Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Dave Thomas' Take on 911 WTC Complex 3 Towers Collapses & Thermite - Strongly Supporting the OCT of NIST & Bazant & Sunder
New Mexicans for Science and Reason present
9-11 'Truth' Resources
By Dave Thomas
Announcing the
Institute of Theoretical and Experimental 9/11 Physics!
How Does a Building Crush Itself?
The Towers' Collapse: Fast, But Not Freefall
Chandler's Data Support a Gravitational Collapse!
World Trade Center 7 : What Really Happened
How Can Gravity cause Multi-ton steel sections to be ejected latera...
Is Thermite the Answer? What was the Question?
The Gage Page - "Blueprint of Destruction" Refutations
Welcome, WMNF 88.5 FM Listeners!
July/August 2012 Skeptical Inquirer: New Info Challenges 9/11 Thermite Claims
New Info Challenges 9/11 Thermite Claims...
A new report on studies of dust from the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-2001 was released on February 29th, 2012. The report, by James R. Millette, Ph.D., of Georgia, is titled "Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust." The study was commissioned by journalist Chris Mohr, who has a whole series of videos on YouTube about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Funds for the study were raised with help from members of the James Randi Educational Foundation.
The purpose of the study was to take another look at samples of WTC dust. In 2009, Niels Harrit of Denmark, along with several others (including Steven Jones), published a paper which purported to prove that nanothermitic materials were found in the dust ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31.)
Millette's conclusion: "The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite."
If these chips weren't thermite, what were they? Millette performed several tests on them, including Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). This clearly showed that the chips were a mixture of kaolin and epoxy. Kaolin, also called aluminum silicate and china clay, is a platy mineral frequently used as a pigment in paints. Epoxy resins have been used in coatings since the 1940's.
Millette's FTIR plot shows that the chips in WTC dust are likely a mixture of Kaolin and Epoxy, both common ingredients in paints and coatings
Whatever the chips are, they are not thermite, as particles of elemental aluminum are as crucial to thermite or nanothermite as heat and oxygen are to fire. No aluminum, no thermite.
On a related note, in February 2012, I posted a letter from Rich Lee of the R. J. Lee Group at the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF). This company's post-9/11 report (2003) on WTC dust samples mentioned microscopic spheres of iron, which truthers have long maintained could only have been formed with thermite, thus proving their controlled demolition/inside job claim. Ron Wieck, who produces the internet debate program Hardfire, recently asked the R. J. Lee Group to clarify what they thought about the iron microspheres, and Rich Lee himself answered (in part) "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"
The answer to the mystery of the microspheres - "Iron melts only at temperatures far higher than possible in normal fires, so how could microspheres have possibly been formed on 9/11?" – is simply that very small metal particles have much lower melting points than their bulk material counterparts (around 900 o C for iron nanoparticles, as opposed to 1535 o C for bulk iron). This is called the "thermodynamic size effect." The towers contained thousands of computers and electric gadgets. Wires and filaments and meshes from electronics, as well as thin rust flakes and other small iron particles, could all have easily been made into microspheres during the WTC conflagration. To see a vivid demonstration of this phenomenon, watch the video on NMSR's YouTube channel, 'theNMSR', in which a BIC lighter is used to burn steel wool, creating numerous iron microspheres without any Thermite at all!
For now, two principal claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement – that scientists found thermite residues in WTC dust, and that iron microspheres in WTC dust prove the use of thermite – have both been found to have no basis in fact.
Millette study online: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_0301...
R. J. Lee letter online: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8013472&postcount=1329
Dave Thomas “Microspheres from Steel Wool” video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ9wSD4Hcys
Miles Kara was a member of the 9/11 Commission. He is quite critical of 911 Truth, as his web site will show.
NMSR's Dave Thomas to appear on two radio stations, Sunday September 11, 2011
Strange Frequencies Radio
http://www.strangefrequenciesradio.net/
Sunday September 11th at 1 PM PDT (2 PM MDT, 4PM EDT)
Download MP3 File
Pacifica stations (NY, Washington DC, Houston, LA and Berkeley, and ~150 more nationwide):
- 3-4 PM PDT (4-5 PM MDT, 6-7 PM EDT) David Ray Griffin Ph.D. author "the New Pearl Harbor" : and Kevin Ryan for 9/11 Truth
in Dialogue/debate with
Jonathan Kay Author of "Among the Truthers" and Karen Stollznow Ph.D. Editor Skeptical Inquirer,
Peter Phillips - Host
Topic: Veracity of the 9/11 Commission Report and Related Issues
Download Hour 1 MP3 File - 4-5 PM PDT (5-6 PM MDT, 7-8 PM EDT) Richard Gage, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Niels Harrit ( University of Copenhagen)
in dialogue/ debate with
Dave Thomas with New Mexicans for Science and Reason and Richard Mueller University of California Physics professor.
