84 votes

It's Time to Put This 9/11 Conspiracy Thing to Rest Once and For All

There is a lot of hearsay and folklore surrounding this event which may or may not be true. So we're going to need to sift through some news-clips, firsthand testimony and whatever else that can provide credible information on this important topic. There comes a point that you learn too much and you can't revert back to ignorance. In a way it's very much like when you first realized that Santa Claus is really a fiction. At that point there is really no amount of logic that can resurrect your belief in Santa again. So when did you quit believing in Santa Claus?

As kids we believed in Santa Claus. Our parents were the gatekeepers of information and, though benign, our environment during that formative time was a controlled one. We were taught to believe in Santa Claus. Initially we accepted all the information that we received at face value. However, as time progressed, we gained bits and pieces of information that led to a cognitive dissonance which, in turn, led us to question our image of Santa Claus. These “bits and pieces” led to questions such as “How could Santa Claus fit through my chimney” or “How does Santa Claus leave gifts in millions of homes during a single night”? Armed with all these bits and pieces of information, we began to get a different picture that caused all the previous illogic that we had learned to come crashing down. This finally led to an epiphany that Santa Claus really isn’t anything like what we had first thought!

There are other things in life that we have always taken for granted as “fact” that later prove to be only an illusion as well. It’s only a matter of getting more information. As in the case of the Santa Claus myth, it is only a matter of time as new evidence unfolds that we are forced to rethink our view on what the truth is.

I WANT TO TRY AN EXPERIMENT HERE:

Please watch this first video linked here. It’s only one minute. You’ve read this far into my article so please take just one small minute and watch this first video. You’re going to be impressed. This is a local news video of a witness named Kenny Johannemann testifying to explosions that happened in the basement of one of the WTC towers. While he is testifying you still see both of the twin towers burning behind him in the background. This was live footage and it's only ONE minute long. Go ahead and watch this here:


http://youtu.be/yEuzU3LMgCA

The explosions in the basement were separate independent events which had nothing to do with where the airplanes hit some 80 to 100 floors above. Those explosions were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling the tower.

You say, “wait, this doesn’t fit anything I know, maybe there is some other explanation for those explosions in the basement.” True. This is just one piece of evidence, but it’s a piece of evidence that raises a lot of questions. You didn’t see this on TV either. Does that prick your interest?

The government has promoted a “theory” that maybe the fuel from the jet trickled down the elevator shafts into the basement and subsequently exploded. Could this be? Let’s continue and look at other evidence. Barry Jennings was another witness that got stuck in Building Seven during 9/11. Remember, Building Seven was NEVER hit by a jet. In Barry's case an explosion blew out a stair well below him leaving him hanging and stranded for hours until the fire department got him out. Both the twin towers went down during the time he was stranded. Building Seven, a tall building in it’s own right (47 stories tall), came down at around 5:20 (later that day). Fortunately, he was saved. Watch his account here:


http://youtu.be/PbbZE7c3a8Q

Again, the explosions he talked about were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling down this building. You say, “Hold On! Building Seven housed the FBI and the CIA offices, so who would have access to set up explosives in there? There has got to be another explanation.” True, but realize that building seven was never hit by a jet. Still, this is just one more piece of evidence which raises even more questions. Again, you didn't see Barry’s testimony on TV.

William Rodriguez, head janitor at the towers, was meeting with some people in basement level #1 (the highest of several basement levels) when an explosion from below pushed everyone upwards, causing ceiling tiles to fall and walls to crack. Just as William started to express to others what he thought that explosion might be, an airplane hit and shook the building from above. His story begins at 9:31 here:


http://youtu.be/KWXTk5aNAAs

Now, let’s look for other different kinds of evidence. Steve Jones, a physicist, obtained WTC dust samples from the collapsed WTC towers from people who lived nearby. He analyzed it and found that the dust contained residues of explosives. Steve Jones first became famous when he became known as the “voice of reason” during the Pons / Fleischman "Cold Fusion" debacle of 1989, if you remember that. For a Nuclear Physicist, like Steve Jones, analyzing dust samples for explosive residues is a relatively simple task. It may be similar to asking a PhD mathematician to do arithmetic. He reported his detailed findings here in Boston:


http://youtu.be/xvRtJO5cNJs

In this lecture, you recall, he offered other scientists to take parts of his samples in order to analyze the "red chips" that he had recently discovered. That was December 2007. These specks have now, in fact, been confirmed to be unexploded “nanostructured super-thermite” particles. That confirmation is not just a smoking gun, it is the gun. See the article here:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superth...

