Comment: Line by line

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: So one scientist says its (see in situ)

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