Mickey Huff - host
Topic: The Science of the Collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. (Note: WPFW in Washington DC is doing an earlier segment on the Pentagon)
Download Hour 2 MP3 File - 5-6PM PDT (6-7 PM MDT, 8-9 PM EDT) National Phone in: Paul Rea for 9/11 Truth and Karen Stollznow
Download Hour 3 MP3 File
IT'S HERE: Skeptical Inquirer July/August issue on 9/11 Truth! 
Read Dave Thomas's article ONLINE!
Most of the July/August issue of Skeptical Inquirer is devoted to analyses and discussion of 9/11 Truth and 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Skeptical Inquirer: http://www.csicop.org/si
Discussion on this issue of Skeptical Inquirer at the JREF 9/11 Subforum: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=211304
Read Dave Thomas's article ONLINE!
Welcome, Coast-to-Coast Listeners!
Now Playing on NMSR's new YouTube Channel : "Gage False Statements"
SUPPORT THE Rally to Restore Sanity, October 30th, 2010, National Mall, Washing...
The Coast to Coast Debate is Over! Resources and Reviews
On August 21st, 2010, NMSR's Dave Thomas and Kim Johnson debated Richard gage and Niels Harrit of Ae911truth, on the Coast-to-Coast AM radio show. Here are some resources and reviews of the event.
The Coast-to-Coast site has a 5-paragraph synopsis of the debate. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/08/21
The entire debate is on YouTube, in several parts, starting here: http://www.youtube.com/v/zzdSbjTEFcs
This dropbox has the entire debate as a 3-hour mp3, downloadable for Ipodsters and carpoolers (FireFox): http://archive.org/details/Coast_coastAm_august21_2010_4-hour_9_11_...
This page is running commentary on the debate, and pre/post debate analysis, at the James Randi Educational Foundation's 9/11 Forum: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183483
More running commentary, on the "Screw Loose Change" blog: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/08/dave-thomas-to-debate-...
911blogger.com's running commentary and analysis: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-22/coast-coast-am-911-debate-ric...
This reveals the Truther take on the proceedings. They were clearly listening to a different debate than the rest of us. Especially memorable are these two comments:
"I need some clarifications here:Mr Thomas also states that we (the truth movement) greatly underestimate the energy of the impact. He has an experiment on his website which should be viewed so you can see his math. He is taking impact measurements by dropping items onto a scale. But this is just the point we are making. In order for him to get his measurement, he must first drop an item through nothing but air. His experiment presumes no resistance. Additionally, his math formula uses 'g' for gravity in his calculation. We KNOW (as in the case of tower 1) that it descended at 2/3g. He seems to forget this fact and calculates with 'g' or is my understanding way off base here. I was only a B student in Calc. ..." http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-22/coast-coast-am-911-debate-ric...
The experiment he mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SozKaHYD85Q
This shows the pervasiveness with which 9/11 physics teacher David Chandler's analyses have misled many in the truth movement. My work shows that the AVERAGE of freefalls and collisions for both Twin Towers comes to 2/3 g for the early part of the collapse, and 1/3 g at the end. Chandler smooths out this process, and acts like the average acceleration is the actual representation of what happened, and thus lowballs the actual impact by a factor of 100 (YES, ONE HUNDRED!)
See NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources: Chandler's Data Support a Gravitational Collapse! http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911c.htm
Then Tony Szamboti, author of "The Missing Jolt" paper over at the Journal of 911 Studies, writes "In a structure with a factor of safety of at least 3.00 to 1 the only way the upper section of it can fall through it at 2/3rds g, without a dynamic load, is if about 85 to 90% of the integrity of the structure was being consistently removed unnaturally, leaving only 1/3rd of the minimum strength necessary to support the static load with no reserve. Gordon Ross has previously described it as a weight being dropped in and moving down through custard. I tend to agree with him, in that the lower section was being turned into a custard like consistency, and it had nothing to do with dynamic loads, because they provably weren't occurring.": http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-22/coast-coast-am-911-debate-ric...
Silly me, thinking I could use a free-fall experiment to test something I think was in free-fall!
