPID?

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Your source is benthamscience.com?

Bentham Open?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now we know why you refused to provide a hyperlink.

FAIL

Who will you cite next? Steven E. Jones?

 
At 10 July, 2011 18:23, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

John, why would you expect remains of detonators and charges? Don't you think those would be designed to self-destruct?

How? The casings would be designed to direct the blast and/or thermite. Having it burn up would be a contradiction in terms. Also, there's a good chance the plane impacts would blow some of the charges clear out of the building, and/or that the hour or so of fire would damage them and make them inoperable, so any SD devices would break.

Those aren't my only points.

I'm not aware that thousands of forensic experts examined Ground Zero. I'm informed actually that FEMA said they were excluded from the site, and got nothing more than a one-day guided tour that sounds a lot like Libya.

I said "Fresh Kills". Unless the bad guys somehow searched each and every truck and snuck all the obvious physical evidence off of them at some point between GZ and FK, it would still have been there.

No source, I note.

The experiments of Jonathan Cole show that thermate can actually burn with great precision. See the youtube video "Incendiary Experiments". Thermate sprayed inside the hollow core columns could have been installed with great precision. Smoke and flame in the elevator shafts are of no consequence.

And ignoring the time it would take, I see. Also, some of the columns that would've been cut would've been visible through the windows. Dozens of them, on dozens of floors.

 
At 10 July, 2011 18:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bentham Open?

You mean the same Bentham Open that published a computer-generated paper that's filled with nonsense?

CRAP paper accepted by journal.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's no wonder that after scouring the internet I couldn't find ONE SOURCE that corroborates the "Copper thermite: 5718 K, Tin thermite: 5019 K, Tungsten thermite: 5544 K" crap.

You're a fraud, goat fucker.

So goat fucker, do your lips move while you read?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Asshole.

Once again you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 18:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, when do you plan on retiring your blogger handle?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

By the way, goat fucker, how does it feel to know that your alleged "credibility" can be measured in negative engineering units?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

So GutterBall, how about instead of attacking the messenger you refute the fact of these reaction temps:

Copper thermite: 5718 K
Tin thermite: 5019 K
Tungsten thermite: 5544 K

Fischer SH, Grubelich MC. "Theoretical energy release of thermites, intermetallics, and combustible metals. Sandia National
Laboratories. Albuquerque NM 1998.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, where's your link?

Hiding something again, Pinocchio? Of course you are.

Again, it's not incumbent upon me to prove or disprove your propaganda.

So you can start with relevant links and quotations. Then I'll rip you to spreads.

So let's try again,shall we goat fucker?

In the case of cupric oxide:

3Cu + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Cu

In the case of tungsten oxide:

W2O3 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 2W

In the case of tin oxide:

3SnO + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Sn

(See what a nice guy I am, goat fucker? After all, I balanced the reactions just for you.)

In each case, the product is aluminum oxide (Al2O3).

So, once again, where's your evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide, goat fucker?

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

I'll tell you where you evidence is, Pinocchio. It's in your ass.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

By the way, goat fucker, you're moving the goal post again. See how you are?

Asshole.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker--oxygen thief, waste of skin, sex stalker, compulsive liar, and degenerate who wears women's underwear.

Asshole.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're only repeating the obvious in an effort to cover up the fact that you got it backwards up above.

Aluminum oxide is a vapor at thermitic reaction temperature, FartWater.

Your interest in my ass is noted.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...You're only repeating the obvious in an effort to cover up the fact that you got it backwards up above."

Making stuff up now, Pinocchio?

I don't see an evidence to substantiate your assertions, ass.

FAIL

"...Aluminum oxide is a vapor at thermitic reaction temperature...[blah][blah][blah].."

False.

When will you learn, goat fucker? Your opinion isn't evidence.

And your continued unwillingness to provide links and relevant quotations to substantiate your lying propaganda proves that you're lying and hiding the truth AGAIN.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm going to bed. After all, I've kicked your ass from one end of this forum to the other--and now you're wasting my time with more pseudo-science and readily verifiable nonsense.

If you ever decide to substantiate your propaganda with REAL EVIDENCE, as opposed to pseudo-science, let us know, Pinocchio.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Once again, you FAIL

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, anybody who reads upthread can see that you claimed that oxides of tin, copper, and tungsten were reaction products and now you're claiming the exact opposite.

I've provided links and evidence and your claim to the contrary is a blatant lie.

 
At 10 July, 2011 20:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, anybody who reads upthread can see that you claimed that oxides of tin, copper, and tungsten were reaction products and now you're claiming the exact opposite."

False. Where's your proof, Pinocchio?

"..I've provided links and evidence and your claim to the contrary is a blatant lie."

False.

But, then again, everything you say is FALSE.

 
At 10 July, 2011 21:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

What do you think my point is? You don't know what you're talking about, you're bullshitting, and everything you've posted in the last week about barium is just fartwater.

 
At 10 July, 2011 21:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

John Wood, thermite casings could be designed to direct the charges and burn themselves up just as the charges burned out. It's just a matter of trial and error.

So what if plane impacts dislodged some of the charges? There could be plenty more. Video of the north tower shows that it failed far above the impact zone before the part below began to fail.

Thermite sprayed inside hollow core columns would not be affected by fires.

Fresh Kills? Obviously the examination was a joke because NIST has not one piece of core steels that shows heating enough to damage it.

What makes you think core columns hidden in the elevator shafts would be visible from the windows? Also, consider that there weren't many 50-story buildings around giving a good view through the windows, and none of those would show a good view above 60--and the towers were 110 stories.

You're trying to invent reasons for complacency. I did the same thing. They didn't stand up to scrutiny.

 
At 10 July, 2011 21:56, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

Also, Snug, the only way for a hypothetical self-destruct device to work would be for it to be attached to the actual devices doing the cutting. Then you would need a self-destruct device attached to the self-destruct device to destroy those remains. And so on, and so forth. It's turtles all the way down, so to speak.

Also, radio detonators would've been unreliable, at best. The only option for a method of detonation would've been by wire. Miles and miles of wire. Which would have to somehow be installed covertly in not one, but three buildings with over a half-million people combined passing through them daily, along with the actual themite/explosive charges.

Oh, and thermite isn't used for demolition, which would make it even more difficult. And if it was explosives, they wouldn't be able to pre-weaken walls or pull some down entirely, like in a standard CD. It would've been nigh impossible just to rig it correctly, much less design charges that can take a plane impact and hour of fire and still operate perfectly. And then the remains, and their wiring had to somehow vanish from the debris pile.

Even just planting the charges leads to such a high risk of discovery that I wouldn't bother implementing it, much less the other parts. Straight into the wastebasket.

 
At 10 July, 2011 22:20, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

John Wood, thermite casings could be designed to direct the charges and burn themselves up just as the charges burned out. It's just a matter of trial and error.

Thousands of columns is a lot of chances to get it wrong.

A thermite casing, by defintion, will stand up to thermite. There is no way to tell when the charges will burn out, because they burn chaotically. And remember, these charges have to be detonated by wire. So unless every inch of the distinctive wiring was coated in thermite as well, it would still be in the rubble.

So what if plane impacts dislodged some of the charges?

Not just dislodged, in fact. Beams were tossed clear out of the building, along with parts of both planes, landing in Manhattan. Those beams had thermite on them, they had just been launched randomly into the city, leaving plenty of time for someone to discover the thermite. Also, the impact and fire would damage several charges beyond repair, meaning they would be intact in the rubble.

There could be plenty more. Video of the north tower shows that it failed far above the impact zone before the part below began to fail.

No link, I note.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qiye0R-65RE&feature=related

Oh, and there were reports of floors collapsing inside the South Tower before the total collapse.

Thermite sprayed inside hollow core columns would not be affected by fires.

You mean when the buildings were constructed? Back in the 60s?

Cause if it was modern-day, that's even harder, especially considering that the survivors in the core reported no sparks raining down on their heads during the collapse.

Oh, and some of the core fell after the surrounding floors. If the charges were on the core, they would've gone first.

Also, the only references to this spray-on nano/thermite are on Truther sites. There is absolutely no independent evidence it exists. None. That's a Truther meme.

Really, the nanothermite is perfect. If it ever does become available to the public, and it couldn't have done 9/11, you lot can just claim that They altered the formula from what They used that Tuesday morning.

Fresh Kills? Obviously the examination was a joke because NIST has not one piece of core steels that shows heating enough to damage it.

Thousands of experts. Hand-sorting while looking for body parts. No detonators or wiring.

Incidentally, there's a hangar full of debris at JFK. You might want to go take a look. While your at it, feel free to guess which bits of steel from the hundreds of tons of debris was from the core and which wasn't.

What makes you think core columns hidden in the elevator shafts would be visible from the windows? Also, consider that there weren't many 50-story buildings around giving a good view through the windows, and none of those would show a good view above 60--and the towers were 110 stories.

You didn't say anything about core columns until this post, and I already pointed out that the core in one of the Towers fell after the rest of the floor, and was visible intact. Which means that any charges were on the outer columns as well/instead.

Also, as you have just pointed out, there weren't many buildings with views above 60. Which means they wouldn't have had reliable lines of sight. Which means that radio detonation would've been unfeasable. Thanks for proving my point!

You're trying to invent reasons for complacency. I did the same thing. They didn't stand up to scrutiny.

I'm presenting reasons conspiracy theories don't hold water. You are just speculating, trying to apply patches as fast as possible.

 
At 10 July, 2011 22:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jonn, a cutting device could destroy itself by wearing through its casing just before it ran out of juice. That's just a matter of trial and error. See Jonathan Cole's work with packaged thermate charges in the "Incendiaruy Experiments" youtube.

Radio detonators need not be unreliable with the use of powerful transmitters and insensitive receivers on the detonators. Transmitter repeaters in the elevator shafts could be used also.

Saying thermite isn't used for demolition is like saying fondue forks aren't used for execution. So what?

So you're saying that it would have been impossible to accomplish with rigged charges what asymmetrical aircraft impact and unpredictable fires accomplished? How does that work?

No wiring. Radio control.

What risk of discovery is there in the elevator shafts? When's the last time you looked in an elevator shaft? And what about thermite sprayed inside hollow columns?

 
At 10 July, 2011 22:41, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

Jonn, a cutting device could destroy itself by wearing through its casing just before it ran out of juice. That's just a matter of trial and error. See Jonathan Cole's work with packaged thermate charges in the "Incendiaruy Experiments" youtube.

I like how you keep ignoring my point about wiring, and refer to a video where the casing is not eaten away. I also like how you vacillate between mythical sprayed thermite and box charges at the drop of a hat.

I've seen the video. I note that the beam he cuts through is a lot smaller than the WTC columns, which had walls inches thick in some places. It also produces a lot of light and smoke. Is that why you didn't want to link it?

Radio detonators need not be unreliable with the use of powerful transmitters and insensitive receivers on the detonators. Transmitter repeaters in the elevator shafts could be used also.

Installed by the same guys who are stealthily installing the miles or wiring, and the thousands of explosives in a heavily-traficcked office building, I assume.

Oh, wait, the repeaters would be further evidence in the debris pile, unless they had self-destruct devices on them too.

Also, if the detonators are inside the columns, that means they're inside a big metal thing with thick walls that block radio signals. If they're outside the column, then that means that, whoops, the thermite can't get to it to destroy it until after it has burned through the surface of the column, meaning They would have to somehow calculate exactly how much

It's so fun watching you destroy your own arguments. It's like watching a kitten try to play Beethoven's third.

 
At 10 July, 2011 22:52, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

Saying thermite isn't used for demolition is like saying fondue forks aren't used for execution. So what?

It means the bad guys would've had to test it on a full-scale model.

Unless it's somehow possible to secretly build at 47-story, much less 110-story skyscraper, that seems unlikely.

So you're saying that it would have been impossible to accomplish with rigged charges what asymmetrical aircraft impact and unpredictable fires accomplished? How does that work?No, I'm saying it would be impossible to plant the explosives/thermite secretly, then detonate them by radio consistently, then make all the remains and wiring vanish from the pile, or disguise them as something else to fool the thousands of forensic experts who pored over the pile for over a million-man hours combined.

No wiring. Radio control.

Big steel-framed building. Radios unreliable. As I've already pointed out, adding radio equipment means even more risk of discovery. Heck, what if some fireman's radio is on the same frequency as yours, and detonates the charges prematurely?

What risk of discovery is there in the elevator shafts? When's the last time you looked in an elevator shaft?

Tell you what; I'd like you to head to your nearest skyscraper, and attach, say, ten refrigerator magnets to equidistant points in the elevator shaft. Come back here when you get arrested, or injured, or escorted out of the building.

I am not, of course, sincerely recommending that course of action. I am using it as a hypothetical to show how unlikely it is that the charges could be planted unobserved.

And what about thermite sprayed inside hollow columns?

The stuff no truther can even prove exists?

 
At 10 July, 2011 23:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...What do you think my point is? You don't know what you're talking about, you're bullshitting, and everything you've posted in the last week about barium is just fartwater."

You have no "point," Captain Crackpot (Well, you do have a point on your head, but that's another issue entirely).

Let's examine your bullshit propaganda in detail, shall we, Capitan Crackpot?

For example,

3Cu + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Cu

Where's the evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide (Al2O3)? Where's the evidence for the presence of molten copper (3Cu)?

Copper-sulfide-01 is NOT evidence of molten Copper.

So, where's the molten copper?

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

FAIL.

W2O3 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 2W

Where's the evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide (Al2O3)? Where's the evidence for the presence of molten tungsten (W)?

After all, no tungsten (molten or otherwise) was found at Ground Zero.

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

So, where's the molten tungsten?

FAIL.

3SnO + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Sn

Where's the evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide (Al2O3)? Where's the evidence for the presence of molten tin (Sn)?

Tin-rich particle is NOT evidence of molten tin.

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

So, where's the molten tin?

FAIL.

Three strikes and you're OUT!

There's not one scintilla of evidence for the presence of molten copper (Cu), tungsten (W) or tin (Sn)--to say nothing of aluminum oxide (Al2O3).

Wow! Bush and Cheney are amazing. A guy who can't find his way through a door (Bushit), and his sidekick (Cheney), who can't shoot at a wild duck without injuring one of the members of his own hunting party, somehow managed to hide all that evidence of molten copper (Cu), tungsten (W) and tin (Sn). Wow! Just wow!

You're an idiot, Captain Crackpot. And you couldn't find your ass with a hunting dog and a compass.

Once again, you FAIL, Captain Crackpot.

 
At 10 July, 2011 23:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jonn, there's no need for wiring in a wireless installation. Devising a casing that's eaten away is just a matter of trial and error.

Light and smoke in the elevator shaft doesn't matter.

No need for miles of wiring if radio detonators are used.'

Repeaters disguised as smoke detectors or clock-radios would not be noticed.

A hole in the column wall would allow a radio antenna outside the wall to communicate with a detonator inside. What I notice most about America these days is how inventive the "can't do" types are. There's always a reason simple stuff won't be done. Rubber tires will never work--they'll get hard in the wintertime and shatter!

Testing on a full scale column is sufficient.

Charges are installed in the elevator shafts under cover of a 9-month elevator renovations project. Who's to notice?

Your army of forensic engineers is a fantasy. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't find the heat-weakened steel samples to prove NIST's claims.

Kids do elevator surfing for sport. Check out youtube sometime.

Thermite exists. It's used for welding railroad tracks. Check out youtube.

 
At 10 July, 2011 23:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you're babbling. Aluminum oxide is a gas at the reaction temperature of thermite.

Thermite burns at 4382 K and aluminum oxide boils at 2977 C.

 
At 10 July, 2011 23:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, Captain Crackpot?

Where's the molten copper (Cu), tungsten (W) and tin (Sn)?

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 23:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said there was molten copper, tungsten, or tin.

Learn to read. Grow a brain. You'd better grow two.

 
At 10 July, 2011 23:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...Thermite burns at 4382 K and aluminum oxide boils at 2977 C."

False.

4382 K = 4108.85 C = 7427.94 F.

Thus, you're lying.

Thermite burns at ~2500 degrees C.

Wikipedia wrote, "...The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) with iron(III) oxide)—although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Thus, you're lying again, Captain Crackpot.

Once again, you FAIL.

And don't give me that crap about "nanothermite." Steven E. Jones' conclusions were proven FALSE because his experimental result's cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

Once again, you FAIL, Captain Crackpot.

 
At 11 July, 2011 00:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot lies, "...I never said there was molten copper, tungsten, or tin."

Liar.

What's this?

Captain Crackpot wrote, "...Copper thermite: 5718 K, Tin thermite: 5019 K, Tungsten thermite: 5544 K."

Source: Proof that you're a lying sack-of-shit.

Thus, I gave you the relevant reactions:

3Cu + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Cu
W2O3 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 2W

and

3SnO + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Sn

So where's your evidence for the presence of molten copper (Cu), tungsten (W) or tin (Sn)--to say nothing of aluminum oxide (Al2O3)?

Once again, you FAIL, Captain Crackpot.

 
At 11 July, 2011 09:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 July, 2011 09:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

So you do all your chemistry in wikipedia? Do you have a wikipedia degree too, that anybody can edit? Fischer and Grubelich calculated a reaction temperature of 4382 K for thermite.

The Pyrotechnic Chemistry book's own calculations (Ch 8. p. 18) result in a reaction temp of 4770 K.

I never said copper thermite, tin thermite, or tungsten thermite were used. I never said any kind of thermite was used.

You, however, have been stupidly babbling for almost two weeks about barium, proving exactly nothing except your ignorance, irrationality, and dishonesty. It must be a frustrating combination, which would explain your irritability.

 
At 11 July, 2011 10:23, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

Jonn, there's no need for wiring in a wireless installation.

Devising a casing that's eaten away is just a matter of trial and error.


Except that you never cite anyone who has actually made one of these casings. You have also never disputed my claim that thermite burns too chaotically to eat through a casing at a specific time.

Commit. Box charges, or spray-on. Either way, you'll need an unfeasibly large amount of thermite to eat through several inches of steel.

No need for miles of wiring if radio detonators are used.

Which, as I pointed out, would be unreliable. Big metal building. Subject to interference, no matter what repeater you use. Too much risk.

Repeaters disguised as smoke detectors or clock-radios would not be noticed.

And who's going to plant these on the inside of elevator shafts unnoticed, pray tell. You just keep sailing past the fact that actual people have to be in the shafts to install these things.

Also, an elevator shaft is a big metal tube. Precisely the sort of thing that interferes with radio signals.

Also also, the elevator shafts were damaged by the initial plane impact and subsequent fire. The repeaters on those floors could not have stood up to the impact without damage, or an hour or so of fire.

A hole in the column wall would allow a radio antenna outside the wall to communicate with a detonator inside.

And no one's going to notice these hundreds of "smoke detectors" with antennas sticking out of them in the debris pile, of course.

Radio signals are omnidirectional, and the setup you're proposing has lots and lots of steel between it and open air, which will interfere with the signal. On the impact floors, there's a lot of collapsed, burning steel, in addition to the risk of the antennas being damaged by the impact and fire. The same impact and fire which damaged the elevator shafts.

What I notice most about America these days is how inventive the "can't do" types are. There's always a reason simple stuff won't be done. Rubber tires will never work--they'll get hard in the wintertime and shatter!

Complex workings are more prone to failure, especially for simple reasons. You plan requires the bad guys to somehow use the imaginary spray-on thermite to spray the inside of thousands of columns without detection in heavily trafficked office buildings, install radio repeaters in the elevator shafts without detection, and then somehow manage to make all the evidence go poof from the debris pile.

No, wait, you've moved goalposts from "core columns" to "elevator shafts". My mistake.

Testing on a full scale column is sufficient.

No, that would just prove they could collapse one column. The reliability of the detonators to stand up to stress would have to be tested. The minimum size would have to be tested. The difficulty of getting to the holes in the column to plant the mythical spray-on thermite would have to be tested. The amount of interference the structure would provide to the radio detonators would have to be tested. Off the top of my head, they're going to need to build several floors of a skyscraper, at least.

Charges are installed in the elevator shafts under cover of a 9-month elevator renovations project. Who's to notice?

No link to such a project, and the only ones I can find are on Truther sites.

Elevator shafts aren't structural supports, and they weren't in WTC 1 & 2. Heck, they weren't even all in the core, and most didn't run all the way through the building.

http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts

There had to be explosives outside the shafts, or the building wouldn't collapse.

Your army of forensic engineers is a fantasy.

My mistake. Hundreds of them. Searching for ten months. Finding things as small as souvenir pins.

 
At 11 July, 2011 10:27, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't find the heat-weakened steel samples to prove NIST's claims.

Because they were looking for bodies. Problem is, thermite/explosive destroyed steel would be a lot more conspicuous than heat-weakened steel.

Kids do elevator surfing for sport. Check out youtube sometime.

And many of them die, or are seriously injured. Apples and oranges comparison.

Thermite exists. It's used for welding railroad tracks. Check out youtube.

Yes, but it's a solid at room temp, not a gel or sprayable liquid.

I've noticed your complete lack of actual links backing any of your speculation up. Your mercurial theory hinges on spray-on thermite, which does. Not. Exist. You have provided no links to show it exists. I go looking, and I just find Truther websites. No primary source. It's a meme as false as Eskimos having lots of words for snow.

 
At 11 July, 2011 10:28, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

I don't know where the first half of my comment went, but I'm not typing it again.

 
At 11 July, 2011 10:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Why should anyone believe you, Captain Crackpot?

After all, you're proven compulsive liar, and you cite pseudo-science from the infamous Bentham Open as "evidence."

No one is fooled by your refusal to substantiate your assertions or provide hyperlinks to relevant information. You're a liar who routinely misrepresents his sources--it's that simple.

So where's the molten copper (Cu), tungsten (W) and tin (Sn) at Ground Zero?

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

Once again, you FAIL, Captain Crackpot.

 
At 11 July, 2011 11:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jonn, thermite-blasted steel is more conspicuous than heat-weakened steel, which is why the FEMA investgators collected some of is for their Appendix C investigation. The NYT described samples that were partially vaporized.

The danger of elevator surfing is irrelevant. The fact that people do it shows that elevator shaft security can be breached.

What makes you think I have a theory? I'm trying to establish the facts. You say spray-on thermite doesn't exist. You're wrong. Red oxide primer and aluminum powder makes spray-on thermite. Paint made from oxides of copper, tin, lead, or tungsten will make even better thermite than iron oxide--but I better not mention that or UtterFail will get some funny ideas about it.

GutterBall, you've just spent a week babbling about barium and demonstrating your incompetence and ignorance. Please don't start in on copper, tin, and tungsten. You don't know what you're talking about, and what's worse is, you seem to believe you do.

The partical atlas is not complete. The text says so.

 
At 12 July, 2011 12:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, Captain Crackpot, it's evasion. I've forgotten more about the physical sciences than you'll ever know--and I have the education and career to prove it.

So where's the evidence for the presence of molten copper (Cu), tungsten (W) and tin (Sn) at Ground Zero?

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 12 July, 2011 13:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the particle atlas is incomplete. The text says so.

Your notions about these things are as nutsy as your "No barium = no thermite" claim of 6/29 16:37 in the "White Paper" thread.

Everybody is ignorant of some things, but only a lunatic like you thinks he knows stuff he doesn't know.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home