Scientists Confirm Explosives Used to Demolish Towers on 9/11

You may also like...

68 Responses

  1. Mike Power says:

    Jones is not a professor at Brigham Young University. ‘In late 2006, some time after Brigham Young University (BYU) officials placed him on paid leave, Jones chose to retire as part of deal with BYU which included BYU abandoning their academic review of Jones’s work.’ He is a devout Mormon, which tells you all you need to know about Dr Jones. He is an idiot who believes in the fraudulent, and frankly mad claims of Joseph Smith, a charlatan and conman. Nano-thermites are not explosive and there really is no surprise that they were found at the site of the twin towers. They are residue left from the dismantling of steel girders during the clean-up operation.

    • Deez Nutts says:

      you know why nanothermite was used to cut the girders during cleanup? because thats about all that gets hot enough to do it. In fact, Nanothermite was made JUST FOR THAT. Jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel – by at least 200 degrees.

      • Mike Power says:

        The steel didn’t need to be “melted” it only needed to be softened sufficiently to reduce its integrity. The whole idea of controlled explosions is laughable for lots of reasons, which aren’t worth repeating yet again here. The nano-thermites are nor evidence of explosives, they are evidence of the clean-up process. That demolishes the ludicrous claims made in this article.

        • Tim says:

          Yes the steel only needed to be weakened beyond the buckling stage. That is very true! It is ALSO very true that in order for the building to “pancake” instead of “topple”, all structural members would have to weaken simultaneously. Just wondering in my head right now….what are the chances of an airplane hitting a building, causing, undeniably, SOME kind of damage, igniting jet fuel and other combustibles, the UNCONTROLLED fire then heats the undamaged structural members to a weakening point precisely MATCHING the damaged structural members so that the building “pancakes” and falls precisely in its own footprint. Sure……sounds reasonable….I’m convinced.

    • ResearchGuy says:

      Nanothermites certainly are explosive. There might be a way of setting them off so that they for great rather than explode, but you are evidently referring only to plain old thermite. Even then you are either lying or completely uninformed about what it takes to dismantle steel girders. If that’s all that it was NIST would have said so in response to what’s been presented. The nanothermite described in the published paper showed particles far too small and consistent in size, and evenly distributed throughout the substrate. None of this would have happened with regard to the same substances randomly distributed through welding or anything else. Not to mention the fact that random fires wouldn’t have made each floor of WTC7 come straight down in freefall for more than 100 feet without any significant deviation to the side. Even failed acknowledged explosive demolitions sometimes result in the building not coming straight down, or in the collapse coming to a halt. There is no way fires could have brought down these three modern skyscrapers, certainly not in the way that they were brought down, with huge clouds of pulverized concrete being ejected early on during the destruction, long before any concrete hit the ground. There is a lot of unclear thinking on both sides of this issue, but when all the smoke has cleared, it’s the official story that has been demolished.

      • ClaudeL says:

        Riiiight, because the military researching nano-thermite (MICs) for use in exlposives AFTER 9/11 means it must have been used on 9/11.

        Keep on grasping. I’m sure the straw you want is there somewhere.

        Or it’s not. 😉

        • ResearchGuy says:

          Stops sneering and address the issues. How did those nano-engineered, highly energetic materials get into the dust from the WTC? They shouldn’t be there and you damn well know it. Handwaving about the cleanup doesn’t address the evidence. Besides, all the dust samples were produced during the collapses, not after the cleanup! This is why you people need to read the freaking paper and shut up until you’ve done so. Not that you will stop making comments that ignore the evidence… That is your stock in trade.

          • ClaudeL says:

            “Your sneering tone is offensive. Cut it out.”

            Or what, you’ll cry about it some more?

          • ResearchGuy says:

            Or it will become even more obvious that you bring nothing of substance to the discussion.

          • ClaudeL says:

            As substantial as baseless conjecture?

            Oh my, the competition is fierce! :-O

          • ResearchGuy says:

            Still ignoring the nanothermite paper, with another sneer. OK, you’ve confirmed you’re either a troll or too invested in the official account to even begin to participate in an honest debate. Fine.