More Truther Pans: David Icke forum http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131448
Debunking the Debunkers: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/08/as-screw-loose-change-woul...
Yup, hit a nerve there, I think...
NEW: RESPONSE TO GAGE ERUPTION OF FALSE STATEMENT AT DEBATE'S END http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZVs4H5dGLE
 |
THE VIDEO JESSE VENTURA DOESN'T WANT THE WORLD TO SEE!
"How I Debated a 9/11 Truther and Survived", Skeptical Briefs Volume 19.4, December 2009
"How I Debated a 9/11 Truther and Survived", at the JREF 9-11 Forum
"9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010", at the JREF 9-11 Forum
Views: 1637
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jeannon Kralj on
-
Chuck,
It is nice to know about all these "debates" and to have the links. However, you mainly just do a data dump. You do not want to discuss or engage fellow forum members on any of the many many issues raised in your original posting.
Do you or do you not wish to debate and discuss any point or do you wish to keep dumping links on us with no idea of why you are doing this or what your position is.
I will tell you that this can be quite confusing because you seem to support the independent WTC dust study contracted by Mohr and conducted by Dr. Millette. Dave Thomas of NMRS group is someone who also supports this dust study and NMRS members include Mohn and Thomas. Dave Thomas posts under his real name at the JREF forum. Yet Dave Thomas is someone you disagree with because Thomas supports the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT), what I call the "pile driver theory" of the top floors pushing down on the bottom section of the building cause the "collapse." driver theory" .
So your data dump is full of things you agree with and things you disagree with but you will never initiate an orderly discussion on this forum.
P.S.
The pile driver theory has so long ago and so thoroughly and professionally been debunked on about 20 old YouTube videos that I do not see much point in debating that at this time. I feel sure you are correct in your statements debunking this theory, and it is good to be reminded that NIST actually had the chutzpah to make this assertion in writing, but I have to wonder why of why are you rehasing this very very old matter in relation to the historical records of 9-11 truth seeking?
-
Permalink Reply by Chuck Boldwyn on
-
Jeannon,
I am in the process of writing evidentiary statements so the 2 Vancouver Judges can decide the worthiness of their indictments they will ultimately make.
I am writing up the 3 most-major crush-down scientists on the following:
shyam Sunder
Zednek Bazant
Dave Thomas
all of which support the OCT, and these 3 are the main, main basis and the originators of the crush-down theory for the OCT and The 911 Commission Report. Shyam Sunder gives Bazant his full support as Sunder and all of the NIST scientists are totally incapable of finding a workable real world Newtonian Physics quantitative explanation for the collapse of the TT at near free fall speed. They have already discovered the "truth" and that is the demolishments/collapses can not be explained adequately by any theory that can not be shown to be corrupted in some manner along their "logical" processes in formulating their theory(s).
They all have been debunked to some extent, but none of the dubunkers have explained the problems with their math and have left their dibunking hanging, incomplete, saying that they do not agree with something, but not further pursueing the supposed flaws in their theories.
When I post I do not ususally post to get a debate, I post mainly to provide new and old sources of available information.
I post these as I go through my email and at the same time I am working of my evidentiary statements and doing in depth research in areas I have not much touched for some years now and have not much interest in debates, nor do I have the time, usually, though I do answer most posts that have questions or are critical of me or my work and I see the need for a response.
I am not on this site to debate what I post, most usually.
I hope that I am doing a service, like you, in posting what I feel will be of interest to most members, most...
Since I do not have a personal website, I use this just as if it were my own, where I can display and store my research materials for my interviews with Jim.
Most of the new informtion that I provide for the Truth Movement, I find on my own, and there is still a lot of new discoveries to be had, and I will be going after them when time permits. I am always looking for new contributions from other reseachers that can either enhance my own research of will be able to modify my ongoing conclusions, after in depth analysis of their work.
I do not look to criticize others on this site, only if I feel unjustly criticized by others, which is rare.
I do not mind telling anyone my opinion on my research or their research, even in an assertive manner.
I do not lack for confidence nor research knowledge and ability... to find answers to whatever scientific topic.
I guess I am in for the long haul and this has, delightfuly, extended my scientific research career which has gone on continuously for some 40 years now and I have been retired for at least 6 years now.
I am anxious to work on Jeff Prager's nuclear loaded dust data, but just have not had adequate time as I feel there are lots more great answers to be revealed on the nukes used, not DEWs, not HARP, not FIRES.
