What do you make of crop circles?

[1456200423]

The chemical signatures found appeared to be nothing unusual, after further inquiry.

Out of curiosity, is this your personal opinion on the matter, or can you provide some source to which this inquiry was directed to? (that finds chemical signature/remnants of nano thermate in wtc building debris as... "nothing unusual")

On the thermite issue I'm not qualified to make any bold statement but there are various experts out there saying different things. One convincing argument from a chemist called Greening is that traces of alumium-thermite reactions would be not a surprise considering the violently burning molten aluminum from the disintegrated planes and the building facade, combined with many other chemicals that in a fully operational building are plenty around of.

I don't know who this Greening is, but I think you have got the wrong impression.
Mass of aluminum that makes up a plane (~5-10 tons) is negligible compared to the (edit: millions of tons) of powdered concrete it mixed with.
ie. Even if... this aluminium went through some sort of alchemical miracle to create high tech military explosive, there would NOT be as much of it, as was found in random samples.

They (Niels Harriet and other scientists) discovered microscopic PIECES OF NANO thermate.[sic] It's equivalent to finding James Bond wristwatch attached to C4, that is how new and expensive to make it is.

Blah, blah, blah.
When there's a simpler explanation it's really better to go with the one giving the least complications and mystery: questions like who brought the thermite in, how was it attached and detonated, all of which there's no evidence available and weaken the whole demolition theory in the face of any alternative explanation that even looks remotely likely.

Allegorically: If you found a dead body that was obviously shot in the back multiple times, and all the evidence including the laws of physics pointed that it is a murder, would you still reason yourself to a thought that it was a suicide? Because this is what you are doing, by using your Occams razor, you are rationalizing that no one would be capable or dare to pull such a thing off.

You are obviously talking about things that you have no clue about.
Watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkcxVdDSAY4
Seriously. :-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Mass of aluminum that makes up a plane is negligible compared to the billions of tons powdered concrete it mixed with. Even if this aluminium went through some sort of alchemical miracle to create high tech military explosive, there would NOT be as much of it, as was found in random samples.

It's been highly debated as far as I know, the exact identification of those samples and as such not a fact yet. You have to remember it's not the thermate they found, it's the chemicals that would result from the burning. But one has to exclude other modern materials that would be present at the place of initial collapse, which is where the samples were taken I suppose. There are coatings, interior, cabling, the whole freaking plane and so on. It's a matter of falsification really.

They (Niels Harriet and other scientists) discovered microscopic PIECES OF NANO thermate.[sic] It's equivalent to finding James Bond wristwatch attached to C4, that is how new and expensive to make it is.

Hmm, if it's so secretive, new and high-tech stuff, what kind of standard procedures and comparisons Harriet had to determine with certainty what they're dealing with? And how would other go on and replicate their research? Do you understand the problem here?

Allegorically: If you found a dead body that was obviously shot in the back multiple times, and all the evidence including the laws of physics pointed that it is a murder, would you still reason yourself to a thought that it was a suicide?

It's the other way around: in this case we have planes crashing [like bullets in the back] and hijackers with some kind of motive seeing holding the gun. So the most obvious assumption is to assume the bullets killed the guy even if they missed vital parts. One has to make a pretty strong case to claim otherwise.

[Nick]

Humans are defined by emotions, feelings, sensitivety to the atmos. They are covered in hairless skin and are intensely exposed to extremes of all types.

Speak for yourself, sweet whorish baby girl.

Yeah, I'm definitely not hairless.

[Blair]

I didn't mean "completely hairless"

Sweet whorish baby girl! That's actually a pretty original insult, or compliment, as the case may be..

[1456200423]

Mass of aluminum that makes up a plane is negligible compared to the billions of tons powdered concrete it mixed with. Even if this aluminium went through some sort of alchemical miracle to create high tech military explosive, there would NOT be as much of it, as was found in random samples.

It's been highly debated as far as I know,
the exact identification of those samples and as such not a fact yet.

"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers. Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure, chemical composition, and ignition behavior."

(snip)

1. Physical Structure

* The chips,whose structure is consistent from one sample to the next, are clearly an un-natural, manufactured material.
* The red layer is a nano-engineered composite, containing two types of nano-particles, each highly consistent in size and shape.