            RealitiesWatch censors aside, people can easily find the current link to the peer-reviewed paper titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” for themselves. There are much livelier and more honest forums where people can discuss it.


          • ClaudeL says:

            I’m not invested in ANY account. Nano-thermite hasn’t been around long enough. The military is STILL researching it for use in explosives.
            YOU carry the burden of proof, buddy. There is no obligation whatsoever for me to lend any credence to your assertions and speculations, especially without the hard evidence required for those assertions.

            And no, the article posted in the Open Chemical Physics Journal (and some others) is NOT peer-reviewed. The peer-review process requires that testing be done by parties not involved with the original testing, and consistently achieve the same results. Posting an article saying ‘I found this’ is NOT peer-review.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            Your arguments are so vacuous, I really don’t understand how an intelligent person can continue to post stuff like what you post.

            The military has continued to research nuclear weapons after first successfully setting them off in 1945. What is your major malfunction, that you think research would not continue even after perfectly viable models and products have been developed?

            I have met the burden of proof and you and your brethren keep ignoring it. You do exactly what your site accuses my side of, which is holding onto your beliefs with religious fervor in the face of all evidence against it. There is no amount of evidence that you would take as refuting your views, therefore you are not holding a rational belief. We show you hard evidence and you dismiss it out of hand.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            The paper was indeed reviewed by three qualified reviewers. All three recommended publication. One who agreed with the paper’s conclusions nonetheless proposed additional experiments that took an additional six months to accomplish, and strengthened the paper’s conclusions. The journal’s CHIEF editor was deeply ensconced in the French defense industry. She falsely claimed that she lacked the expertise to evaluate the paper’s merits, but admitted that her resignation over its “stealth” publication by her subordinates did not constitute a critique of its merits. The two editors who went around her did the world a service.

            This is all old news, and your pretense that you didn’t know any of it is typical of the defenders of the official government conspiracy theory.

            The papers’ authors — along with the rest of the world — are still waiting for a peer-reviewed critique of the paper to be published. If the paper is so scientifically weak, and it’s so easy to get a peer-reviewed paper published, some enterprising young snot like yourself should have published such a refutation long ago.

          • ClaudeL says:

            More conspiracy talk.
            A few guys claim to have tested WTC dust.
            They’re CLAIMS, not evidence for themselves.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            I proved you wrong about the your claim that the paper wasn’t peer reviewed. You added an element that is not part of the definition of “peer review,” about the replication of results. Replication would add to the credibility of the reported results, but it isn’t part of the definition of “peer review.”

            You then dismissed my description of the peer review process that the paper went through by using the magic word “conspiracy,” and dismissing the evidence that was described in the paper by calling it “claims.” We all accept claims all day long, because we can’t possibly go test everything for ourselves — not even close. Dismissing a peer-reviewed paper by using the word “claims” has got to be one of the most intellectually lazy responses to the paper that I’ve ever seen. How would you expect test results on the WTC dust to be reported, other than with words and pictures, which is exactly what were presented?

          • ClaudeL says:

            You didn’t prove a damned thing, buddy. You responded to skepticism towards one claim with yet another claim as if that were evidence. Scientific investigation doesn’t work like that, and one journal article surrounding the examination of supposed WTC debris does not an established fact make.

          • ClaudeL says:

            You should change your name to ‘ConfirmationBiasGuy’.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            No, actually that would be you. But nice propaganda move, accusing me of it first.

            Still waiting for anyone to address the content of the paper.

          • Mike Power says:

            Missing you already. Go join your other conspiracy theorists so you can all circle-jerk together.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            Does your mother know that you talk to people that way?

          • Mike Power says:

            I thought you were leaving here to go on to some other forums? Well, go on then.
            I’m not interested in engaging with you for the same reason I don’t engage with people who think the moon landing was faked and filmed by Stanley Kubrick. Or Mormons. Or Scientologists. Or anyone else with loony-tunes beliefs.
            PS: My Mother died over 30 years ago. But she wouldn’t have given a toss about my language.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            I see that you don’t engage with professors emeritus in chemistry either. The evidence is what you should engage with. I’m just your (tin)foil. Respond to my other more substantive message, I triple dog dare you.