IMO, all destructions comes from incendiaries, high-explosive directed shape charges, and finally micro nukes or mini nukes as directed shape charges.
I would rather spend my time researching for new info than to subject myself to unending debate that mostly goes nowhere, especially in the case of Judy Wood devotees. The explosives evidence is massively powerful and most convincing, both qualitatively and quantitatively in terms of forces and energies required.
If Steve Jones was to calculate the energy requirements, maybe he can be persuaded to visit nukes, unless he has a pre-ordained agenda...
I am just too busy for debating much for the near future. But I will keep on posting.
If you do not find one of my posts relavant for you, just ignore it and move on. I do not care what other people post and I do not criticize them if I feel it is irrelevant or out of date or whatever.
Maybe you can forgive or ignore my shortcomings in the future.
Peace
-
-
Well, thanks for the clarification. You are not on this forum to discuss or debate. I realize how busy you are in the more important hard science 9-11 truth efforts. Guess I will not be opening any more of your posts since they are not meant to evoke responses and it would be impossible to find anything to respond to anyway since you just fire links at us with no commentary whatsoever.
-
-
Jeannine, I just saw your post of 8-24-16
My strongest point against Dave Thomas is his use of phony or hoax momentum collision physics. Dave Thomas is a smart and deceptive character but I have never met him nor had any direct communication with him.
He uses unacceptable high school elementary level adulterated physics momentum equation(s) to falsely try to support his and Sunder's and Bazant's pile driver theory. I have not seen anyone disprove his physics like I have and there should be other physicists or engineers or scientists with adequate multi-scientific backgrounds with real world experience who should be debunking him with valid and acceptable physics, but I am aware of no one else who has gone after Dave Thomas who appears to see can or has debunked his scientifically absurd theory. Who else has exposed the falseness of Dave Thomas' phony physics-based Theory...
I finally got my ideas and scientifically-backed theses on YouTube in a -part interview video by Dr Jim Fetzer, much of which was the same content presented by me in Vancouver.
Again, I am not on this site to debate, specifically, but to report on data and information I have actively researched and present novel ideas and information for members of this site to contemplate and to consider.
I consider myself a science analyst who uses my long gained science skills to see behind the unscientific lies and false news they are continuously propagandizing.
I enjoy using my scientific analysis expertise to debunk much of the false MSM and USA Government false scientific scenarios, allowing me to continue my long career in the multi-scientific fields that I have acquired knowledge in.
If one wants to criticize my posts or ask for further explanations to my posts, I will probably reply, but I am not on this site to find debates, but mostly to inform members of my findings. Most of my posts are informational in terms of news, debates, interviews, graphics I create, materials I support or debunk or just present as informational on site-related topics.
What do you want to debate about or criticize my posting habits about.
If you think my posts are for worn out topics, just skip over them. Other members seem to be interested in them
Perhaps you can find other members who are on this site to provoke debating which may fulfill you thirst and hunger for debating.
Finally, I use this site as I value the postings of those few members who consistently make postings to further my understanding and knowledge of those posted subjects & issues.
My purpose here is not to provoke debate but to educate and inform fellow members where as my multiscientific fields background can be and is useful...
Jeannon Kralj said:Chuck,
It is nice to know about all these "debates" and to have the links. However, you mainly just do a data dump. You do not want to discuss or engage fellow forum members on any of the many many issues raised in your original posting.
Do you or do you not wish to debate and discuss any point or do you wish to keep dumping links on us with no idea of why you are doing this or what your position is.
I will tell you that this can be quite confusing because you seem to support the independent WTC dust study contracted by Mohr and conducted by Dr. Millette. Dave Thomas of NMRS group is someone who also supports this dust study and NMRS members include Mohn and Thomas. Dave Thomas posts under his real name at the JREF forum. Yet Dave Thomas is someone you disagree with because Thomas supports the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT), what I call the "pile driver theory" of the top floors pushing down on the bottom section of the building cause the "collapse." driver theory" .
So your data dump is full of things you agree with and things you disagree with but you will never initiate an orderly discussion on this forum.
P.S.
The pile driver theory has so long ago and so thoroughly and professionally been debunked on about 20 old YouTube videos that I do not see much point in debating that at this time. I feel sure you are correct in your statements debunking this theory, and it is good to be reminded that NIST actually had the chutzpah to make this assertion in writing, but I have to wonder why of why are you rehasing this very very old matter in relation to the historical records of 9-11 truth seeking?
About
Welcome to
9/11 Scholars Forum
© 2024 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Powered by