The actual scientific paper in its entirety can be found here in PDF form. Be sure to click the “download” link here:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?T...

If you get into the actual paper, you learn that the explosives may actually have been sprayed into position like paint or insulation!

Steve Jones’ findings may not fit the stories that you have heard in the news but it does lend support to what Johannemann, Jennings and Rodriguez testified that they saw. You say, “The news media isn’t going to shoot itself in the foot by making something up.” So how do we rectify all the contradictions that we were told in the news? Could Steve Jones and these witnesses be glory-seeking kooks trying to make a name for themselves?

Well, then take a look at this:

Here is a BBC report announcing the collapse of the Solomon Building (the official name for Building Seven). There is only one problem. The reporter standing at the scene and announcing this didn't realize that, in fact, you could still see Building Seven still standing off to the right. It actually collapsed within about 20 minutes after that live report. Watch it here:


http://youtu.be/JlL6ewlW6oc

How did the BBC know in advance that Building Seven would collapse? The fact that it was announced in advance is strong support that the flow of information on this tragedy was being controlled (but in a more sinister way than how information about Santa Claus was controlled in your life).

Were the people at the BBC the only people privy to this information? Probably not. Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder of Building Seven. In a 2002 PBS documentary he talked about how he discussed the Building Seven situation with the fire department and he suggested to the fire department that they pull it. He then stated that the fire department made that decision to "pull it" and then, as he put it, "we watched the building collapse". Well, there is one problem with his testimony that you may want to consider. It takes at least a week to rig a building like that with explosives before you pull it. So are buildings constructed with built-in explosives just in case they need to be blown up in a hurry? Building Seven went down that same day. Whoops! Watch Larry's testimony from the PBS documentary here in this short clip:


http://youtu.be/C3E-26oVIIs

Incidentally, luckily for Larry, he insured his property in the nick of time just six months before September 11th! It was a sweet deal. So who orchestrated this terrorist event anyway? They had to get past the FBI and CIA and prepare at least three buildings for demolition as well as direct the activities of men with box cutters (if they even existed). It’s clear from the evidence presented here so far that at least some of the media was in on this. What else could explain the BBC blunder? They had to control the information to those of us who might not like the idea that a few thousand people had to be killed in order to fulfill some kind of agenda. So what’s in it for these people that were “in the know?”

Aaron Russo was a famous movie producer (Remember “The Rose” and "Trading Places" starring Eddie Murphy?) who became best friends with one of the Rockefeller family members. This is the same Rockefeller family that is a large shareholder of the Federal Reserve Bank -- a private company that loans money to our government and contributes to our huge national debt. You see the name “Federal Reserve” at the top the dollar bill. Yes, we're talking about that Bank! Anyway, the upshot of this friendship was that in the year 2000 (11 months before 9/11) Aaron Russo learned from his Rockefeller buddy that there was going to be an "event". He was told that out of this event the U.S. would go into Afghanistan and look for Bin Laden in Caves and then the U.S. would go into Iraq. His fascinating testimony about this "event" and how it fits into their agenda starts at 26:45 here in this interview (If you have the time watch the whole thing - chances are you have never seen an interview quite like this one):


http://youtu.be/YGAaPjqdbgQ

Another thing. In April 2013 a 40 story skyscraper in Chechnya caught fire and thoroughly burned into a crinkling cinder [see the video within the next link below]. However it did not collapse. By comparison WTC Building Seven had a few small fires and was never hit by a plane. It did collapse. See that article here:

http://www.infowars.com/skyscraper-engulfed-by-fire-does-not...

Now see this:
http://youtu.be/hZEvA8BCoBw

Amazingly, all this evidence is only the tip of the iceberg. Each of these are separate independent pieces of evidence from unconnected sources. When taken together they paint a clear picture.

You are a juror in a court of law. What would be your verdict? Remember, the word “conspiracy” is not in the dictionary to describe a fiction.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

LOL

For a second I thought this post wouldn't be complete garbage, but then I saw the old "nanothermite" with the new adjectives, "structured super nanothermite."