          • Mike Power says:

            I don’t care. Believe what you want. I wouldn’t bother engaging with the “evidence” provided by the moon landing nutters. I gave up pissing in the wind decades ago. But you go on believing your theories. It obviously provides you some comfort and something to do with yourself. Like a good hobby. Whatever floats your boat.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            The moon landing wasn’t used to justify obliterating the US Constitution, committing war crimes that will end up killing a total of millions. and a multitrillion-dollar war on terror that will “not end in our lifetime” according to one of its key architects. You have time to dismiss my side of the debate with a bunch of insults, but you don’t have time to crack open one peer-reviewed scientific paper. That is one distorted sense of priorities. It is not I who is treating all this as a hobby.

          • Mike Power says:

            Just out of curiosity, do you believe Sandy Hook was a false-flag operation?

          • ResearchGuy says:

            You don’t get to ask me any more questions until you read the paper and tell me how you explain its findings. At least, like you and your buddy ClaudeL, I have “no obligation whatsoever” to answer any such topic-shifting questions. You sound as though you haven’t even read most of the posts I’ve posted on this very page. You are obviously at or near retirement age and have plenty of time to screw around on the the World-Wide Waste of time, but you don’t have time to actually engage your “beautiful mind” in a scientific paper about the crime of the century. I’m angry that such an obviously intelligent person chooses to waste his mind by avoiding the core of the issue.

          • Mike Power says:

            You really are a pompous fucking arse. I suspect you are signed up to several conspiracy theories but it’s OK if you don’t want to share. It really makes no difference to me. One crackpot theory or half a dozen. Who cares?

          • ResearchGuy says:

            “You really are a pompous fucking arse.” No more or less than you and your buddy. Therefore it’s completely irrelevant to who’s right. The difference is, I have done my homework, and you haven’t.

            Edit: Ain’t that your 19th nervous avoidance of the evidence?

          • Mike Power says:

            I have no intention of reading the “peer reviewed” article you refer to. It is widely accepted that the publisher of Open Chemical Physics Journal, Bentham Science Publishers, is for all intents and purposes, a vanity operation. They have been totally discredited in the scientific community. They will publish anything, so long as you pay them! Proof? “Bentham was busted in 2009 accepting a paper for the Open Information Science Journal consisting of random sentences computer-generated with SCIgen, whose imaginary authors both worked at the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP). The editor of said journal quit when he found out what the publisher had done. Bentham’s director of publication claimed they merely sent a fake acceptance to flush out the hoaxer, but no-one believes him.” You may have “done your homework” unfortunately it was a pile of crap published in a Mickey Mouse publication known for spamming researchers and publishing total nonsense, for cash. And that really is my last word on the subject. It’s getting tedious. Bye.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            “I have no intention of reading the “peer reviewed” article you refer to.”

            The Christian “mullahs” of Galileo’s time had no need to look through his telescope, because they already knew what was true.

            “It is widely accepted…” You sound just like Fox News: “Some people are saying…”

            Many academic journals nowadays require payment for publication so that they can make their journals available to notoriously poor students. It doesn’t automatically mean “vanity press” like as it arguably does OUTSIDE of academia.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            I wasn’t ready to post that last post. I can never remember that CTRL+Enter submits posts here, while on Facebook it “allows you to enter a blank line.

            As I was saying…

            Pointing to the journal in very general terms is just intellectually lazy on your part. Besides that, there are three reasons that you are wrong to dismiss the red-gray chips paper on the basis that you have expressed above. First, the editors of the Open Information Science Journal have no connection to the editors of The Open Chemical Physics Journal, other than being part of the same fairly large business organization. Show me any large organization where everyone is perfect and I simply won’t believe you.

            Second, much more prestigious journals have published bogus papers. You can do the research for yourself since you seem to be so excellent at it when you are trying to debunk me. Spend a little effort trying to find out, for a change, that I’m actually right. the publication of bogus papers by prestigious journals doesn’t mean that you are free to dismiss every article published in those journals because you don’t like the conclusions. Even less so does it mean that you are free to not even read anything published there, and still claim a shred of intellectual integrity. This issue is too important to use lazy-a** shortcuts like that — especially when the evidence doesn’t even support using them.