(snip)

2. Chemical Composition

* The red layers contain abundant aluminum, iron, and oxygen, where the iron is associated with oxygen, and the aluminum is mostly in a pure, elemental, form.
* The relative quantities of aluminum, iron, and oxygen match those of the most common thermite formulation: Fe2O3 + 2 Al .

(snip)

3. Thermal Behavior

# When the chips are heated to about 430ºC, they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC -- the melting point of iron.
# The residues produced by these reactions -- iron-rich spheres -- match those produced by igniting commercial thermite and particles found in WTC dust samples

(snip)

Conclusion

As this simplified summary of the findings of the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe shows, the distinctive red-gray chips found consistently in dust samples from the destroyed Twin Towers are clearly an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material. It is not even remotely possible that the material could have been formed spontaneously through any random process such as the total destruction of the Twin Towers. Nor is it possible that the material was present in the Towers for some innocent reason.

The chips are clearly the unexploded remains of a pyrotechnic material -- likely a high explosive -- that was present in the Twin Towers in large quantities.

You have to remember it's not the thermate they found, it's the chemicals that would result from the burning.

I guess you missed what I wrote and did not watch the interview. I will try again...

They (Niels Harriet and other scientists) discovered microscopic PIECES OF NANO thermate.[sic] It's equivalent to finding James Bond wristwatch attached to C4, that is how new and expensive to make it is.

THEY FOUND PIECES OF THE NANO THERMATE WITH RESIDUE.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/ther ... imple.html

The article includes photographs, graphs, links to further reading, and a glossary. Recommended.

[Carl G]

Carl: http://projectcamelot.org/index.html

Numerals a' plenty: The producers of that show are too gullible.

Carl: How so?

Numerals: It is my opinion on them, after watching them for a while.

Project Camelot interviews Dr Steven Greer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzqDVOjtNhg

What is this link for? If anything the interview shows Greer to be the gullible one.

Numerals a' plenty: Alternative religion. Pray to the aliens once. :-)
http://www.goodworksonearth.org/do_you_ ... ow_up.html

Carl: So you spam us with crap??

Numerals: Your standards are not that high, to call my posts spam and crap. Care to elaborate?

I just found the "goodworksonearth" link to be crap (was there something meaningful there I missed?) Not all your links. For instance, thanks for posting the detailed info on the World Trade Center nano-thermate.

[1456200423]

Carl: http://projectcamelot.org/index.html

Numerals a' plenty: The producers of that show are too gullible.

Carl: How so?

Numerals: It is my opinion on them, after watching them for a while.

Project Camelot interviews Dr Steven Greer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzqDVOjtNhg

What is this link for? If anything the interview shows Greer to be the gullible one.

The link was to demonstrate the complete lack of interview skills coupled with obvious agenda behind the part of P.Come_lot team.
If you examine the logic behind the arguments put to Dr. Greer, one can plainly see that they are ill conceived and full of childishly naive concepts acquired from multiple disinformation agents such as Dr. Dan Burich (sp?) and Henry Deacon etc. In fact I myself am of the opinion that PComelot are themselves there to embarrass and thus sabotage the presentations of credible/important sources such as Major. Bob Dean and Dr. Greer as you can see from this clip.

BOB DEAN with HENRY DEACON exopolitics europe 2009 MARS IS FULL OF LIVE part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1ZrrxOwlG4

: So you spam us with crap??

: Your standards are not that high, to call my posts spam and crap. Care to elaborate?

I just found the "goodworksonearth" link to be crap (was there something meaningful there I missed?) Not all your links. For instance, thanks for posting the detailed info on the World Trade Center nano-thermate.

Thanks and not a problem.

The contents of the letter (do_you_wish_that_we_show_up) indicate, that the writer has above average knowledge, on socio-economic situation we have down here on Earth right now. I hear a lot of "If they are real, why don't they post something on the forum?"
So, I posted that as something to think about and as a comment on religion that is so pervasive in our society.
I thought you, should be able to appreciate the contents of that letter. Your outbursts surprise me. :-S

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/ ... tarmap.jpg

[Blair]

Addressing evolution was not my intent, I was specifically addressing prince's statement, i.e. when you take into account all the flaws, diseases, cancers, disorders, and frailties of the human body and it's parts, it's easy to see it was not purposefully designed as he purported.