The found paint chips. To date, I'm not aware of a seasoned materials scientist who supports the findings. In fact, the editor in chief of the "peer reviewed" journal resigned over the publication. "I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period."

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-ma...

and for a good scientific beating: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4607897#post46...

**EDIT** Found a better one: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=231314 The guy actually found a reputable lab and a non-biased guy and had the whole study done over. No elemental aluminum found. None. Continue debating the other stuff all you like, but the whole "nano-thermite that Gage found thing" is over.**END EDIT**

If you'd like to see it battled out with a materials scientist or two, the forums at JREF are the best place for it: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153478

So yeah, until I see this completely bogus claim being no longer posted, I'll be not addressing any of the other arguments. If a completely debunked paper in an OPEN pay-for-play journal that was so bad the editor in chief RESIGNED over it is still being used as evidence, then it's not really worth talking about anything else.

Eric Hoffer

They analyzed the chips against the paint.

...and found them not to be the paint. The vid link below shows the comparison analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk8jnqQaujY

Uhhh

You mean against a specific type of paint. Not against "paint."

Conclusion is that it's obviously an epoxy based primer paint, and now it's just finding exactly what brand. A number have been suggested and are still being tested to find the exact brand. The problem is the 100% lack of elemental aluminum means that it cannot be in any way, shape, or form nano thermite or thermite.

Eric Hoffer

sharkhearted's picture

And what the f-u-c-k are YOUR qualifications???

...to take on one of the primere chemists and nano-technology experts in the world, who have concluded to the contrary, with peer reviewed refutations?

Why don't you take this up with Niels Harret as opposed to referring to a government-paid "debunking" site like James Randi.

So are you going to ignore that about 150 firefighters and first responders and other individuals like William Rodriguez reported BIG explosions...some even BEFORE the first plane impact?

Are you going to ignore the fact that NIST said they did not test for explosives or incendiary devices (although Federal law mandated that they should), even in the presence of molten metal reports, steel beams reported by FEMA to look like swiss cheese, and iron microspheres
scattered ubiquitously throughout WTC dust?

Are you going to ignore the legion vidoegraphic evidence that show the eyewitness account in explosions in real time right before your very eyes?

Are you going to please explain as to how two 110 story towers which contained 200,000 tons of steel and concrete each, plus many more tons of FF&E & office cubicles, HVAC systems, elevator cars, electrical substations...are you going to please explain as to how that was all ground to dust in a matter of minutes??

Let's see your physical explanation of any of the foregoing.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

LOL

I love the hyphens, that way you can say the word and not say the word right?

Lets go line by line.

...to take on one of the primere chemists and nano-technology experts in the world, who have concluded to the contrary, with peer reviewed refutations?

This has never happened. Maybe in your mind it did, but every materials scientist (technically, you don't want a chemist for this) that has looked at the Harrt et al paper has declared is to be bunk. In fact, that's the point of going to an independent lab. After an independent lab replicated the tests, and did the tests which Harrit failed to do (Really? No FTIR? I'm a gas technologist and I would've done that), he was disproven. THAT IS WHAT PEER REVIEW IS. Bentham is a pay to play journal, not a real peer reviewed journal. The point of publishing in scientific journals is that crappy work is shown and disputed... exactly as happened. Obviously you failed to read the research summary.

Why don't you take this up with Niels Harret as opposed to referring to a government-paid "debunking" site like James Randi.

Why would I do this when his work has been publicly debunked and presented formally?

So are you going to ignore that about 150 firefighters and first responders and other individuals like William Rodriguez reported BIG explosions...some even BEFORE the first plane impact?

Sounds like you don't want to discuss that the "thermitic" material was actually paint primer. Reported explosions have nothing to do with the fact that the Harris et al paper is total bunk and that there is no physical evidence of nano-thermite.

Are you going to ignore the fact that NIST said they did not test for explosives or incendiary devices (although Federal law mandated that they should), even in the presence of molten metal reports, steel beams reported by FEMA to look like swiss cheese, and iron microspheres scattered ubiquitously throughout WTC dust?

Are you going to ignore the fact that there are a bajillion causes for iron microspheres and that they occur from things like friction and relatively low temperatures? Although humorously, this is totally irrelevant to the topic of whether or not Gage discovered thermite on site.

Are you going to ignore the legion vidoegraphic evidence that show the eyewitness account in explosions in real time right before your very eyes?

Were these the explosions that happened after impact or before, and do they all 100% agree? Because there's a few hundred thousand people that didn't hear them. Of course, it's still totally irrelevant to the point: Gage didn't discover any thermitic material.

Are you going to please explain as to how two 110 story towers which contained 200,000 tons of steel and concrete each, plus many more tons of FF&E & office cubicles, HVAC systems, elevator cars, electrical substations...are you going to please explain as to how that was all ground to dust in a matter of minutes??

You realize it wasn't at all ground to dust right? Like you do understand that? There was dust, but there were also HUGE steel beams, and plenty of photographic evidence of that fact?

I mean, if you're going to just ignore physical evidence and make things up, that's cool, but realize then we're outside the role of scientific inquiry and are now standing on, "I'M MAD AND WANT IT TO BE MY WAY" territory. I suggest a spanking from mother and to be quiet until the grown ups are done talking.

Still looking for the refutation of the paper which clearly shows no thermitic material as well as the mistakes in Harrit's method.

Eric Hoffer

It's a Shame...

...That your mindset is completely closed to any suggestion of the veracity, whether by blogsite, science-journal, or anything else posted, of an entirely credible and believable plot.

I'm not a pilot, nor engineer, nor journalist.
But one thing I DO KNOW:
(a) I was there
(b) I've seen other High-Rise Buildings burn for hours.
(c) CoIntel is running at full force on this.
(d) I trust my own judgement, and observations, which are contrary
to the "official report".
I don't need an engineer or scientist to tell me "What to believe".
My only qualifications?
...just a retired career NY FireFighter.
And most don't buy the Govt-MSM BS that's been spewed out.
Have a good day....and yes....I WAS THERE!

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Oh boy.

Ok, we'll do the line by line.

I'm not a pilot, nor engineer, nor journalist.

Thanks for sharing. I'm not an astronaut, skydiver, or snake tamer.

(a) I was there

I'm sorry to hear that, it must have been a terrifying experience.

(b) I've seen other High-Rise Buildings burn for hours.

Congratulations. Have you seen other high rise buildings of the same construction as the WTC nailed get nailed by speeding jetliners and then burn for hours?

(c) CoIntel is running at full force on this.

I'm curious how you know this, other than inference and hearsay. Do you have some sort of inside government connections?

(d) I trust my own judgement, and observations, which are contrary
to the "official report".

Sigh. I haven't addressed the "official report" I've addressed the claim that nano-thermite was found, when the tests have shown conclusively that it wasn't. The Harrit paper was a joke.

I don't need an engineer or scientist to tell me "What to believe".

That's good, so I won't hear any references to Architects or Engineers or Pilots for 9/11 Truth like they're automatically credible. That's awesome. I plan on referencing actual science and scientists for the things I don't fully understand.

My only qualifications?
...just a retired career NY FireFighter.

This has the ring of you claiming this as support. Were you on duty on the scene as a responder that day? I work with firefighters every day, and realize their knowledge of science varies from about a 5th grade level to masters degree level, and thusly can't derive any support from your qualification for any arguments you'll make.

And most don't buy the Govt-MSM BS that's been spewed out.

Awesome, glad to hear they nominated you the speaker for the pack. I'll be calling BS here.

Have a good day....and yes....I WAS THERE!

Well, at least I won't have to deal with claims that no planes hit the towers. Could you define "there" for us in detail please?

CRAP. I managed to get sucked in. This was supposed to only be about the OBVIOUSLY debunked claim about nano-thermite from Gage and the Harrit "tests."

Would anyone like to claim the Harrit tests for nano-thermite are still valid? Can we lay that awfully supported claim to rest?

Eric Hoffer

Eric, I have one question.

Could you please explain how Tower 7 fell. I understand you're not an "expert". I'm just curious on your thoughts.

How?

That's easy.

http://thevinprabhu.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ancient-alie...

I'm talking about thermite and nano-thermite. I'll leave the other arguments so as not to get off track here.

Until the OP corrects the obviously incorrect information about thermite and nano-thermite, then the post is bunk.

Eric Hoffer

Convenient.

"I'll leave the other arguments so as not to get off track here."

Yeah. Hate to hop on a track where you can't be so smug.

Enjoy your comfortable track.

So

I was specific in my reply to the OP. I've been through about 1000 of these posts over the last what... almost 6 years I've been a member (I did about 6 months on a different user name at the beginning)?

The way to not get nailed on this garbage by arguments all over the board is to focus on a very specific argument being presented. The "Zomg what about Building 7?!" is what comes up when you're debating a proposed point and the other side doesn't like the answer.

So lets get specific about a claim in the post above. Thermite and Nano-Thermite, as it's a very specific claim, and it has been thoroughly and brutally debunked, yet still the bogus evidence is being held up as being true.

Lets get this one official: Were the chips thermite or nanothermite, and if not, lets stop citing it in arguments here. Is there something wrong with that that I don't understand? Because what I hate to see is an argument get thoroughly debunked, and then it comes back as if it's new information some 3-4 months later, repeating the same tired lines that have been discussed previously.

So lets have it:

Thermite and Nano-thermite and the "peer reviewed" paper. Is it evidence or no? If it's not, lets update the OP.

Eric Hoffer

Trust vs Knowledge.

Obviously yours is an argument of trust, not knowledge. You trust your "expert" sources others trust theirs. Great.

WTC7 requires no expertise (although the more the better). You don't need to be a demolition specialist to know a couple of fires can't make a building fall like that anymore than you'd need to be an aeronautics specialist to say buildings don't float up to the sky.

I'm not wasting time on things I couldn't possibly know about.
At the end of the day, it's a simple question of which position has provided the most plausible evidence. The "19 hijackers with box cutters and a magic passport" position or "it looks like it didn't happen that way" position. Which side are you on?

What?

Obviously yours is an argument of trust, not knowledge. You trust your "expert" sources others trust theirs. Great.

This isn't at all true. You've put the word "expert" in quotes like it's supposed to undermine my argument. The data is straightforward and published. Without elemental aluminum, there can be no thermite. The claim of thermitic material that Gage made was completely bogus and was so bad the editor in chief of the paper resigned.

What you're saying is that you have a mathematician who says 1+2=4, and I have one who says 1+2=3, that we're somehow on equal footing here.

The scientific evidence completely busts the point claimed by Gage.

Focus here guy. You've seen evidence from both sides (or haven't, if you haven't read the summary of the independent scientific analysis of the chips), and should make a decision based on that. It's verifiable. Look and decide.

Eric Hoffer

The quotes

apply to the other side's experts as well. Point being neither you or I is in a position to say. Since we aren't experts.

You ignored (or didn't see) my last question.

Hmm

That's simply not true. You can use reason, logic, and look at the actual FTIR screens to judge for yourself.

I'm actually sitting in a materials sciences lab, specifically RTI Laboratories in Livonia, MI, where I rent space for my business. Gas mixes are often analyzed by FTIR, and I have a fair amount of experience with chemical analysis (my business works with gas detectors and analysis). It's really not that hard to pick up, and the posts and summaries definitely explain it in layman's terms.

I apologize for not answering the question, let me address it.

At the end of the day, it's a simple question of which position has provided the most plausible evidence. The "19 hijackers with box cutters and a magic passport" position or "it looks like it didn't happen that way" position. Which side are you on?

But it's nowhere near a simple question. Given how easy it is to control groups of people that are fearing for their lives, yeah I don't doubt that a bunch of guys with box cutters could do it. Make an example or two and tell people they'll live if they sit still and they'll generally sit there. At basically every bank robbery, if everyone just massed charged the guy they'd be able to take him down, but no one wants to move and everyone wants to live. Once they realize they're going to die if they don't do something, then they act, but it's not always obvious at first.

I would say that a bunch of guys with box cutters is a more likely explanation than wiring the Twin Towers with explosives, ESPECIALLY given the evidence I've seen to the contrary. I have yet to see even a single logistically plausible explanation for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. WTC7? You've got more of a chance there, because it's a much more complicated situation, and I can certainly understand the confusion there. The trade towers though? Not a chance.

But please, just go and read the threads and the summary of the tests done. Stick to the ONE point being addressed at a time. Bouncing all over ends with ad hominem. I'd much prefer to stay focused on one exact claim being made and either bust it or accept it.

Eric Hoffer

Eric Hoffer

..Obviously your mind is closed.
For simplicity's sake, see Vinceableworld's analogy to "Backyard BBQ Grill".

To "generalize" the educational level of firefighters that you claim to:
"work with every day" is more BS on your part.
Also:
Try this on for size:
FEMA-Certified FireMatics Instructor.
Educational Methodology
Arson Investigation Certified
An arson investigator's initial concern is to secure the "crime-scene",or "fire-scene" .
An enormous task , considering that a fire scene , and it's aftermath is akin to a war zone, or battle scene.
The trucking away of debris was an enormous impediment to this concept.
My own son took part in this, by way of his employ as a driver for a less than scrupulous, criminally-connected hauling/recycling company he was employed by....I know the owner...indicted previously by the Feds and served time in prison for many nefarious schemes.
The evidence went out to sea from New Jersey.
I could go on and on...eyewitness accounts from men in my command?
Too much to list here....but one thing is certain.
Your mind is closed...or you're only here to play devil's advocate.
While I speak from a perspective of 30-plus years of EXPERIENCE.
Like I mentioned...I could go on and on....or let you go on and on.
"Give 'em enough rope....they'll hang themselves".
I think I've given you enough rope for now....Have a Good Day.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Simplicity?

For simplicity's sake, see Vinceableworld's analogy to "Backyard BBQ Grill".

Ah yes, because using completely unrelated examples works to simplify things.

Which goes to show, steel grills are of the exact same construction as skyscrapers. Of course.

Your 30+ years of experience in what? Materials analysis and skyscraper construction?

We're talking about thermite and nano-thermite. Both theories are supported by bunk evidence which has been disproved. Lets keep it on track here. Based on the evidence, do you believe the nano-thermite referenced by Gage in the Harris paper is thermite (or nanothermite) or not?

Eric Hoffer

So one scientist says its

So one scientist says its nano-thermite, another says its not. Is it possible that one scientist or the other could have been enticed to falsify evidence, such as adding or ommiting the presence of aluminum in the sample?

Is it possible that both scientists were being honest, but one was testing on a nano thermite chip, and the other was testing on a paint chip? I mean do we even know they were using the same sample?

Did the scientist who claimed to have found nano-thermite profit from his claim? What was his end game?

Did the scientist who debunked the nano-thermite claim gain financially up too, or just after his claim?

Is the government known to lie?

Is the government known to destroy and fabricate evidence?

Did anyone gain from 911?

I try to keep an open mind EricHoffer, and it seems like you do as well. Im finding it increasingly difficult to trust the government however, and there are so many things I find questionable about 911. The old saying: "Follow the money" seems to so applicable.

Silverstien and his double-terrorist insurance policy for a start. The military industrial complex's massive gains, the loss of civil liberties and police state actions following. No one can doubt that many people working inside or alongside the US government had much to gain from this. So for me, the real question is, is the government known to do terrible things to innocent people in order to further its own ends.

The overwhelming and resounding answer is yes. Again and again through history it has been prooven and revealed that our government will stage events that result in the death of innocent people in order to further its aims. Even her own citizens.

Why would 911 be any differant?

Line by line

So one scientist says its nano-thermite, another says its not. Is it possible that one scientist or the other could have been enticed to falsify evidence, such as adding or ommiting the presence of aluminum in the sample?

No, because the scientists aren't of equal measure and the procedures are documented in each case, with the images of the peaks and analysis included in both cases, as scientific papers should. Richard Gage, who has a huge financial interest in 9/11 being a conspiracy, funded the first test, which had huge holes and problems with the analysis. The second was funded by an independent guy with no financial interest in either side, used by a completely independent lab with no bias in the equation. You can read exactly how the materials scientist in this case was selected at the link I posted.

Is it possible that both scientists were being honest, but one was testing on a nano thermite chip, and the other was testing on a paint chip? I mean do we even know they were using the same sample?

Obviously you didn't read the study in either case, with the analysis of how the tests were done, so I'm going to end this here.

Did the scientist who claimed to have found nano-thermite profit from his claim? What was his end game?

Yes, Richard Gage makes a huge profit off 9/11 conspiracy related materials. He does have a financial interest.

Did the scientist who debunked the nano-thermite claim gain financially up too, or just after his claim?

He made $1,000 to do the test, which is reasonable, given the time spent.

Is the government known to lie?

Absolutely. But this doesn't mean that everything the government says is a lie.

Silverstien and his double-terrorist insurance policy for a start. The military industrial complex's massive gains, the loss of civil liberties and police state actions following. No one can doubt that many people working inside or alongside the US government had much to gain from this. So for me, the real question is, is the government known to do terrible things to innocent people in order to further its own ends.

The overwhelming and resounding answer is yes. Again and again through history it has been prooven and revealed that our government will stage events that result in the death of innocent people in order to further its aims. Even her own citizens.

I agree wholeheartedly, though I believe it more likely that it was caused by people covering their asses and not doing their jobs because of the bloated bureaucracy. Could parts of it have been covered up with say, CIA complicity? Absolutely, but the more people involved, the harder that becomes.

Do I think someone could have stood by and let it happen? Yes. Do I think they could have been paid by us to do it? Yes. Do I think Israel, or even Jamaica could have paid them to do it? Yes.

However, where I come to disagree wholeheartedly is with the Controlled Demolition theories. Leaving Building 7 out of this, which I'll admit has MORE of a potential, but I still doubt it, due to the falling burning debris. Same disagreement with the various Pentagon missile theories.

The evidence there is just scant and unlikely. It reaches too far and too thin. My problem with most conspiracy theorists is that they'll accept almost ANY explanation EXCEPT the planes. Anything from energy weapons to nanothermite to thermite, to TNT, it's all good except the planes.

My point is to identify EACH theory, INDIVIDUALLY, and either bust it or prove it. All of them so far have been busted, that I've seen.

Go take a serious look at the paper saying there is vs the paper saying that it was primer paint. Ask yourself which is more likely, read the threads which have 2 full fledged materials scientists giving analysis. Actually read what they're saying and learn it. You can see the data for yourself and it's fully explained.

Eric Hoffer

Nice

:)

I second that opinion.

This man definitely has a closed mind.

Sigh

And you believe there's a secret underground world of attorneys that belong to a secret organization known as BAR and that we're all governed by British law, a tenant which you then use to push unknowing people into questionable legal action with absolutely no thought for the consequences those people will suffer when they follow your "advice."

I'd say I like my mind, and moral compass, much better than yours.

Eric Hoffer

Hey Vince..

...Your "Analogy" to the Backyard BBQ Grill was excellent.
Common Sense prevails! Hooray!

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Nice Work Toad

You placed the info in a logical sequence. You ever think about writing a Book on this Subject?

Good Job

"You Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come"

I Am Sheeple

Oh yes, I am a sheeple
And oh so proud to be
I am way too smart
To believe in a conspiracy

Three towers falling straight down
It all makes sense to me
They're all just jealous
Because I live so free

Terrorists in hiding everywhere
Although I cannot see
I know that they're out there
Because I heard it on TV

My paper is honest
It would never lie to me
Oh yes, I am a sheeple
And oh so proud to be

The UN is so stupid
As blind as it can be
Anti-war protestors
Should be hanging from a tree

They and all the traitors
Ship them off to Germany
But me, I am a sheeple
And oh so proud to be

We saved the Iraqis
The bad guys had to flee
Now those people love us
They're dancing with such glee

The whole wide world should thank me
All on bended knee
Oh yes, I am a sheeple
And oh so proud to be

http://sites.google.com/site/waterlime/iamsheeple

The biggest challenge I have when discussing this subject...

...is that people say that they saw the tower pancake, thus anything else is just conspiracy wild hairs in their eyes. I have a new idea that I haven't tried yet. I want to say to these people... You know why you get gas from eating beans? Because they are methane containers! When they argue, I will say, "but isn't it obvious"? "Doesn't it sure look like they could be gas containers"? When they rebut that it's a biochemical process, that's when I say "so science trumps what appears obvious"? There's the foot in the door.

Too complex. Just go to Building 7.

.

That was my original strategy

They say, "I never heard of it". After that, the rest I say is "blah blah blah blah....".

Try the magic box.

I burned a disc of a few youtube vids. When you put that in their dvd player and the truth comes out...that magical box has a way of casting a spell over people. Try it. See if you can make the TV work for you for a change instead of against you.

I play the lottery because if

I play the lottery because if I won enough I would buy land in a country that doesn't get along with the US, build the towers to spec, and crash jets into them exactly as happened on that day.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.