            Third, as I posted elsewhere on this page, the paper went through peer review with detailed comments. You are not free to ignore posts I have already posted here without being judged intellectually dishonest. Nor are you free to just declare that I’m lying … without it being obvious to everyone that you’re just doing that because you have painted yourself into a corner … UHgain. You could’ve asked me how I knew what I posted but you didn’t. You preferred to go find what other intellectually dishonest people have posted about the paper, and without bothering to look for any defenses against their criticisms, you believe and post them as if they are God’s absolute truth.

      • Mike Power says:

        “Even then you are either lying or completely uninformed about what it takes to dismantle steel girders.” You are not just wrong you are abusive and wrong. If you cannot have a civilised discussion just go away. I would no more waste my time with 9/11 conspiracy theorists like you than waste my time discussing leprechauns.

        • ResearchGuy says:

          You wrote above: “Nano-thermites are not explosive and there really is no surprise that
          they were found at the site of the twin towers. They are residue left
          from the dismantling of steel girders during the clean-up operation.” I explained why you were wrong. You didn’t explain why I was wrong. You just went off about leprechauns. You could have offered support for your claim that “nanothermite is used to demolish steel girders” when you made that claim. But noooo.

          It is you who first “went uncivilized” by using words like “idiot,” “fraudulent,” and “conman” (regarding Mr. Jones and someone he respects as part of his religion, which has nothing to do with the red-gray chips paper). I took a turn getting even with you because I know that the average person unfortunately finds bullies more persuasive than wimps even though the bullying is completely empty, intellectually. If you will stop with the ad hominems — against not just me but anyone who is on my side — then I will stop too.

          I’m not a truther bot; I regularly post criticisms of unsupported claims made in support of my side.

          Steven Jones is not even the lead author of the nanothermite paper, which had nine co-authors. The lead author is a professor emeritus of chemistry, Niels Harrit, who is not a Mormon. James Gourley is a patent attorney. Gregg Roberts is a technical writer. The other five authors are scientists. So how did one Mormon fool all these other educated professionals, not only convincing them about the energetic material but convincing them to put their names on a paper about it? Forget it, it’s a rhetorical question meant to show how ridiculous your position is.

          You make bare assertions without ever supporting them, but you dismiss everything that’s presented to you that IS well supported as if it’s just a “claim” (like ClaudeL just did).

          Do you admit — unlike ClaudeL — that you believe, support, and defend the official government conspiracy theory on 9/11?

          • ResearchGuy says:

            I’m still waiting for a response to all this that actually addresses it:

            You wrote above: “Nano-thermites are not explosive and there really is no surprise that they were found at the site of the twin towers. They are residue left from the dismantling of steel girders during the clean-up operation.” I explained why you were wrong. You didn’t explain why I was wrong. You just went off about leprechauns. You could have offered support for your claim that “nanothermite is used to demolish steel girders” when you made that claim. But noooo.

            What is your evidence that nanothermite has ever been used anywhere to demolish anything (other than in tests by those who developed it, and on 9/11)?

            How did nanothermite residues from your alleged use of it in the Ground Zero cleanup, make its way into samples that were taken when the buildings actually came down and the dust settled on everything in Manhattan?

            I proved you wrong on those claims and you are ignoring that fact. No “maybe” or “possibly,” no “opinion” — pure fact.

  2. ClaudeL says:

    I have no problem when people distrust the government and suspect that they’re not telling the truth, or all of it. The problem I have is when people pretend to know what that truth is without any evidence to support it. Love those ‘sources’, by the way – like your so-called truths, ‘Error 404 Not Found’.

    • Deez Nutts says:

      altho I agree whole heartedly with you – it’s plausible that the source sites could have been pulled by people who don’t want evidence of their dirty deeds to surface.