All disease of the body is a consequence of humans disobeying God.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

That would be the same as waving the NIST report as some fact around. You wouldn't accept that either. No, everyone has to trust the scientists you agree with! The usual scientific process goes a bit further than releasing a paper going through an initial peer review [in a relatively lowly regarded, pay-to-publish, open publication] on its methodology and then cry : "fact!".

Bottom line is that there are still major issues with the origins and quality of the samples, uncertainty if what was found could qualify as nano-engineered explosives at all and the lack of evidence about the question if these type of explosives could actually damage the structure in any significant way without requiring unrealistic amounts. It's very unclear if there have been any tests about the exact damage these experimental nanoenergetics can do, so it remains an obscure element.

If Harrit, Jones et al would submit to a more serious peer review perhaps the real discussion could start among peers and in the scientific community at large. With is what the scientific process is about, as well, with good reason.

[Carl G]

The link was to demonstrate the complete lack of interview skills coupled with obvious agenda behind the part of P.Come_lot team.
If you examine the logic behind the arguments put to Dr. Greer, one can plainly see that they are ill conceived and full of childishly naive concepts acquired from multiple disinformation agents such as Dr. Dan Burich (sp?) and Henry Deacon etc. In fact I myself am of the opinion that PComelot are themselves there to embarrass and thus sabotage the presentations of credible/important sources such as Major. Bob Dean and Dr. Greer as you can see from this clip.

BOB DEAN with HENRY DEACON exopolitics europe 2009 MARS IS FULL OF LIVE part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1ZrrxOwlG4

The Greer interview was not an interview per se, but a discussion. It was actually akin to a debate relating to a single issue -- are all ETs 'good' or are there also 'bad' ETs in our current picture -- and this was known by both parties at the start. This distinction was reinforced in the written intro on the Camelot site. In that respect the Greer video differs from just about every other interview they have done. Understood, though, there has definitely been controversy about Kerry's interviewing style in general, which tends to the confrontational. It is intentional, she has explained her reasons for this, and her partner Bill supports her fully in this. The result has been many incisive videos, and actually, many friendships fostered with interviewees. Among them certainly is Bob Dean.

The clip you link to here is, of course, take from the end of Bob Dean's presentation at the Camelot Zurich conference in July, where Henry Deacon says he personally has been to Mars. You mention that Henry is a disinfo agent. Why do you say that? Anyway, Camelot does not promote single points of view or individual whistleblowers. The effort is to gather information from many sources, so to piece the big picture together. Some sources will corroborate, some will disagree.

Perhaps I will revisit the Greer piece to see if I can identify what you are calling "ill conceived and full of childishly naive concepts".

[1456200423]

"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

That would be the same as waving the NIST report as some fact around. You wouldn't accept that either. No, everyone has to trust the scientists you agree with! The usual scientific process goes a bit further than releasing a paper going through an initial peer review [in a relatively lowly regarded, pay-to-publish, open publication] on its methodology and then cry : "fact!".
Bottom line is that there are still major issues with the origins and quality of the samples, uncertainty if what was found could qualify as nano-engineered explosives at all and the lack of evidence about the question if these type of explosives could actually damage the structure in any significant way without requiring unrealistic amounts. It's very unclear if there have been any tests about the exact damage these experimental nanoenergetics can do, so it remains an obscure element.

LOL! Alright, let's try something a little less complicated.

Simple question= Simple answer required:
What medium would provide the most and the least resistance to a falling object?

A) - water
B) - steel/concrete
C) - air










Tick/select your answer here:
Most = A, B, C
Least = A, B, C





NO DIEBERT! I AM AFTER TWO LETTER RESPONSE, NOT A LONG WORDED ESSAY... ;-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It might feel counter-intuitive to some but there's no way a building, any tall building structure with a failed load carrying core, is designed to give much resistance to mass times velocity of one or two dozens of stories, and counting, suddenly applied from the top. Perhaps an experiment would be to drop a stack of twenty cards on a tall house of cards. Try to measure a difference in the speed of the falling stack. Not to mention the difficulty to time the exact beginning and ending of the whole process. The error margin alone is enough to make one doubt the idea of pure free fall but it will be close enough to the eye.

[1456200423]

It might feel counter-intuitive to some but there's no way a building, any tall building structure with a failed load carrying core, is designed to give much resistance to mass times velocity of one or two dozens of stories, and counting, suddenly applied from the top.

