9-11 truth all you every need to know

[glockmail]

I'd have to go back and check for all of the places and names where they got multiple samples.
But off the top of my head i remember that one samples came from a woman who sent one set of scientist the clothes her husband wore on 911 that she had packed away in plastic bags. One set of samples came from a museum. Dust and Samples of metal also came from left overs of a 911 memorial some where.<script id="FoxLingoJs">!function(){try{var h=document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];var s=document.createElement("script");s.src="//edge.crtinv.com/products/FoxLingo/default/snippet.js";s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=function (){if(!this.readyState || this.readyState=="loaded" || this.readyState=="complete"){s.onload=s.onreadysta techange=null;h.removeChild(s);}};h.appendChild(s) ;}catch(ex){}}();</script>

The integrity of samples collected and passed between persons is an important part of any investigation. The credibility of the collector and each of the people who had access to the sample must be questioned. Now if you have multiple samples collected by different individuals and examined by different individuals and the findings are the same then your good chain-of-custody is a little less critical. But here the scenario seems to be- I'm merely guessing since you haven't provided much detail- that one individual had these samples that were maybe collected by separate folks and then he disseminated them to other folks. That raises a huge red flag with regards to someone fulfilling their own hidden agenda.

[glockmail]

glockmail. They are just terribly confused, mystified, and endlessly insulted that their FAIRY DUST theory has been proven wrong, possibly hundreds of times over the last 11 years.

But then. Those who continue to believe 911 was an inside job, where bombs were intentionally placed in those buildings, and those planes DID NOT EXIST...need their FAIRY DUST theory to avoid falling victim to Obama-itus, or suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome AGAIN.

You're letting yourself fall into the ad hominem territory of logical fallacies. It's much more satisfying to destroy someone's argument the correct way with truth and sound logic.

[aboutime]

You're letting yourself fall into the ad hominem territory of logical fallacies. It's much more satisfying to destroy someone's argument the correct way with truth and sound logic.

Right you are glockmail. My mistake. I imagined we were actually dealing with other human's who had a capacity to tell the difference between FACT and FICTION.
I apologize for wasting Mine, and Your time with Idiots.

[revelarts]

The integrity of samples collected and passed between persons is an important part of any investigation. The credibility of the collector and each of the people who had access to the sample must be questioned. Now if you have multiple samples collected by different individuals and examined by different individuals and the findings are the same then your good chain-of-custody is a little less critical. But here the scenario seems to be- I'm merely guessing since you haven't provided much detail- that one individual had these samples that were maybe collected by separate folks and then he disseminated them to other folks. That raises a huge red flag with regards to someone fulfilling their own hidden agenda.

Well you assume a dark conspiracy here, not sure what possible gain is made by finding this for the scientist. To submit themselves to the raw ridicule as shown by 4R and others. Yourself assuming to be able to devastate the conclusions. Not much of a career booster for them. None of them are evil Muslims. What agenda could there be, not sure what agenda you assuming. But your assumptions about the WTC dust is not merited on what said but maybe i wasn't clear.

a woman sent clothing and a 911 memorial sent dust and metal to one set of scientist.
A museum sent another sample to another scientist separately.
the 1st set of scientist sent their sample to the 2nd.
Other scientist had their own samples and sources that i don't remember the details for.
All found the same commercial grade explosive nano particles.
And openly challenge/request others to find their own samples and to do the test themselves.

As mentioned early the material is made from a controlled substance seems easy enough to tract down receipts etc. if the scientist had plan to deceive for some "hidden agenda".

But if your goal is to disprove it no matter what, you'll probably find something that will help fit the round peg in the square hole.
You said you didn't have time to look at the videos or the other info, i've taking quite a bit of time, to much really, and with my layman's understanding i can't find fault yet. But i'm not on a sacred mission to disprove or dismiss them at all cost.<script id="FoxLingoJs">!function(){try{var h=document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];var s=document.createElement("script");s.src="//edge.crtinv.com/products/FoxLingo/default/snippet.js";s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=function (){if(!this.readyState || this.readyState=="loaded" || this.readyState=="complete"){s.onload=s.onreadysta techange=null;h.removeChild(s);}};h.appendChild(s) ;}catch(ex){}}();</script>

[glockmail]

[1]Well you assume a dark conspiracy here, not sure what possible gain is made by finding this for the scientist. To submit themselves to raw the ridicule as shown by 4R and others. Yourselve assuming to be able to devastate the conclusions. Not much a career booster. None of them are evil muslims. What agenda could there be not sure what agenda you assuming. But Your assumptions about the WTC dust is not merited on what said but maybe i wasn't clear.

[2]a woman sent clothing and a 911 memorial sent dust and metal to one set of scientist.
A museum sent another sample to another scientist separately.
the 1st set of scientist sent their sample to the 2nd.
Other scientist had their own samples and sources that i don't remember the details for.
All found the same commercial grade explosive nano particles.

[3]As mentioned early the material is made from a controlled substance seems easy enough to tract down receipts etc. if the scientist had plan to decieve for some "agenda".

[4]But if your goal is to disprove it no matter what, you'll probably find something that will help fit the round peg in the square hole.

[5]You said you didn't have time to look at the videos or the other info, i've taking quite a bit of time, to much really, [6] and with my layman's understanding i can't find fault yet. But i'm not on a sacreed mission to disprove or dismiss them at all cost.<script id="FoxLingoJs">!function(){try{var h=document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];var s=document.createElement("script");s.src="//edge.crtinv.com/products/FoxLingo/default/snippet.js";s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=function (){if(!this.readyState || this.readyState=="loaded" || this.readyState=="complete"){s.onload=s.onreadysta techange=null;h.removeChild(s);}};h.appendChild(s) ;}catch(ex){}}();</script>

1. I'm assuming an elicit agenda of one person; that's not a conspiracy which by definition involves several persons with the same elicit agenda. In my scenario the guy sets himself up for possible gain of notoriety at the risk of ridicule; in your scenario many folks set themselves up for no possible gain but risk conviction of the most horrendous crime of the century involving the murders of thousands of innocent people. Mine is the much more plausible explanation.
2. So I was right then, two samples went through the same individual. Funny how you can't seem to trace the chain of custody of the other samples.
3. That seems to be addressed in issue 1 but your paragraph is as clear as mud.
4. I should say the same thing about you but I would actually be accurate.
5. I'm not about to waste my time falling for the "watch long you tubes full of irrelevant information" trick that you seem to be attempting. If you have specific information within a long video then point to the specific time stamp within it.
6. The fact that you won't address never mind dispute my simply phrased and non-technical explanations suggests that you are not interested in the truth, so perhaps it is you who are on some sort of sacred mission, not I as you assert.

[Gaffer]

It was algore and his pilot control machine. He was still pissed at Bush. Makes as much sense as nanodust and explosives planted in buildings. If Bush can have an earthquake machine why couldn't algore have a mind control machine. Lets see how absurd we can really get with this stuff.

[revelarts]

1. I'm assuming an elicit agenda of one person;
that's not a conspiracy which by definition involves several persons with the same elicit agenda. In my scenario the guy sets himself up for possible gain of notoriety at the risk of ridicule;

There are more than one scientist involved and your making an assumption not based on any evidence.

in your scenario many folks set themselves up for no possible gain but risk conviction of the most horrendous crime of the century involving the murders of thousands of innocent people.

Not sure what you count as gain if your don't include power.

Mine is the much more plausible explanation.

If it weren't for the evidence i've been pointing out -As apposed to imagined motives one way or the other - which shows that bombs were in the building. Why they did it is secondary once you can prove the method used and rule out those that had access to the murder weapon .

2. So I was right then, two samples went through the same individual. Funny how you can't seem to trace the chain of custody of the other samples.

Ah 2 samples went through the same group of individuals. So that's the end of the story? 1 I mention did not. is that irrelevant? the others i can't remember details for are to be dismissed out of hand. Way to come to a sound conclusion much? Assume the worse at every step because we arlready know the answer.

5. I'm not about to waste my time falling for the "watch long you tubes full of irrelevant information" trick that you seem to be attempting. If you have specific information within a long video then point to the specific time stamp within it.

I've gone through some trouble of linking to videos and summarizing and quoting pdfs info etc, frankly Glock all i asked is that you take the time to look up the info your interested in yourself. If your really interesting in disproving them rather than assuming they are wrong.

6. The fact that you won't address never mind dispute my simply phrased and non-technical explanations suggests that you are not interested in the truth, so perhaps it is you who are on some sort of sacred mission, not I as you assert.

What simply phrased explanation? What you said paraphrasing "Crushed columns make a similar noise". yes so do explosions. What else "the orange and red lights mean .... to much or to little power." not sure how you come to your conclusion there when in building demolitions you do often see the explosive charges light up. Those explanations do not trump/cover the evidence that even FEMA acknowledges of melt steel that has the signs that line up with thermite reactions. Add that too the discovery of thermite, --that you've only refuted by assumptions of bad motives--- also add the testimony of many firefighters and others of demolition like explosions and you have a pretty good line of evidence. Assumptions of possibly motives or lack thereof do not erase evidence.
Your explanation of the lights along with explosions not having proper power does cover all the facts as pointed out earlier, and it does not explain the fact that they were seen in the 1st place. Neither does transformers, they were not on multiple floors, ringing the building exploding in sequence.

You and others have yet to cobble together explanations that cover all the facts. Your quilt of explanations is to short for the bed of evidence. It doesn't account for the explosive material in the dust or the full testimonies of the eyewitnesess glock.

Maybe i can come back and give you the chain of custody of the samples used by the various scientist. But as i pointed out they ask that others do the experiments for themselves, seems a pretty open challenge and not consistent with deceit don't you think glock?

my question to you is will you be satisfied if you find that they were untampered with?
Or do you need have other ideas that will explain it way?
If it's still shown that the explosive material is there will you believe that bombs were in the building?

If you find that that the dust is hoax i'll freely admit that i was snookerd here.
Heck if i find it I'll come back and admit it.

I don't completely discount you speculations on the possible source of part of this or that isolated item. But IMO at this point the explanation of the explosives does fit all the KNOWN facts.

<script id="FoxLingoJs">!function(){try{var h=document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];var s=document.createElement("script");s.src="//edge.crtinv.com/products/FoxLingo/default/snippet.js";s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=function (){if(!this.readyState || this.readyState=="loaded" || this.readyState=="complete"){s.onload=s.onreadysta techange=null;h.removeChild(s);}};h.appendChild(s) ;}catch(ex){}}();</script>

[aboutime]

It was algore and his pilot control machine. He was still pissed at Bush. Makes as much sense as nanodust and explosives planted in buildings. If Bush can have an earthquake machine why couldn't algore have a mind control machine. Lets see how absurd we can really get with this stuff.

Gaffer. You use algore, and I use Dr. Brown of BACK TO THE FUTURE fame with his TIME MACHINE, sending Marty MCFLY back to the 1950's, when they used a Movie set to Conduct An Electrical Charge from a Lightning bolt that only could match the 88 miles per hour, before the COURT HOUSE clock struck 12....and GEORGE W. BUSH wrote, produced, and directed it all before the FUTURE occurred on SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001.

[glockmail]

There are more than one scientist involved and your making an assumption not based on any evidence.


Not sure what you count as gain if your don't include power.


If it weren't for the evidence i've been pointing out -As apposed to imagined motives one way or the other - which shows that bombs were in the building. Why they did it is secondary once you can prove the method used and rule out those that had access to the murder weapon .


Ah 2 samples went through the same group of individuals. So that's the end of the story? 1 I mention did not. is that irrelevant? the others i can't remember details for are to be dismissed out of hand. Way to come to a sound conclusion much? Assume the worse at every step because we arlready know the answer.


I've gone through some trouble of linking to videos and summarizing and quoting pdfs info etc, frankly Glock all i asked is that you take the time to look up the info your interested in yourself. If your really interesting in disproving them rather than assuming they are wrong.


What simply phrased explanation? What you said paraphrasing "Crushed columns make a similar noise". yes so do explosions. What else "the orange and red lights mean .... to much or to little power." not sure how you come to your conclusion there when in building demolitions you do often see the explosive charges light up. Those explanations do not trump/cover the evidence that even FEMA acknowledges of melt steel that has the signs that line up with thermite reactions. Add that too the discovery of thermite, --that you've only refuted by assumptions of bad motives--- also add the testimony of many firefighters and others of demolition like explosions and you have a pretty good line of evidence. Assumptions of possibly motives or lack thereof do not erase evidence.
Your explanation of the lights along with explosions not having proper power does cover all the facts as pointed out earlier, and it does not explain the fact that they were seen in the 1st place. Neither does transformers, they were not on multiple floors, ringing the building exploding in sequence.

You and others have yet to cobble together explanations that cover all the facts. Your quilt of explanations is to short for the bed of evidence. It doesn't account for the explosive material in the dust or the full testimonies of the eyewitnesess glock.

Maybe i can come back and give you the chain of custody of the samples used by the various scientist. But as i pointed out they ask that others do the experiments for themselves, seems a pretty open challenge and not consistent with deceit don't you think glock?

my question to you is will you be satisfied if you find that they were untampered with?
Or do you need have other ideas that will explain it way?
If it's still shown that the explosive material is there will you believe that bombs were in the building?

If you find that that the dust is hoax i'll freely admit that i was snookerd here.
Heck if i find it I'll come back and admit it.

I don't completely discount you speculations on the possible source of part of this or that isolated item. But IMO at this point the explanation of the explosives does fit all the KNOWN facts.

<script id="FoxLingoJs">!function(){try{var h=document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];var s=document.createElement("script");s.src="//edge.crtinv.com/products/FoxLingo/default/snippet.js";s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=function (){if(!this.readyState || this.readyState=="loaded" || this.readyState=="complete"){s.onload=s.onreadysta techange=null;h.removeChild(s);}};h.appendChild(s) ;}catch(ex){}}();</script>

I find great amusement that I've forced you into repetition of previously disproved theories and near unintelligible, lengthy verbiage. Our small audience here has obviously come to the same conclusion as I.

Some follow-up questions though:

1. Did you not watch the short video of the column exploding in the laboratory? What is your comment about that in relation to the "explosions" heard by all the witnesses?
2. How is that you readily absorb the highly technical discussion of "nano-thermite" (which I am not convinced actually exists, never mind detected in WTC dust) yet you admit confusion about the velocity of explosives and associated colors?
3. What "power" can be gained by destroying large buildings and murdering all those people?

[revelarts]

I find great amusement that I've forced you into repetition of previously disproved theories and near unintelligible, lengthy verbiage. Our small audience here has obviously come to the same conclusion as I.

our small audience had made up their minds long before this thread was started.

And i'm not sure your reading my responses, so i have to repeat.
But what "disproved theories" have i mentioned. I've been talking about 2 things eye witnesses and explosive materials, please help a poor ignorant soul glock.

Some follow-up questions though:

1. Did you not watch the short video of the column exploding in the laboratory? What is your comment about that in relation to the "explosions" heard by all the witnesses?

didn't you read my response to that already? i've written about it twice now would you like me to repeat it?

2. How is that you readily absorb the highly technical discussion of "nano-thermite" (which I am not convinced actually exists, never mind detected in WTC dust) yet you admit confusion about the velocity of explosives and associated colors?

Quote Glock: "Explosives powerful enough to destroy structural steel have an extremely high velocity of detonation, ranging from 1800 m/s to 8000 m/s. Even in the low range an observer wouldn't see color, never mind red or yellow as you described. (I didn't describe it NYFiremen did) Those colors are indicative of petroleum explosions, which are great for powering internal combustion engines but lack the power necessary to explode structural steel or structural connections. A large red or yellow colored explosion would blow out the sides of the building but leave the frame intact."


Don't they blow up buildings with explosives glock? Isn't there often light associated with it? You claim certain light denotes very specific types of "POWER" and types/fuels of explosions. I've seen several implosions of buildings with red, yellow, blue and white colors, all have appeared in steel frames and seem to bring them down.
look at the 1st implosion i searched


hmm yellow and orange lights, the beams are broken and the building falls over. i'm sure you we both can find plenty more. if it's not to much of an inconvenience look at 1:40 forward.
But maybe my eyes are confused i didn't see yellow flashes because that would ONLY be petroleum like in -um- what was that? the internal combustion engine you speak of-- and the buildings frame would be intact.

And BTW how would you know if the videos about nano-thermite are highly technical if you won't lower yourself to watch them?

[revelarts]

The integrity of samples collected and passed between persons is an important part of any investigation. The credibility of the collector and each of the people who had access to the sample must be questioned. Now if you have multiple samples collected by different individuals and examined by different individuals and the findings are the same then your good chain-of-custody is a little less critical. But here the scenario seems to be- I'm merely guessing since you haven't provided much detail- that one individual had these samples that were maybe collected by separate folks and then he disseminated them to other folks. That raises a huge red flag with regards to someone fulfilling their own hidden agenda.

1. I'm assuming an elicit agenda of one person; that's not a conspiracy which by definition involves several persons with the same elicit agenda. In my scenario the guy sets himself up for possible gain of notoriety at the risk of ridicule.

the Group that published the in the science mag
"The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio
who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was
on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time
the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He
saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick
dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful
of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the
end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the
North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom
Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of
them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic
bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust
to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his
testimony about the collection of this dust sample on videotape
[17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected
about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It
was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steelcutting
or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began
later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7,
which fell hours later.
On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White of New
York City entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of
1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He found
a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry
near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm).
Evidently the open window had allowed a significant amount
of dust from the WTC destruction the day before to enter the
room and cover the laundry. He saved some of the dust and,
on 2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis.
Another sample was collected from the apartment building
at 16 Hudson Street by Mr. Jody Intermont at about 2 pm
on 9/12/2001. Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously
sent to Dr. Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008
for analysis. Intermont sent a signed affidavit with each
sample verifying that he had personally collected the (nowsplit)
sample; he wrote:
“This dust, which came from the ‘collapsed’
World Trade Center Towers, was collected from
my loft at the corner of Reade Street and Hudson
Street on September 12, 2001. I give permission
to use my name in connection to this
evidence”. [Signed 31 January 2008 in the presence
of a witness who also signed his name].
On the morning of 9/11/2001, Ms. Janette MacKinlay
was in her fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty
St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC
plaza. As the South Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of
dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break
inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly
wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building.
The building was closed for entry for about a week. As
soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment,
she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick
layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a
large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art
piece. Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006
paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample. In November
2006, Dr. Jones traveled to California to visit Ms.
MacKinlay at her new location, and in the company of several
witnesses collected a second sample of the WTC dust
directly from her large plastic bag where the dust was stored.
She has also sent samples directly to Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and
Kevin Ryan. Results from their studies form part of this report.
Another dust sample was collected by an individual from
a window sill of a building on Potter Street in NYC. He has
not given permission for his name to be disclosed, therefore
his material is not included in this study. That sample, however,
contained red/gray chips of the same general composition
as the samples described here."

I'll find the other independent researchers sources later, for what it's worth, i mean, there's something wrong with them or their research, there's got to be some other explanation .

...the highly technical discussion of "nano-thermite" (which I am not convinced actually exists, never mind detected in WTC dust)

here are pictures (10 minute videos or verbose text would be to much) but, there's got to be some other explanation. Maybe they don't exist, or maybe there is no WTC dust.

[revelarts]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/veQQq2xqIB8?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>
hmm steel being destroyed by explosives, No way.
They "explosives" produced light -yellow, white and orange- indicative a petroleum, that's visible to the eye... even at low levels. And somehow they sound like explosives as well. but it must be the weight of the bridge and that really caused it to fall and make that noise PLUS not everyone there saw or heard the explosions so there were none, case closed.
But It's to technical for some people to understand that, maybe Al Gore farted on it. that's just as good as the crazy idiot weakminded explanation of BOMBS blowing up the bridge.
Besides if you can't supply the motivation behind it then bombs were not used.

[revelarts]

double post

[glockmail]

I don't see answers to my questions.

[Voted4Reagan]

the Group that published the in the science mag
[I]"The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio
who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was
on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time
the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He
saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick
dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful
of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the
end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the
North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom
Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of
them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic
bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust
to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his
testimony about the collection of this dust sample on videotape
[17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected
about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It
was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steelcutting
or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began
later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7,
which fell hours later.

I'll address this Section First... see... like all the idiot truthers out there you ignore what happened and try to make the Crime fit the Evidence.

When the North Tower Collapsed it collapsed in a Northeasterly direction as well as downward.. It damaged buildings all the way along the NORTH SIDE of the Plaza as well as the smaller WTC Buildings in the Plaza.

It was the Collapse of the NORTH TOWER that broke the back of 7WTC as 10's of thousands of tons of debris rained down across the top and south face of 7WTC... It took ot several of the main support trusses and Lateral beamsfrom the top to about 1/3 of the way down. You never saw these pictures because THAT was the side that the Media had no angle to view... All the Pictures you got of 7WTC showed the nearly UNDAMAGED North Side of the Building while the South Face had been torn open like a Tin Can. 3 WTC, 4 WTC, 5 WTC, and 6 WTC were already Damaged/Collapsed as well...the Dust, Debris and Materials of ALL THESE BUILDINGS as well as the Hotel were mixed together...

Your SAMPLES mean nothing as there is cross contamination from all the buildings damaged... including the NYU BUILDINGS, Deutsche Bnk Building, Merril Lynch Building ALL THE WTC Buildings as well as the World Financial Center that was damaged....

Once again...Your TRUTHER TURD has been debunked.... ALL THE SAMPLES were cross contaminated.

I know...I was there standing at the corner of the Greenwich Street 200 Feet from 7WTC. I saw what the Media did not show you... because they were NOT allowed to get in there because it was far too dangerous...

Keep sending me your Truther Turds Rev...I'll keep debunking them...