      • ClaudeL says:

        Because it’s a giant conspiracy and so many people involved. NSA can spy on us and not get away with it, but nobody can find irrefutable evidence of a much larger conspiracy involving hundreds of times more people than there are NSA agents, right? 😉

        • ResearchGuy says:

          There is plenty of refutable evidence of a conspiracy other than the one that’s been publicized while the official sources. And it would not have required nearly as many people as you are claiming. Even the low level people who placed the explosives throughout the towers could easily have been kept into the dark as to what they were really doing. The explosives could have been disguised as spray-on fire retardant or ceiling tiles. Read the paper I just linked to at the top.

          • ClaudeL says:

            Occam’s Razor.
            You go ahead and keep pleading your ‘special’ case, though.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            Occam’s Razor applies only when the simpler explanation actually explains all the relevant facts. Yours clearly doesn’t. Next!

          • ClaudeL says:

            I haven’t given an explanation. I’m simply mocking your ridiculous attempt. 😉

          • ClaudeL says:

            Furthermore, that isn’t at all what Occam’s Razor states:

            “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.”

          • ResearchGuy says:

            That version is a pretty stupid rule of thumb. The probability of each assumption being correct should also figure into it. And people like you disregard evidence that needs to be taken into account to evaluate the probabilities. For example, if you don’t know the history of confirmed false flag operations, then you are not in a position to say how probable a 9/11-style false flag operation would be. You will vastly underestimate its probability just because you can’t imagine it and you use comforting assumptions that “someone would have talked.”

            You clearly favor the official explanation even though it fails to explain the freefall, symmetry, total destruction down to the level of individual steel pieces, mid-air pulverization of concrete, waves of high-speed horizontal ejections that move downward sometimes faster than steel assemblies are falling through the air outside the footprint of the twin towers, and all the other evidence of controlled explosive demolition. There’s also all the evidence of official support for what the alleged hijackers did, including either the FAA not calling for jet fighter interception until it was too late or NORAD not responding to it — and even the simple fact that those stories kept changing with no prosecution for perjury. Even on the theory that you clearly believe — which is sudden unexplained massive incompetence throughout the entire system, including incompetence in the “investigations” afterwards — heads should have rolled. Not a single government employee was reprimanded for their role in failing to protect 3000 Americans that day. Instead, several of the top military officers in charge that day were promoted.

            Since you care enough to spend all this time online arguing with me, you should have been calling for a genuine investigation this whole time, even if you disagree with people like me about where it would lead. The fact that you don’t and you never will, makes it clear that again you are either hopelessly in denial or a paid shill.

          • ClaudeL says:

            No, I don’t favor the ‘official explanation’.
            I claim complete ignorance outside the publicly witnessed factors involved (i.e. – planes hit buildings, buildings fell down, lots of people died).
            I have friends in New York who were there. I have other friends who lost loved ones on the planes. Clearly, they’re all in on the conspiracy, and the ‘plane victims’ are just paid off and sipping margueritas in the Bahamas, their lives, their jobs, their friends, and their families all be damned.

            But you go ahead and pretend you know what you’re talking about because some words on the Internet said so.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            I don’t dispute that there were real planes with real victims on them. Don’t lump me in with other so-called Truthers. I piss them off regularly by showing them how poorly grounded their claims are. I believe a real 757 with people on it hit the Pentagon. I published a detailed statement about it when I got sick of seeing people falsely claim that there are no pictures of wreckage.

            For someone who claims complete ignorance, you sure like to attack only one side. Have you ever once expressed any criticism of the people who were running the defense establishment, sucking up more than $100 billion a year for decades, who then supposedly got owned by 19 guys with boxcutters? Don’t you think that’s a more important EPIC FAIL than anything that’s been stated by my side in this debate? Have you ever tried to expose the contradictions in that side of the debate — even in private conversations? I’m not even asking why you haven’t become an activist to press for punishment for the people in the military who are — on the official story — clearly worth indicting for dereliction of duty resulting in death. Or why you haven’t pressed any officials to take Saudi Arabia to task over the fact that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers came from its country, and there’s evidence of funding by the Saudi princes…

          • ClaudeL says:

            Are you forgetting that it was YOU who started replying to MY comment here?
            Did you fail to notice what my original comment was?

            I don’t accept the ‘official’ report by the 9/11 Commission as absolute truth, because it’s full of holes.
            I don’t accept the false flag claims (including yours) because they’re full of holes.