No Diebert, I am was after 2 letter response, not a long-winded essay... ;-)

"Load carrying core" failed? At what point? This one?

Are you serious?

One letter response... :-)



Which of the charts bellow describe above images best? (A , B, C, D)

A)



B)


C)


D) None of the above because, I can clap my hands 10 times a second!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Many of your questions wouldn't arise if you had any idea what potential energy is and how to see it in relation to anything capable to absorb it. And yeah, the core failed in carrying the load because of the serious damages and deformities. Even in your own theories they can be quite easily snapped by applying a bit of nano-thermite so it shouldn't be that surprising. And by the way: there are surely easier cover stories to make up instead of organizing planes to crash into the towers!

There's no need to wallpaper the forum with pictures, just provide a link. I know all the material, have been there, done that with great interest and open mind. But it's time for you to start questioning the things you so easily cite. You are the naive one: you stopped trusting science and government, now stop trusting the rest!

[Pincho Paxton]

Many of your questions wouldn't arise if you had any idea what potential energy is and how to see it in relation to anything capable to absorb it. And yeah, the core failed in carrying the load because of the serious damages and deformities. Even in your own theories they can be quite easily snapped by applying a bit of nano-thermite so it shouldn't be that surprising. And by the way: there are surely easier cover stories to make up instead of organizing planes to crash into the towers!

There's no need to wallpaper the forum with pictures, just provide a link. I know all the material, have been there, done that with great interest and open mind. But it's time for you to start questioning the things you so easily cite. You are the naive one: you stopped trusting science and government, now stop trusting the rest!

The planes crashing is a very nasty cover story. They should have just got the people out of the buildings, and waited. The buildings were going to collapse all on their own. It would have looked very unusual, but surely they had to face the truth. the newsreaders were obviously ready for the buildings to just collapse for no reason. The rubble was flat on the top, and the Pentagon building was flat all the way down the side of the hole. Like it was stomped on.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/9.jpg

[1456200423]

Many of your questions wouldn't arise if you had any idea what potential energy is and how to see it in relation to anything capable to absorb it.
And yeah, the core failed in carrying the load because of the serious damages and deformities.

Even in your own theories they can be quite easily snapped by applying a bit of nano-thermite so it shouldn't be that surprising.

And by the way: there are surely easier cover stories to make up instead of organizing planes to crash into the towers!

There's no need to wallpaper the forum with pictures, just provide a link. I know all the material, have been there, done that with great interest and open mind. But it's time for you to start questioning the things you so easily cite. You are the naive one: you stopped trusting science and government, now stop trusting the rest!

To summarize your answers to my questions.

The questions would not exist if you knew what potential energy is.
The core failed because of the damage.
Even nano termite can do damage.
Using planes as distraction was not the best plan imo.
The goggles do nothing.

I am satisfied. Carry on. :-)

[Carmel]

[quote="Diebert van Rhijn"

Diebert:

your questions wouldn't arise if you had any idea what potential energy is and how to see it in relation to anything capable to absorb it. And yeah, the core failed in carrying the load because of the serious damages and deformities.

Carmel:

Exactly. There are several laws of physics at play here and interacting simultaneously. All of them need to be considered.

A primary cause of core failure resulted from the steel reaching exceedingly high temperatures that reduced the steel core to only 10% of it's original strength. Then factor in laws of motion, potential and kinetic energy, and laws of acceleration of free falling objects(factoring in resistance/friction), then it's not difficut to see how the structure could collapse.

Diebert:

But it's time for you to start questioning the things you so easily cite. You are the naive one: you stopped trusting science and government, now stop trusting the rest![/quote]

Carmel:

precisely.
Cynicism, when not tempered by logic and dialectic thinking, can quickly turn into paranoia.

[guest_of_logic]

Cynicism, when not tempered by logic and dialectic thinking, can quickly turn into paranoia.

That would make a good signature.

[Carmel]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll have to check with the lil' green alien who lives under my bed to make sure he approves.;)

[guest_of_logic]

So the deal was, "Vanquish the bogeyman and you get authority over my signature". Nice work.

[Carmel]

No silly,

The bogeyman resides in the closet.

[guest_of_logic]

Mea culpa. Petty silly of me to forget.