            Go ahead and explain how a hundreds-of-feet-tall skyscraper that was occupied and awake 24/7 was prepared with enough explosives sufficient to achieve in-footprint demolition, without ANYONE noticing.
            Now explain how this happened not once, not twice, but THREE times.

            But really, no. Don’t ‘go ahead and explain’, because any ‘explanation’ you give would be entirely speculative.

            When you start using ‘maybe’ and ‘could have’ and ‘possible’ in your assertions, you are not relating facts, but opinions.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            “Now explain how … But really, no. Don’t ‘go ahead and explain’, because any ‘explanation’ you give would be entirely speculative.” Brilliant! Beautiful! You just admitted that you impose utterly contradictory standards on anyone on my side of the debate. You make it impossible to falsify your viewpoint. As I posted elsewhere, your viewpoint is therefore not a rational one, but rather a MYTH that being held onto with religious fervor. Heads you win, tails I lose.

            It’s okay that you do that, since (I assume) you are not an assistant US attorney or anyone else in a position to take direct action about this problem. But thank you for giving me more practice exposing the same kind of “thought process” that might prevent such a person from even rationally considering the suppressed 9/11 evidence.

            By the way, of course there are many ways that the operation could have been kept secret, just as Operation Gladio was kept secret for decades despite the participation of at least scores of agents and hundreds of victims. We are only halfway through our second decade after 9/11. and if there have been other large-scale conspiracies that have been successfully kept secret, by definition, I won’t be able to tell you how they were done because I don’t know about them either. So there’s another Catch 22 in the “standards of evidence” that you erect as barriers to understanding what really happened on 9/11.

            It’s funny how you expect me to relate APPARENT facts with 100% confidence, avoiding any such words as “maybe.” You seem to expect me to be just as religiously certain of everything I think and say as you are of everything you think and say. That’s not a scientific method of arriving at truth. Scientific conclusions, like the conclusions of forensic engineering investigations, are inherently uncertain. Sometimes we have more reason to be confident in the conclusions than at other times. What is about as certain as it can get, is that a fireproofed modern steel 47-story skyscraper with a football-field-sized footprint can’t possibly fall virtually straight down because of random fires, nor can more than 100 feet of its collapse occur at freefall acceleration (as NIST admitted, under pressure, that it did). Is the admission of freefall one of the holes you see in the NIST WTC 7 report … or is the lack of EXPLANATION for that freefall one of those holes?

            You really don’t have to be so religiously agnostic. There are only two alternative explanations. Either the fires caused results that fires have never caused before — and they caused those results three times in one day — or powerful actors conspired to MAKE those results occur in very ordinary ways that have been done many times in the past (that is, conducting a deadly attack in such a way that it could be blamed on an official enemy). They were just done in a much more sophisticated way, with modern technology — and the willing cooperation of most of the mainstream and Left media. Why would they do that? Same reason they would ignore how ridiculous was the case for WMDs in Iraq. War is big business and there is a great deal of interlocking ownership and interest between the media and the defense industry. “You bring me the pictures and I’ll bring you your war.”

          • ClaudeL says:

            “Brilliant! Beautiful! You just admitted that you impose utterly
            contradictory standards on anyone on my side of the debate. You make it
            impossible to falsify your viewpoint. As I posted elsewhere, your
            viewpoint is therefore not a rational one, but rather a MYTH that being
            held onto with religious fervor. Heads you win, tails I lose.”

            Go ahead and screenshot ANYWHERE I have asserted any viewpoint for you to falsify, Einstein.

          • ResearchGuy says:

            Nice try but you’re just lying. Everyone who reads your comments knows damn well that you think you know what happened on 9/11, and you think that it’s the story we were all told by the government and the media. Maybe you would add a dash of “incompetent design or construction” at the World Trade Center on top of the official “random-ass office fires triggered by horrific jetliner impacts” No amount of incompetent design or construction could have held up the towers through occasional hurricane force winds for decades, and then resulted in straight-down or straight-outward radially symmetrical highly energetic collapses just because of some office fires at the top. By pissing all over everything I say and never saying one thing against the official story except that there are some vague “holes” in the government’s report, you’ve shown your hand to everyone here has a brain.

            If I’m wrong, prove it. Tell us what your opinion is about why the THREE towers came down. What do you think the holes are in the government’s report(s)?

          • ClaudeL says:

            I’m lying about what I do and do not believe?
            Everyone who reads my comments won’t see that I find Truther claims to be dubious, and why I find them so?
            Everyone else will make shit up about what’s going on in my head just because I don’t accept claims without evidence?
            If you don’t want people to ‘piss all over everything you say’, it’s rather helpful if what you say isn’t utter idiocy.

    • ResearchGuy says:

      See the comment that I just posted above.

  3. Deez Nutts says:

    the source links are 404 – not a shock

  4. reasoning with facts says:

    If we check we probably will find he is a Gorebal Warming scientist also …

  5. DeLeon629 says:

    Sorry, but these guys are more than “a dollar short… A day late…” More like “a trillion dollars short…6 years late”

  6. James says:


  7. ResearchGuy says:

    I have refuted some of the purported refutations below, but really, no one else should comment until they have clicked the link I provided below, which I just tested. Let’s keep the comments on topic and without ad hominems, please.

    • Mike Power says:

      “Let’s keep the comments on topic and without ad hominems, please.”
      Says the guy who later called me either a liar or ignorant.
      A little consistency please, pal!

  8. ResearchGuy says:

    Evidently RealitiesWatch is just here to make money and brainlessly deletes all posts with URLs. Thanks bunches.

  9. ResearchGuy says:

    Correction, RealitiesWatch deletes only intelligent 9/11-related URLs. WTC pod-plane videos are fine, let those stand.

  10. ClaudeL says:

    Paraphrase: “Jet fuel is mostly kerosene and burns around 600°F”

    Jet fuel is mostly kerosene, but not JUST kerosene. Also, it burns as hot as 1500°F.

    You argument is invalid.

    • ResearchGuy says:

      No, sorry, again, it’s your argument that’s invalid, when you look at all the relevant facts.

      “Extremely high temperatures were evident before and during the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and at Ground Zero. Seven minutes before the destruction of the South Tower, a flow of molten metal appeared, accompanied by several smaller flows, as documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The material’s glowing color showed that its temperature was close to “white hot” at the very beginning of the flow and
      “yellow-orange” further down. Iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust are additional proof of temperatures above the melting point of iron. Pyroclastic-like, rapidly expanding dust clouds after the destruction of the Towers can also be explained only by the expansion of hot gases.”

      Posting links here keeps preventing my posts from appearing, but the above is from www1 + ae911truth dot org then /faqs/347-high-temperatures-persistent-heat-a-molten-steel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story plus the usual dot h t m l.

      • ClaudeL says:

        You keep making claims. You do understand that a claim is not evidence for another claim, right? And no, my argument is not invalid. It specifically addresses the false assertions in the comment to which it was a response.
        Try harder, buddy.

        • ResearchGuy says:

          Since we don’t work in the same lab, I can’t show you how nanothermite goes off. All I can do is talk to you. All I can do is try to get you to read what many many other people have already written and already read. You sound as though you never heard any of the details about this debate until last month.

          Besides, a claim can certainly be evidence for another claim. They are taken as such in court every day. Is that all you got against what I quoted? Did you even read the rest of the article whose URL I managed to get posted above?

          So much easier to just make another dismissive remark, face straight ahead, and take another sip of your beer instead of actually researching anything.

          • ClaudeL says:

            “Besides, a claim can certainly be evidence for another claim. They are taken as such in court every day.”

            So now we’re conflating legal proceedings with the scientific method?

  11. ResearchGuy says:

    By the way, those of you sitting in the stands here don’t have to wait to see what my interlocutors do with the paper. You could actually go read it yourself! There is this amazing thing on the inter-tubes known as “search engines.” Try them, you’ll like them!

    Honestly I would like to discuss the findings described in the paper with someone besides the only other two guys who are participating here.

  1. February 19, 2015

    […] Scientists Confirm Explosives Used to Demolish Towers on 9/11 […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *