"There's a nationwide effort to suppress the identity of the people who were involved in the attacks"

How can one hope to solve a problem if the cause is not identified?

The truth will set you free.

Somebody aught to tell these clowns that Muslims are not an "ethnic group" and that whilst they may be "a warm loving town" that the heat felt by those who suffered on 9/11 was a symbol of what is to come unless these kind-hearted loving people wake up to the reality that is "The Religion of Peace". Furthermore, the father did not condemn all Muslims, just terrorists ! He is a lot more kind hearted than I would be in a similiar situation.

I've repeatedly said this. Perhaps Ruth Epstein, one of two Kent selectman who voted the plaque down can explain where I am wrong. Were those 9/11 hijackers 19 Jewish "terrorists." Were rabbis and other Jewish religious leaders, Jewish scholars, etc., justifying violent terrorism against non-Jews because they are non-Jews, I would expect James Gadiel's memorial plaque to read, "Murdered by Jewish terrorists." And that is exactly how it would read. Americans would demand it.

That's the way it works. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, Americans are silent by and large. Why?

Is there such a thing as a guilty Islamic Terrorist?

Ever wondered why Muslims always deny that it wasn’t Muslims that did the killing, and then turn around and call the killers ‘martyrs’ and praise them? Well, all these queer and twisted followers of the prophet follow the Koran, wherein it is written:

8:12 “Those that the Muslims killed were not really killed by them. It was Allah who did the killing”

YUSUFALI: It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).

PICKTHAL: Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower.

SHAKIR: So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

Allah is also a murderer, according to this verse.

That is exactly the spineless attitude which allows Muslams the ability to make people afraid to say it was Muslam terrorists who attacked this country and murdered all who died.
I find it offensive that America is cowering before this bunch of seventh century dessert trash.
One morning you will be awoken, to the call to prayer from a Muslam minerette, look in the mirror and see the reason you were subjecated.

"We perceive ourselves as a very warm, loving town," said Ruth Epstein, a Kent selectman and one of two town leaders to vote the plaque down. "To disparage any one ethnic group is just against everything that we stand for here."...

What ethnic group is Islam now? Also, how is denying a father the right to an accurate memorial to his son "warm and loving"? I would way that it is a cold and callous. This is rather like a black lynching victim's relatives being denied the right to mention the perpetrators in the 50's. There would have been an uproar even then.

"What ethnicity are Muslims again?"

That's the question. Muslims are adherents of a fascist death cult, the same as Nazism. 9/11 is the evidence.

Dear wildjew, Europeans are as silent as Americans are. We're told the terrorists are just terrorists, no relation to the religion of peace(TM).

God's speed Peter Gabriel. Fight the fight so your son may be remembered the way you wish...he was surely murdered by Muslim Terrorists that fateful day and Ruth is a simple ignoramous.

The selectmen are afraid of upsetting the one muslim family in the town. Maybe the selectmen should consider that by putting in the phrase "Muslim terrorist" it will cause the family, if they are truly honest, to re-examine their so-called belief and recognize that the Muslim terrorists are simply following the edicts of Allah and ol' Mo and free themselves of the murderous cult. But I guess to some, all religions are the same. It's all our fault. Yada, yada, yada. Keep up the fight Mr. Gadiel.

"We have at least one Muslim family living here with children and it — it would be just awful to have them see something like that," Epstein told Fox" Newshttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569771,00.html

"To disparage any one ethnic group is just against everything that we stand for here."...

Hmmm...
It seems there are no Koo-rans in Kent.

Of course,Ruthie has not read one yet,poor dear...

"We have at least one Muslim family living here with children and it — it would be just awful to have them see something like that,"

Yeah, it sure would but not as awful as it was for me to see those towers fall and know that I lost friends that day at the hands of MUSLIM TERRORISTS! I see awful stuff every day; do you want to come and censor what I see Ruth? Is the truth and reality just too much for you to bear? It must be nice to live in a fantasy world; I wouldn't know, I grew up in NYC and lost a lot of my "Bravest" friends on that "awful" day.

"We perceive ourselves as a very warm, loving town," said Ruth Epstein, a Kent selectman and one of two town leaders to vote the plaque down. "To disparage any one ethnic (sic) group is just against everything that we stand for here."...

If she wants to keep that warmth and love there, there can't be any room in that town for the kind of "warmth" and "love" that:

- Coptic Christians get from Egyptian mahoundians;

- Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus get from Porkistani mahoundians;

- Thai Buddhists get from mahoundians in Southern Thailand;

- The few Christians left in Somalia get from the Al-Shahabi. Al-Shaddadi, Al-Habibi, Al-Effendi (of whatever the hell the mahoundian population of that country calls itself);

- Non-mahoundians get from mahoundian inbred bedouin savage pedophiles in the home of the giant black Rubik's cube worshipped in mahoundianism;

And so on, and so forth... Ms Epstein had better pick between warmth and love for all except the most intolerant, vile and vicious individuals, which (not who) tolerate nobody but (in certain situations) males of their own ilk; or allow it just for the followers of that intolerant, vile and vicious ideology. She can't have it for both human beings and mahoundians.

"They were Muslim terrorists."

I thought we lived in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. To say that Muslim terrorists are responsible for 9/11 is a baseless accusation. Just after 9/11 Powell said he was going to provide some real proof:

"U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Sunday that Washington would soon share with its allies evidence showing that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of the attacks of Sept. 11 on New York and Washington. "I think in the near future we will be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack," Mr. Powell said in a television interview."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/24/news/24iht-a1_14.html

It is now 8 years later, and we are still waiting for this paper. We have not been shown the tiniest shred of proof that Muslim terrorists are responsible for 9/11. If the guy wanted this inscribed on his memorial: "Murdered by George Bush - who is responsible for 9/11," would anyone here object? If you would not object, you are honest. If you would object, you are a hypocrite. The is no more legal reason to allow one vs the other. Have fun calling me names!

FU DAVE! Don't even start with your BS on this thread. I guess the tape of your idol boasting and laughing after 911 wasn't enough for a piece of shiite like you. Since you're waiting for proof, why don't you share yours about George Bush is responsible. You can't so your simply an asshole MUSLIM TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER.

Next thing Dave742 will say is that Thai Buddhists or Malaysian Hindus are responsible for the genocide against self-hating black mahoundians in Darfur.

Most "Truthers" are indeed Muslim sympathizers and some even support terrorism against the West and Israel.

To them the U.S. and its people are worse than Nazis.

But mostly they are just a very despicable group of self-loathing losers.

Comic relief:
"I guess the tape of your idol boasting and laughing after 911 wasn't enough for a piece of shiite like you."

Your tape was an obvious hoax, and is proof of nothing. If I make a grainy video of someone who looks a little like Bush, and he confesses to 9/11, it would also mean nothing. BTW, why is it that ever since 9/11 al-Qaeda has been unable to get its hands on a functioning videotape machine? These things are very cheap. Cell phones now take better video than the tapes of bin Laden that came out. I wish they had a bigger budget for their video equipment.

In contrast to your silly tape, here is an excerpt from a real interview of bin Laden soon after the attacks:

"Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

Usamah: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin true Muslim people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon. I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle."

BBC Monitoring South Asia - Political
Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring

September 29, 2001, Saturday

Full text of Pakistani paper's "exclusive" interview with Usamah Bin-Ladin

SOURCE: Karachi Ummat in Urdu 28 Sep 01 pp1, 7

dave742 | October 27, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply

dave742 has once again, manage to hit a new low. Trutherism is certainly a mental disease and one so closely aligned with extreme liberalism.

It is not even shocking anymore, just predictable and quite sad.

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

"Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

The militant Islamic group decided "we should destroy towers in America" because "we are a free people... and we want to regain the freedom of our nation," said bin Laden, dressed in yellow and white robes and videotaped against a plain brown background."

Osama claims responsibility for 9/11
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms

"Al Qaeda terrorist network leader Osama bin Laden said in an audiotape broadcast by the Al Jazeera satellite channel that he himself had assigned 19 people for the Sep 11, 2001, attacks in the US."

2004 Osama bin Laden video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

I am not going to call you a name, but your claim to being a scientist is very strange concidering your lack of curiousity.

What do you know, Dave742 is a Troofer! I never would have guessed :)

livingengine:
You can bring up all the fake tapes you like. I have showed you a real interview where Obama denies responsibility. Even if one of your tapes is real, then we are faced with a person who is giving conflicting accounts. If an accused person goes on the witness stand an alternately says he commtted the crime, and then says he did not, then the testimony is worthless. Absent any real evidence, this person cannot be convicted.

Go into your local police station and confess to a crime, then say one minute later you did not do it. They will politely ask you to leave. If the police investigate you in relation to the crime, and find no evidence, you will not be convicted because you said you did it and also said you did not do it. As a matter of fact, with no evidence, even a confession without a subsequent denial will not get you convicted. If there is no proof either way, then there is no difference in one person saying he wants "Murdered by Muslim terrorists" on his sons memorial, and another who wants "Murdered by Bush" on his memorial. Evidence should mean something, shouldn't it?

BTW. here's another excerpt from the bin Laden interview:

"Ummat: Are there other safe areas other than Afghanistan, where you can continue jihad?

Usamah: There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir."

Wow! We have a lot of bombing in front of us!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20753339/Gates-of-Ijtihad

Yes livingengine, its quite funny how all the Troofers always make reference to that one questionable tape, and the interview before the invasion, while simultaneously ignoring all the subsequent times Bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks and the numerous references to "the battle of Washington" and "the Battle of New York" from Bin Laden and his second banana Al Zawahari in almost every tape they've put out.

Abu Allah:
"its quite funny how all the Troofers always make reference to that one questionable tape"

If you can realize that at least one fake tape was made, can't you realize that the party responsible for that fake tape might try to make another?

The 2004 freeze-frame video is no better attemt than the first one was.

"You can bring up all the fake tapes you like. I have showed you a real interview where Obama denies responsibility."

ROTFLMFAO

Doh. I too get osama and obama mixed up all the time. It's inevitable when discussing MUSLIM TERRORISTS. Dave obviously lives in a fantasy world where muslims do no wrong and all the worlds problems are because muslims are misunderstood. Maybe if we just ignore him, he'll go away and play troofer with his liberal friends, err, I mean brothers. Now, back to the thread...if muslims can't stand to look at a grave with MUSLIM TERRORIST on it then maybe they could simply stop being MUSLIM TERRORISTS.

So Dave, after that last Freudian? slip are you a Birther now, too? Just kidding.

But with regard to the tape you mention, it doesn't really mean much at all to me. I would say it looks kinda phoney, but for all I know, some Marxist asshole made it in his parent's basement in order to try to implicate the government in a cover up. It never ceases to amaze me the way that Troofers can claim the government was able to successfully pull off such a massive and complex conspiracy that would have required the knowledge, complicity, and silence of thousands, while at the same time accusing them of producing a low quality counterfeit video. The same kind of nonsense logic allows people to blame George W. Bush for supposed acts that would make any James Bond villain blush with envy, while simultaneously ridiculing him for having the IQ of a chimp.

Abu:
"Obama denies responsibility"

Freudian slip, I guess.

epistemology, I've got to concede your point about the Europeans and Islam. I am listening to Mark Steyn's "America Alone" for the second time. He goes to great lengths making your case. I guess I just expect more from the American people. It's been my impression Americans are made of a tougher fiber than this.

I don't know...you may on to something here. What if it was obama that implicated osama so that bush would invade afghanistan so that obama could use that to win the presidency. Damn, these guys are good. That would explain how the arab media played the fake tapes of osama; since they really support obama. It might even be obama in the tapes with some great makeup work; he probably got oprah's makeup people to help him out. Yeah, that's it...we've figure out the whole conspiracy with daves help. Genius, pure genius dave is.

Abu:
You got your Freudian slip comment just in front of mine. Same minute, though.

"pull off such a massive and complex conspiracy that would have required the knowledge, complicity, and silence of thousands, while at the same time accusing them of producing a low quality counterfeit video"

The conspiracy did not need thousands. Maybe dozens. It's funny, but the 9/11 hoax is far more crude than the videotape hoaxes were, and very few people even question the videotapes. The people who don't even question the videotapes will never question 9/11. Governments can do whatever they want. People will never look for answers within their own in-group. Basic psychology. So how do you suppose nanothermite found its way into the dust around New York on 9/11?

Probable from the nano MUSLIM TERRORISTS

BTW, even though the US has not got around to releasing its evidence, the UK did release the evidence it has against bin Laden. Funniest thing I ever read:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1579043.stm

Dave, I'm not going to waste my time debating nanothermite or any other nonsense with you. Its a pointless waste of time. Troofers literally spend day and night on the internet compiling and arguing for "evidence" to try to back up their sick fantasies about "The Truth." Anytime one of their assertions is proven wrong (for example the patently false claim that the towers collapsed from the bottom like a demolished building or the size of the debris field for the flight that went down in PA based on Mapquesting distances) they simply ignore it, move the goal posts and look for new 'evidence,' or in most cases just keep repeating the lie even after it is thoroughly debunked.

But your claim again demonstrates the logical disconnect in your thinking. You first claim that only a dozen or so people would need to have been involved and then turn around and assert that the towers were rigged for demolition! Have you ever been to the World Trade center? Do you have any idea the number of man-hours involved in setting up and implementing a conventional demolition on a normal sized sky scraper, when it is completely empty, let alone one of the most massive structures ever built, full of thousands of workers and a huge security compliment? Did Dick Cheney wire up the explosives himself?

Abu:
I said dozens. The "s" on the end indicates a plural. Nanothermite is not used as a conventional demolition material.

"Nanothermite is not used as a conventional demolition material."

For what types of demolition is nano-thermite used? How many man-hours would be required to plan, set up and carry out such a demolition, all in complete airtight secrecy under the extraordinary circumstances I previously mentioned?
Now compare previous statement with the following:

"It's funny, but the 9/11 hoax is far more crude than the videotape hoaxes were, and very few people even question the videotapes."

More logical disconnect? Maybe Bush really is an evil genius with the IQ of a chimp?

Abu:
Your right. The Muslims must have done it. The nanothermite in the dust could not be connected to the falling of the buildings, and must have been an incidental finding. My apologies.

dumbledore, I'm certainly not convinced he is a Muslim. What is clear is that he has a deep hatred for Western society, probably because of his own lack of ability to function socially within it. Like most Neo Nazis, socialists, and other garden variety anti-Semites and general haters of the West, he eagerly supports global Islam, not because he views Muslims as sympathetic victims, but because he views them as a subversive force toward the West and against Israel. These fifth column types often claim to be Atheists or Christians, but are almost always huge fans of Hizballah and Ahmadinijad and or Hamas.

I read his unibomber manifesto style paper on the Gates of Ijtihad. The paper was actually far lengthier than the original by Hallaq on which it was based. References were meticulously cited. And yet, the paper would probably have trouble obtaining a passing grade in many undergrad classes. It was long and rambling, and broke some fundamental rules for rhetorical papers. For example, the conclusion was basically nothing more than a pure inductive leap with new concepts not mentioned in the body, much less supported.

It is clear that Dave spends countless hours in the library. I'm speculating that these hours are only equaled by the amount of time he spends on "911 Truth" blogs. Based on the paper and on his many posts at Jihadwatch, I'm leaning toward the idea that he suffers from Asperger syndrome or a similar autism spectrum disorder. I'm not sure what totalitarian world view his almost certain social outcast status has led him to embrace, but I'm guessing he's also a big fan of Hugo Chavez, but I can definitely see him as a good candidate to become a "Revert" to Islam.

Abu:
Awesome. Now that's why I love posting to these blogs.

"It couldn't possibly have been two 747's crashing into the outer colums of the WTC buildings that's for sure."

I was never really one to put much stock in Occam's razor anyway :) When Osama's own son believes that he was responsible, yet one still believes that it was really 'da jooz,' it may be time to stop and reflect upon just how far one has wondered into the nutroot forest:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1223409/My-bizarre-terrifying-childhood-father-Osama-bin-Laden.html

Here's an author discussing a book she wrote about an Australian woman's experience within Islam. In this part of the talk, she describes how the woman came to be in Afghanistan on 9/11 and recounts what happened in the Al Qaeda camp that day.

http://fora.tv/2009/06/19/An_Australian_Womans_Extraordinary_Journey_into_Jihad#chapter_05

I wonder if the father of the slaughtered son would accept "Murdered by Islamic Jihadists" instead of "Murdered by Muslim terrorists"?

The town council would then not have to worry about the local "Muslim" family being "implicated", since they are surely not Islamic Jihadists (one hopes).

He could try a "compromise" with the new formulation.

thank god:
"that caused the floors to pancake down on top of one another"

The "official pancake theory" was debunked a long time ago. Not even NIST supports it any more:

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse"

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

If you are going to unthinkingly support whatever the "official" theory is, and least find out what you should be supporting first.

"Isn't thermite used in repairing subway track"

The thermite found in the dust was not ordinary thermite used for welding, but was a highly reactive type that is made using nano-tachnology, hence: nanothermite. They do not use nanothermite to weld subway tracks. Good lord.

dave742,

I actually saw the second plane hit live and both towers collapse from within a mile's distance.

The weakness started just above the point of impact on both towers, where the intense heat of the fire compromised the steel column supports contrary to what you and Rosie say.

The collapse started from ABOVE the impact zones on both towers.

Besides you being an asshole, you are truly an uminformed asshole. That is unless like a true Muslim would have me, I am simply supposed to disbelieve my own "lying eyes".

Get a grip son, and do us all a favor and move along now.

Lexis Nexus be damned!

Frankly, if Jihad Watch staff are going to scrupulously delete posts that have "Muzzie" in it, then for God's sakes delete posts that promote Trutherism. Let's get our priorities straight, for nikah's sake!

Nonie Darwish, in her book on sharia, 'Cruel and Usual Punishment', writes - in the opening chapter, A Warning to the West:

"To escape Sharia marriage laws, I moved to America in 1978, in large part in order to be able to marry an Egyptian Coptic Christian. Even so, it was necessary for him to convert to Islam in order to protect me from the long arm of sharia law. {Not having read 'Now they Call Me Infidel', I don't know the full story of Nonie's marriage and how she moved from being an unhappy Muslimah with a nominally-converted-to-Islam ex-Copt husband, to an openly-professing Christian [which she is today], presumably with a happily-returned-to-christianity husband. - dda}

"My move to America in 1978 liberated me from life under the most oppressive system of laws in the world - the best gift that living in America has given me. To live under Islamic sharia law is to live in the world's largest maximum-security prison, and I for one don't want to be incarcerated again.

"For the next twenty years, I quietly lived the American dream...One day, trying to impress a close family friend visiting from Egypt, we visited a mosque for Friday prayers. As I listened to the sermon, I was amazed at the radical tone. Even my Egyptian friend was offended and asked to leave. Something was happening in the America I loved, but I pushed it out of my mind and did nothing.

"Later, in the summer of 2001, I took my American-born children for a visit to Egypt, and was struck by how much more radical Egypt had become.

"I returned to the US on September 10 2001, and woke to a nightmare next morning.

"When I saw the second plane fly into the Twin Towers, I knew that jihad had come to America, and my life would change forever. I would need to speak out to warn my fellow Americans of what was coming". END QUOTE.

See that, everyone? - 'when I saw the second plane fly into the Twin Towers, *I knew that jihad had come to America'.

It was the sight of that second plane, deliberately driving for the building, that told Oriana Fallaci, too, that she was witnessing an act of war:

Here is her inimitable description:

"I was at home, which is in the center of Manhattan. At exactly nine o'clock I had a sensation of danger, of a danger that perhaps would not touch me, but that undoubtedly concerned me. It's the sensation you feel in war, or rather in combat, when every pore of your skin feels the bullet or the rocket as it approaches, and you perk up your ears and yell at the person next to you: "Down! Get down!"

"I pushed it away. It's not like I was in Vietnam. It's not like I was in one of the many wars, those fucking wars that have tortured my life since World War II. I was in New York for God's sake, on a marvellous September morning in 2001.

"But the sensation still possessed me, inexplicably. So I did something I never do in the morning and turned on the TV. The audio wasn't working. The screen was. And on every channel—and here there are almost a hundred—you saw a tower of the World Trade Center burning like a giant match. A short circuit? A small plane gone off course? Or an act of deliberate terrorism?

"I stayed there almost paralyzed, fixed on that tower, and while I fixed on it, while I asked myself those three questions, another plane appeared on the screen. White, huge. An airliner. It was flying extremely low.

"Flying low, it turned toward the second tower like a bomber who draws a bead on a target and then hurls himself at it. That's when I understood."

And here, from 'Infidel', is Ayaan Hirsi Ali's account of the September 11 attacks, and how she 'read' them at the time - and how other Muslims in Holland reacted.

"One afternoon, in my second week of working at the Labor Party, I was reading old reports when a commotion erupted downstairs. I walked down to see what could be making so much noise, determined to tell these people to be quiet.

"A clump of people huddled around the TV, which was tuned to CNN. I sighed. In those days I was prejudiced against America, and the American media...During Bill Clinton's impeachment, CNN had constantly reported LIVE with BREAKING NEWS on completely trivial aspects of Clinton's sex life...

"So when I saw the BREAKING NEWS banner that afternoon, I thought CNN had unearthed another minor event to bang its drum about.

"But as I stood there the second plane hit the World Trade Centre.

"The anchorwoman was saying that it might not be an accident - that the two crashes might be a deliberate attack. Again and again we watched the horrific footage of planes hitting the towers. I found myself screwing my eyes tight shut and thinking in Somali - 'Oh Allah, please let it not be Muslims who did this."...

"But that night we saw news footage that shocked me further. In Holland itself - in Ede, the town I had lived in - a camera crew who happened to be filming on the streets just after the towers were hit recorded a group of Muslim kids jubilating.

"All of Holland was shaken by that, but I was far more frightened than most. Ellen kept telling me, 'They were just kids, it's been overblown, if the cameras hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened.' But I knew, inside, that the cameras just caught a part of it. If there had been more cameras in other neighbourhoods, they would have seen it there, too."

Ayaan then describes her conversation with the then chairman of the Labor party, on the morning of September 12. "He said, 'It's so weird, isn't it, all these people saying this has to do with Islam?"

"I couldn't help myself" (says Ayaan). "Just before we reached the office, I blurted out, 'But it *is* about Islam. This is based in belief. This is Islam."

'Ruud said, 'Ayaan, of course these people may have been Muslims. But they are a lunatic fringe...Most Muslims do not believe these things. To say so is to disparage a faith which is the second largest religion in world, and which is civilised, and peaceful.'

'I walked into the office [says Ayaan], thinking, 'I have to wake these people up"...It was not a lunatic fringe who felt this way about America and the West. I knew that a vast mass of Muslims would see the attacks as justified retaliation against the infidel enemies of Islam. War had been declared in the name of Islam, my religion, and now I had to make a choice. Which side was I on? I found I couldn't avoid the question. Was this really Islam? Did Islam permit, even call for, this kind of slaughter? Did I, as a Muslim, approve of the attack? And if I didn't, where did I stand on Islam?"

Ayaan then describes the research and reflection that she engaged in. She states, "Mohammed Atta, the hijackers' leader, had instructed them on how to 'die as a good Muslim'. He used the prayer every Muslim utters when he is dying...I read it and I recognized it. Everything about the tone and substance of that letter was familiar to me. This was not just Islam, this was the core of Islam: Mohamed Atta believed that he was giving his life for Allah.

"Mohamed Atta was exactly my age. I felt as though I knew him, and in fact, I did know many people just like him. The people in the debating center I had attended in Nairobi, for example: they would have written that letter, if they had had the courage to do as Atta did. If I had remained with them, perhaps I would have done it, or perhaps Ijaabo would have. There were tens of thousands of people in Africa, the Middle East - even in Holland - who thought this way. Every devout Muslim who aspired to practise genuine Islam - the Muslim Brotherhood Islam, the Islam of the Medina Quran schools - een if they didn't actively support the attacks, they must at least have approved of them..."

[Infidel, from pp. 267-270].

Who is this idiot called "Dave". I suggest we ignore the stupid Islamic moron. I will.

Why are you all wasting your valuable time debating with an obvious fantastist lying SOB. (Dave) He is loving this, ignore him guys/gals Please its so boring and you are all more inteligent than him and presumably have more to contribute to this site than replying to a stupid, ignorant piece of shit like this. It also puts other people off joining I would imagine. PLEASE !

thank god:
"My point is the buildings collapsed because two planes hit the outer/perimiter columns of the WTC and that’s what your link states as well."

Yes, I know what NIST claims, which is not any better than the discredited pancake theory, which everyone thought was the God's truth until NIST replaced it with another BS theory. I was just informing you that the "truth" had been updated, and I thought you should know.

So which plane hit WTC7?

"Cell phones now take better video than the tapes of bin Laden that came out. I wish they had a bigger budget for their video equipment."

"It's funny, but the 9/11 hoax is far more crude than the videotape hoaxes were, and very few people even question the videotapes."

"The thermite found in the dust was not ordinary thermite used for welding, but was a highly reactive type that is made using nano-tachnology, hence: nanothermite."

Spectacular logic, my friend.

"I was just informing you that the "truth" had been updated, and I thought you should know."

The "truth" now being that 8 European scientists claim to have found nanothermite in the debris at ground zero and in truth they are the only ones to have examined the debris under a microscope since 9-11 and from that the truth is that upwards of a hundred tons of nanothermite were distributed throughout the World Trade Center buildings with the permission of the owners and the security staff and that the nanothermite ignited at precisely the same moment that two 747s crashed into the buildings.

Gee Dave, isn't a wonder the insurance company that paid out millions to Silverstein doesn't act on these claims or are they part of the conspiracy too?

Abu:
"The thermite found in the dust was not ordinary thermite used for welding, but was a highly reactive type that is made using nano-tachnology, hence: nanothermite."

"Spectacular logic, my friend"

When you weld with normal thermite, the material is consumed in the process. The nano thermite found in the dust was still active. Are you saying that railroad tracks are covered with active thermitic material?
Yes, the technology to make nanostructured thermitic material is very different than what is used for welding. Here is example of one method reported in the literature:

"Using a sol-gel procedure first described by Pekala to make aerogels, a porous organic solid matrix was prepared by the polycondensation of resorcinol with formaldehyde (RF) using Na2CO3 as a catalyst. Subsequent crystallization of an oxidizer, ammonium perchlorate (AP), within the pores of the gel matrix, completes the synthesis. The oxidizer was first dissolved in water, and then added to the reacting RF sol prior to gelation. Gelation of the RF sol occurred first. Crystallization of the AP was then induced by exchanging the liquid residing in the pores for a solvent in which the oxidizer was insoluble. The final step of removing the pore fluid was done by slow evaporation resulting in a dense solid. The wet gels were covered and allowed to age for atleast 24 hours under ambient conditions. After that they were immersed in a bath of absolute ethanol where they were washed for ~1 week. Aerogel samples were processed in Polaron supercritical point drier. The solvent liquid in the wet gel pores was exchanged for CO2 for 2-3 days, after which the temperature of the vessel was ramped up to ~45 °C, while maintaining a pressure of ~100 bars. The vessel was then depressurized at a rate of about 7 bars per hour.(CAUTION: Take special care when doing supercritical drying of energetic composites. We used only CO2 (low temperature ~45 °C) supercritical extraction and place a blast shield in front
of the extraction vessel.)"
Gash, A. E., et al, "Nanostructured Energetic Materials with Sol-gel Methods," Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, Volume 800, 2004, p. 55-66

Do you think this is what they made when they are welding railroad tracks?

thank god:
"hundred tons of nanothermite"

I think it was more like trillions of billions of tons.

I must say, as an English language maven, I too have to jump in on the side of objecting to the phrase "Murdered by Muslim terrorists."

A simple "Murdered by Muslims" would do just fine, without introducing the risk of being redundant.

"Gee Dave, isn't a wonder the insurance company that paid out millions to Silverstein doesn't act on these claims or are they part of the conspiracy too?"

Ok, so maybe the insurance companies were in on it, and building security for all three buildings, and air traffic control, and the UK government who released evidence that was the funniest thing Dave ever read, and of course that covetous Jew Larry Silverstein who sat in front of a television camera and admitted he had ordered them to "pull it," which we all know of course means to bring down a building in the demolition industry. But please remember, Dave did put an 's' on the end of that dozens figure he stated, regarding the number of people needed to plan and implement such a conspiracy.

Abu:
For comparison purposes, here is how ordinary thermite is made:

"Thermite is 8 grams of iron oxide to 3 grams of aluminum. The formula is by weight but because aluminum is very light, it will appear to be approximately a 50-50 mix. Put them together in a container and mix them until it is an even mixture."

http://how2dostuff.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-make-thermite.html

I wonder which method is used to make the thermitic material used for welding railroad tracks? My vote is that nanothermite is not the material they use for welding.

"Spectacular logic, my friend."

Wow, perhaps I've overestimated your ability to understand basic logic up until now, so I'll do my best to spell it out for you:

I used your posts to show that you seem to simultaneously believe two contradictory concepts:

1. That the "911 conspiracy" was a crude hoax, even simpler than "faking" a grainy video of Osama bin Laden.

2. At the very same time, you assert that several dozen shadowy figures were able to use experimental nanotechnology, unproven in its viability for use in demolition to this very day, let alone nearly a decade ago, to carry out the largest controlled demolition in human history, all without the knowledge of the thousands of office workers, security, and guests who used the building every day. At the same time, they managed to fool millions of eye witnesses into believing that they saw two fuel laden, passenger packed Boeing 757s slam into the towers, causing them to fall.

If that is your idea of a crude hoax, I would earnestly like to know what you would consider to be an elaborate one.

thank God:
So we go from "hundreds of tons" to "20-100" tons. First, show me where you got the second number. Second, let's say 50 tons. I don't know the density of thermite, do you? Iron oxide has a density of about 5 grams per cubic centimeter. which works out to one ton for every 6.4 cubic feet. Fifty tons would be 320 cubic feet. This works out to a 3 foot by 3 foot square 35 feet high, or 7 pallets of the size: 3 feet by 3 feet by 5 feet. Those pallets would be damn heavy, though. Anyway, I really don't see it as impossible. When workers are driving around with stuff on forklifts where I work, I don't ask them what is in the boxes.

It seems doubtful that it would really take that much. I think you would agree with that. If you think that you scraping off some fire retardant material off some columns and starting a hydrocarbon fire is enough to bring a skyscraper down, I doubt the you would think 50 tons of a super explosive would be needed to do the same job.

Abu:
Yes, it took a lot of work and skill to carry out what was done on 9/11. Regardless of how much went into it, there is an abundance of evidence that shows that the official version is garbage. Those responsible knew that any inconsistancies would not matter, because they know basic psychology, and that the vast majority of people will refuse to even consider alternative explanations. You can have Cheney, Bush, and 50 CIA and FBI people hold a press conference, admit to being behind 9/11, and most people still would not believe it. In-group thinking trumps reality every time. In my scenario, people would assume that the evil Iranians drugged Cheney, Bush, and the rest, and that is why they were saying silly things.
So yes, it was complicated, but for thinking people who are not slaves to in-group thinking, it was a crude hoax. If the exact same events happened in Iran, you would realize immediately what the truth was. In the present case, you cannot, because in this case you are dealing with your in-group. It's the only difference.

Nonsense Dave, you are simply projecting now: I'm guessing that if/when Bin Laden is captured dragged back to the US, and explains on national television in English why he planed the attacks, that it will be the Troofers who still will not accept the fact that he did it. I can hear the cries of "Torture!" "Rendition!" You hate this country and its government, and you believe in a conspiracy because it is what you want to believe.

On the other hand, I and the vast majority of this country love this land in which we live, and we don't want to believe that our government makes mistakes or does bad things. We didn't want to believe there were no WMD in Iraq, or that prisoner abuse occurred at Abu Grahib, but that is what the evidence firmly points to, and that is what the vast majority of Americans believe, myself included, even though we don't want to. Using your magical conspiracy thinking, we could just say "Oh that Abu Grahib stuff was all set up in a Hollywood studio by Michael Moore," and it would in fact be much less of a stretch than the vast planning, work, and perfect implementation needed to carry out the massive conspiracy that the 'Truthers' believe in.

"So we go from "hundreds of tons" to "20-100" tons."

I never wrote hundreds of tons. I wrote upwards of a hundred tons. Here's the interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

He actually says between 10-100 metric tons and not 20. I also said to bring down the buildingS. As you previously pointed out, an 's' indicates a plural form.

As for how much nanothermite it would take to bring down a skyskraper, it doesn't matter. I don't believe this guy when he says he and his group were the first to perform microscopic testing on the debris and so I'm not convinced about his "discovery". The theory that the attack on the WTC buildings amounted to controlled demolitions has existed since the day it occured yet it took researchers from Denmark to examine the debris years after it happened and find that nanothermite was everywhere.

Again, why doesn't the insurance company that holds the policy on the WTC at least take these "alternative theories" seriously?

"If the exact same events happened in Iran, you would realize immediately what the truth was. In the present case, you cannot, because in this case you are dealing with your in-group. It's the only difference."

Not at all. Firstly, I don't give the government of Iran credit for being able to build a building like the WTC, let alone the capability to covertly carry out the greatest controlled demolition in earth's history on it.

But the fact is, numerous bombings have been carried out recently against the regime. I could use Troofer "Who Stands to Benefit?" logic to try to claim that they are false flag jobs used in order to give them a pretext to crack down on Sunni seperatists, but this probably sounds far fetched to you and rightfully so. In fact, I can't say that I've heard any Westerners, or anyone else for that matter, making this claim.

No, I think you are the one suffering from in-group think. It's just that you seem to identify Iran/Hezballah as your guys, as opposed to the country in which you currently reside.

Conspiracy-theory thinking is based on a flawed circular psycho/logical mechanism:

All data that contraindicates the conspiracy in question is rejected, because according to the conspiracy, the evil cabal who perpetrated the conspiracy also are able to successfully manipulate and/or manufacture any and all apparent evidence in order to contradict or undermine the conspiracy claims.

Once a person believes in this basic principle, there is no further discussion; although, as we can see from "dave" above, they are all too willing to obsessively debate complex minutiae as though they were actually debating evidence. They are doing no such thing: they are already convinced at the start of the conspiracy, and they are, as an indissoluble corollary, also convinced of the principle described above -- namely, that all data that undermines the conspiracy theory must be a priori false because manipulated or manufactured by the evil and superpowered Conspirators.

Debating dave on this, then, is as fruitless as debating Abdullah Mikail -- that is, if you think you are actually going to persuade him. It's ok to debate such robots as a spectacle for other readers, and to consistently reiterate the truth; it's not ok, however -- indeed, it's rather daft -- to consider dave or Abdullah as actual rational human beings.

Hesperado, that is a good point about the circular logic. I also feel that a fundamental element to these conspiracies is 'magical thinking.' The idea being, that "if we could just expose the illuminati/freemasons/Jewish cabal behind this conspiracy, the world will be wonderful and my life won't be so pathetic anymore." A good example of this is the belief in cars that run on water and or 100 mile-per-gallon carburetors suppressed by 'Big Auto.'

As far as debating trolls, I usually try to avoid it, but I'll make exceptions in some cases. I certainly never debate them with the hope of convincing them of my views. In the case of someone like Michael Mackay (aka Abdullah Mikhail) I think it is a good idea to debate him for the simple reason that we know who he is and what his agenda is. Baiting him into hours of posts here is a productive effort in my opinion, because the countless hours he spends on here are hours he is NOT spending conducting effective dawa or other forms of jihad. I generally prefer to leave this to others as I find him to be a rather boring and repetitive troll, and the mental gymnastics he must go through to try to defend Islam as perfect in every way make him come off as rather obtuse.

With regard to Dave742, I like to engage him for pedagogical purposes, as well as for my own entertainment. As I mentioned previously, I speculate that he suffers from Asperger's or a similar pathology. The weasel-like patience and tenacity that this fosters at times make him appear quite clever, but with a little coaxing he can be baited into spewing out some spectacular logical fallacies, and other such amusing statements. The Troofer nonsense on this thread is a prime example. I've always suspected he was a Troofer, but I never really thought he would admit it straightforwardly.

thank god:
"It's just that you seem to identify Iran/Hezballah as your guys"

I do, but only after researching the issue. Ten years ago I was a good US citizen. I thought the US focus in world affairs was on making money, and would harm people who got in their way, but basically I thought they did more good in the world than bad. I was completely and totally naive. A perfect American. When 9/11 happened, I wanted to know why Muslims would attack us, and as naive as I was, I was not stupid enought to believe that it was because they "hated our freedoms." So I started reading. You are right about that - I read constantly now. Ninety-five percent of what I read is not found on the internet. It is through reading scholarly material that I became who I am now, not by some inborn affinity I have towards Arabs or communists or anyone else. Even people of the far left are amazed at how radical I have become in a short amount of time. All it takes is an open-mind free of in-group thinking. So my affiliations are arrived at through this process, but I am not attached to it at all, which is the great thing about not having an in-group. I have been in many, many situations where I have confronted information that completely contradicts my world-view, so I change my world-view. It's easy for me. If I am confronted with real information that Hezbollah is evil, I will cease supporting them. What the hell do I care? I am not hanging around with them or attached to them in any way. I change my mind all the time. You and you friends here cannot do any of this. Your entire existence and worldview depends on the US being the most moral, most perfect nation ever created. If you were to ever realize otherwise, you entire worldview would dissolve, and you would be lost. You would likely commit suicide. I don't have that issue. Never did. When the US beat the Russians in hockey in the Olympics, I was very young. In general I would support the Americans, but was not psychotic about it like most Americans. When I saw the Russians play, I thought they were far better skaters and far more skilled, and the Americans played a checking/physical game that I thought was rude. So I went for the Russians. I had no idea what Communism was, and didn't care. All my friends thought I was crazy to support the Commies, even though they didn't know what that meant either. I never had these weird connections to groups that the rest of Americans have. Anyway, my lack of in-group thinking is what makes me crazy. Hezbollah is not my in-group. Nobody is. I do probably judge my wife and friends a little more leniently than others, so maybe my in-group is just very small.

Hesperado"
"All data that contraindicates the conspiracy in question is rejected, because according to the conspiracy, the evil cabal who perpetrated the conspiracy also are able to successfully manipulate and/or manufacture any and all apparent evidence in order to contradict or undermine the conspiracy claims."

Actually, this is a good description of this blog. Mr. Spencer brings up stories about the most ciolent/crazt Muslims, and you extrapolate that to over a billion people. It's a one big conspiracy - a billion people are out to get you. It is unbelievably funny to here you people call others "conspiracy theorists." If anyone shows you any information that contradicts your conspiracy, then they ae the rare exception, or they are practicing taqiyyah. How funny.

Dave, I'm not a maverick lone wolf like you. I have a good full time job, own a nice home, and have a wife and children. I'm invested in this country. You could say that I'm invested in the "Capitalist System." This can be a little confining. It doesn't allow me the freedom to spend 40+ hours per week in the library and equal that amount of time reading and posting on Troofer blogs. I don't believe this country is perfect, but I think it is better in nearly every measurable way to the despotic third world hell holes such as Iran that you so admire. I'm a sheep.

But you are something far worse. You believe our government killed 3000 of its own innocent civilians in order to fake a pretext to kill millions of innocent Muslim babies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon Iran. Yet you continue to live here, and assuming you are actually employed or that you ever purchase things, pay taxes to that very government so they can build and drop all manor of 'illegal' weapons on the heads of these helpless children.

If I believed any of this, I would at minimum take my family and catch the first flight I could find to Venezuela, Cuba, or Iran. But more likely, I would be on a hill somewhere with my rifle, with government workers or military personnel in my sights.

This leads me to make one or more of the following conclusions about you as a person:

1. You are a coward and hypocrite of epic proportions.
2. You are a sick sadist who enjoys having his tax dollars INTENTIONALLY used to kill innocent American civilians and helpless Muslim babies all over the world.
3. In reality you realize the Troofer stuff is all bullshit, but you enjoy the fantasy the way a 40 year old virgin enjoys Star Trek conventions.
4. You're just a plain old attention whore that didn't get enough affection from daddy so you spend all day posting contrarian views on numerous blogs.

Abu:
Yes, I am immoral. More immoral than you, because you actually believe the lies you are spoon fed. The reason I stay here is that I am not a lone wolf. I have a wife and friends, and I will not leave either. If I do anything illegal in order to try and change it, it would be ineffective and I would end up in jail. So I drink vodka and do nothing. (Not nothing, really. But what I do I'd rather not say). I probably don't need to feel guilty at all. People I meet from countries that are being affected by the US's "democracy" spreading efforts have no ill feelings towards US citizens, and only blame the government, so I try not to blame myself. I don't read 40 hours a week. I have a full time job as well. My wife would kill me if I read that much.

All a Muslim can do is manifacture information in support of the notion that 9/11 was an inside job ..O, and they aren't opposed to rewriting history as well. Best dave doesn't believe in the Holocaust, either.

...bet dave ..not Best

"Baiting him into hours of posts here is a productive effort in my opinion, because the countless hours he spends on here are hours he is NOT spending conducting effective dawa or other forms of jihad."

I can just see that:

Rasheed, calling up the stairs: "Abdullah! We need you to drive the SUV with "supplies" to the warehouse we spoke about!"

Abdullah, on the computer: "Just give me a few minutes, I'm refuting some bigots on Jihad Watch!"

Dave -
Just out of curiosity, what kind of evidence would it take for you to change your position on 9/11?

If you say "There is no such evidence!" then you have a position based on faith.

I saw planes crash into buildings, buildings catch fire and collapse. I also see an administration that couldn't or wouldn't fake the discovery of WMDs in Iraq.

Why go to the trouble of crashing planes into WTC to headfake a controlled demolition when it would have been simpler to replicate the 1993 attempt with a bigger payload?

mikeymike:
"Just out of curiosity, what kind of evidence would it take for you to change your position on 9/11?"

A logical explanation for the literally hundreds of huge holes in the official theory. I really don't think it is possible, though. There is no logical explanation for unreacted nanothermite in the dust. There is no logical explanation for why a small fire in WTC7, which no plane hit, falling down into its own footprint. You can go on with things like this for hours. If someone presented truly intelligent responses to these questions, I would change my mind. I have spent more time reading the "debunking" articles and books than I have spent reading the "troofer" information. The debunking information is a complete joke, and for the open-minded person is even more evidence of a cover-up. No clear minded person could be convinced by the debunking theories without being predisposed to believe the offial theory - for the in-group reasons we have discussed.

"Why go to the trouble of crashing planes into WTC to headfake a controlled demolition when it would have been simpler to replicate the 1993 attempt with a bigger payload?"
I don't know. They needed a spectacular visual event that would be burned into the mind of every American forever, which could be used for decades to justify killing millions of "others." The spectacular visual to me was the towers collapsing, and not the planes flying into the buildings, although that was pretty shocking as well. I think bombs blowing up the towers would have been nearly as effective for producing the desored effect, and the planes were not really needed. The opposite would not have been useful at all: If the planes had hit the buildings, some small fires started that were put out, the buildings were repaired, and maybe 200 people dying, would not have had nearly the same impact. The buildings needed to come down. I think it would have been nearly as good if they simply did it with bombs. At first I think it would also have been less risky in terms of being discovered, but a moments thought says that there was no risk anyway. No matter how much evidence is left behind, the vast majority of people will never accept the possibility of an in-group member being responsible. So maybe that's the answer. If there is no added risk, why not fly some planes into the buildings. Maybe they thought it would be cool.

"The debunking information is a complete joke, and for the open-minded person is even more evidence of a cover-up."

If the official story is so full of holes, and the debunking information is so obviously evidence of a cover up, than this logically infers that the vast majority of the media, government, and academia of this country are actively complicit in the conspiracy and the effort to cover it up. This of course would also apply to the UK government whose evidence, you claimed, was the funniest thing you ever read. Your "dozens" of conspirators number seems to swell exponentially with each assertion that you make.

Additionally you still haven't explained why they faked the 911 attacks, but couldn't or wouldn't fake WMD in wore-torn Iraq, a much easier task than covertly carrying out the greatest demolition in recorded history, with unproven experimental nano-technology, synchronously managing to crash two packed Boing 757s into the towers.

Your logical fallacy is quite common among conspiracy minded magical thinkers. You constantly assert the idea that you can't prove the official story was true, therefore it must be false. This is fundamentally flawed logic. The burden of proof is not on us to prove the official story, because it is the official story, which is the most widely accepted. No sir, the burden of proof is on you and the other 'Truthers.' Just because nobody can really 'prove' that alien abductions don't occur, doesn't prove that they do. This isn't the "Arab Street" where the majority believe things like "The Protocols" to be a genuine articles, or that Jews make bread from the blood of children. No, most Americans don't believe that the moon landing was faked, we don't believe in alien abductions, we don't think our president is a crypto-Muslim trying to cover up his Kenyan birth, and we don't believe our own government set up a ridiculously elaborate and convoluted plan in order to steal oil from helpless Muslims. The burden of proof is on those that claim these conspiracies are real, not on the rest of us who see them for the deluded fantasies they are.

"If there is no added risk, why not fly some planes into the buildings. Maybe they thought it would be cool."

Lol, I'm sold! I can just hear the conversation between Cheney and Wolfowitz or other hook nosed Zionist conspirator:
Paul: "So we have the plans pretty well wrapped up Dick?"
Dick: "Yea, Paul, we're going to use experimental nano-thermite to covertly carry out the largest controlled demolition in human history."
Paul: "Have we tested everything out to make sure it will go as planned."
Dick: "Nah, we'll just assume its gonna work right the first time. That's how these big engineering projects usually work. But I still feel like there is something missing. This whole thing just doesn't have the zing and style I would like."
Paul: "I know, lets fly a couple of passenger packed Boing 757s into it. We'll just kill all the passengers and have our voice faking experts call family members with a phoney hijack story. Then we'll pay off the crew to fly the planes into the towers."
Dick: "Wait, we've tried to pay people for suicide missions before, but for some reason, nobody every seems too interested."
Paul: "Must have something to do with their ability to cash the checks. Oh well, I guess will have to use remote controls."
Dick: "Remote controls it is. Should we have a special jet designed or should we have it retrofit?"
Paul: "Shouldn't matter. I'm sure Boeing's engineering teams are quite small, and it never takes them long to finish a jet design and bring it to market so we shouldn't have any trouble paying off a design team to give us what we want and not tell anyone about it ever."
Dick: "Sweeheheheet! Now we just need to finalize the plans to fire a missile into the pentagon and plant some fake plane wreckage there. We'll get Powell to fire the missile, and Bush can haul the plane wreckage in his pickup."
Paul: "Ok lets make a checklist.
1. Team to rig up experimental nano-thermite explosives in WTC towers and building Seven: check
2. Security in all three towers paid off: check
3. Team to kill all the passengers of the flights: check
4. Team to fake phone calls from passengers: check
5. Boeing engineering team paid off to design remote control for planes: check
6. Team to fire missile at Pentagon and plant fake plane wreckage inside: check
7. UK gov't on board: check
8. All of congress, the senate, and justice dept on board? check
9. All of NIST on board: check
10. Entire mainstream media on board to cover it up: check
11. Payoff 90% of academia to help cover up and create phony conspiracy debunking info: check

Dick: "Wow, that sounds like a shitload of people. I want to see a list of all conspirators."
Paul: "Dick, don't sweat it. I assure you, there's only a few dozen!"

Abu:
"The burden of proof is not on us to prove the official story, because it is the official story, which is the most widely accepted."

That a theory is widely accepted means nothing. If it did, we would still think the earth is flat.
You have your logic completely backwards, which is not surprising, since reality in itself is pretty much the exact opposite of what you think it is. The reality is that the burden of proof is on the accepted theory, and if there is one piece of evidence that shows the accepted theory is wrong, it must be discarded, and better theories must be found to fit the data. I am a scientist, and this is what I do daily.
If the accepted idea is that the earth is flat, and one piece of evidence is shown that says it cannot be flat, then you must throw out the idea that it is flat, and look for alternate theories. It may be a sphere, it may be a dodecahedron. With 9/11, it is not that clear, because there is no definitive proof either way, so you must look at the totality of the evidence.
People who know logic actually make the exact opposite point. One of the better books on 9/11 talks about what I just said, and also make the point that being able to discard one fact of the "troofer" theory means little. If a hundred pieces of evidence show that the official theory is wrong, and one is shown to be faulty, 99 pieces still show the same thing. Of course, for proponents of the official theory, finding one faulty fact means everything, because they know little about logic or science. If an "official" theorist shows one piece of "troofer" evidence is untrue, then they can say that all "troofers" are crazy, and not bother to think about the issue any further. This is what was done to Ward Churchill. He writes dozens of books and articles that contain tens of thousands of footnotes, but if conservatives can find a few that are suspect, then he is a crackpot and can be fired. It does not matter if the other ten thousand are rock solid. The whole body of work can be safely dismissed. This is insane, but effective. That is why some of the more nutty "troofers" are likely government people putting out stupid crap which the "official" theorists can point to and discredit the whole movement. This is done routinely. Anyway, take a science class and brush up on the scientific method.

Again more logical fallacies. This is a typical crackpot response: "Galileo said the earth was round and people laughed at him, too." So what? People laughed at Groucho Marx too. They laughed because he was a clown. And for every Galileo who turned the world upside down, there were 10,000 alchemists who claimed they could turn Pb into Au. You and the other Troofers are no Galileo.

Your claim that "The reality is that the burden of proof is on the accepted theory, and if there is one piece of evidence that shows the accepted theory is wrong, it must be discarded, and better theories must be found to fit the data." This is patently false. If one piece of data doesn't agree with the accepted theory, the first thing that you do is to prove that the data is, in fact valid, you don't just throw out the theory. If that was the case, the theory of global warming would have been discarded ages ago, every time data comes to light that doesn't exactly match the current model. Instead, the data is confirmed or thrown out if it is shown to be suspect, and if necessary, the theory is refined based on the new confirmed data. Using the logic you provided earlier, this would amount to "the Truth changed," because they slightly updated their theory on AGW rather than completely discarding their theory and embracing some crackpot theory. This is the standard to which you hold NIST and anyone else who attempts to explain how two fuel-laden 757s brought down the towers. But then again, based on a lot of what you've written, I wouldn't be surprised if you were an avid AGW denier.

As for your appeal to authority fallacy re the "Anyway, take a science class and brush up on the scientific method," I have taken a number of Science classes, and I have a bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering. I do R&D for a living, and I'm good at what I do. I don't claim to be some incredible intellect who towers over all the "sheeple" around me, in the way you have made so clear that you view yourself. But I feel that my work helps me to think analytically and critically. That is, it gives me a pretty decent bullshit meter, whose needle is usually pegged to the right every time I read something that you write.

Abu:
The "official" theory of what happened on 9/11 is BS. If it were any other incident, it would be obvious to you. Imagine watching an office fire on TV in a 57 story building, something like this:

guardian.150m.com/wtc/wtc7-fires-close.jpg

All of a sudden, this happens:

youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. Here is an example of one that did not:

youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

If no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire, and all of a sudden a 57 story building falls into its own footprint after a small fire, and the fall looks an awful lot like a demolition, and then they find nanothermite in the residue, this does not make you think? This is your scientific method?

"I don't claim to be some incredible intellect who towers over all the "sheeple" around me"

I don't think I have incredible intellect. I just think I have the absence of in-group indentification, as I said. This has nothing to do with intellect, but allows me to be objective regarding issue like this. An unbiased observer might think I am smarter than most on this site, but that is mainly because most on this site are defending indefensible positions. If we were in a debate class, and I had to defend the positions you people defend, and the average person on this site was given the job of defending my positions, the average person on this site would look much smrter than me, and I would look like an imbecile. The person making me look like an imbecile might feel pretty smart while doing so, and might cop an attitude because of it. Your positions simply cannot be defended while looking intelligent at the same time.

Abu;
Any theory should account for all the data. Please answer this;

What is your theory as to why nanothermite is present in the dust from 9/11?

If you say railroad tracks, the case is closed.

"Your positions simply cannot be defended while looking intelligent at the same time."

What are my indefensible positions? You are the one defending the idea that our elected government carried out the largest demolition in recorded history with unproven nano-technology, and the implied complicity of most of the media, academia, the UK government, WTC security, and likely a large engineering contingent from Boeing.

"Your positions simply cannot be defended while looking intelligent at the same time."

What are my indefensible positions? You are the one that believes our government covertly carried out the largest controlled demolition in human history, using unproven nano-technology, with the collusion of the British government, WTC security, large portions of the media, academia, and a pretty hefty engineering contingent from Boeing, as well.

"What is your theory as to why nanothermite is present in the dust from 9/11?"

How do you know for certain that nanothermite was discovered in the debris? I know a group of Danish scientists claimed to have studied samples of the debris under a microscope and made that claim. Did they contact any other scientists to verify their findings? Again are you positive no one else bothered to do microscopic testing on the debris?

I think a truly impartial reader of these posts would find it comical how proud you are for your cynacism towards the research of hundreds of American scientists and engineers in contrast with your blind acceptance of the alleged findings of eight Danish scientists. Somehow you equate your blind acceptance of their findings proof of your objectivity.

"What is your theory as to why nanothermite is present in the dust from 9/11?"

Nice question! What is your theory as to why you beat your wife? See how that works?

Who says I believe there was nano-thermite in the debris? And even if I did, what does that say about how it got there?

Abu:
"What are my indefensible positions?"
I'm talking in general. I'm talking about things like; the "gates of ijtihad" are closed. If I had to take the pro-"closed" position in debate class, I would do what Spencer did. I would quote people saying "the gates of ijtihad are closed." (I would have used prominent Orientalists instead of the people Mr. Spencer used - I think it would have appeared more scholarly). I would give no evidence, and the people I quoted would not have any evidence, because the evidence does not exist. So I would do basically the same as Mr. Spencer did. But as soon as someone comes along who has some time to show that the entire theory is garbage, and has been shown to be garbage over 30 years ago, I would look like an imbecile. That is what I am talking about. Eventually I will get around to other subjects, with the same results.

"Who says I believe there was nano-thermite in the debris? And even if I did, what does that say about how it got there?"

So you (and thank god) are insinuating that maybe it was not there. Maybe it was planted there by the scientists. Right? First of all, there are pictures of it:

http://911review.com/energeticmaterials09/OCPJ/7TOCPJ.pdf

So the scientists had to make it first, which is an extremely difficult task, and as far as I know has not been done outside of lawrence livermore labs and other US government labs. So they had to get some people there to make the material and give it to them. And they had to make it with the layers as shown in the article. WHo knows what the procedure for doing this is, or what research had to be done to effect it. They must have some good contacts in the US government labs! So they get this stuff, and then say they found it in the dust. These scientists are conspiring together to fabricate this hoax, using US government contacts. These scientists have good jobs and are conducting this hoax knowing that if they are discovered, they will lose their livelihood. And all for what? They know that their papers will never lead anywhere. The masses will never believe them. So they conduct this hoax with other scientists using government accomplices , risking everything, just to be called names? That is the weirdest conspiracy I ever heard of! TROOFERS!

Actually I wasn't necessarily implying that anyone planted the nano-thermite at all, but I guess I did leave the door open for that possibility. But thanks for debunking your own nano-thermite arguement. All the logic you used in that last paragraph to show how improbable it would be for nano-thermite to be planted as false evidence equally applies to why a government conspiracy making use of nano-thermite to demolish the towers is incredibly improbable, but I suppose your extreme bias prevented you from realizing that as you typed it!

Furthermore, your insistence that nano-thermite is only available from those top level government labs necessitates one of the following scenarios:

a. The labs were complicit in the conspiracy or
b. They produced and supplied the government with extremely large quantities of nano-thermite, without knowing what it was going to be used for, but couldn't remember that they provided it after the towers fell.

Scenario b is rediculous. So if the labs were complicit in the conspiracy, why in my name would they voluntarily provide a sample of nano-thermite to people who were trying to tell "The Truth" about the conspiracy?

Abu:
I asked:
"What is your theory as to why nanothermite is present in the dust from 9/11?"

You answered:
"Who says I believe there was nano-thermite in the debris? And even if I did, what does that say about how it got there?"

I thought you were impying that the scientists planted it there. You said:
"Actually I wasn't necessarily implying that anyone planted the nano-thermite at all"

Then what the hell did you mean by what you said? I will repeat:

"What is your theory as to why nanothermite is present in the dust from 9/11?"

"So you (and thank god) are insinuating that maybe it was not there. Maybe it was planted there by the scientists. Right?"

I'm saying if the people who filed the report find that their evidence is conclusive then they should submit it for peer review. Have they done that? Has anyone verified that their findings to be correct? You won't say. You're response is, "but look their report has pictures."

thank god:
"they should submit it for peer review."

Is this a joke? It must be. If not, allow me to tell you how the world works. I'll illustrate by example. There is a well known geneticist that does research on genetic similarities or differences between diferent groups. For example, he'll look at the DNA of tribe A in Chad, and compare that to tribe B in Libya, and show how they do, or do not, have common origins. He has done this for countless groups, all of which are not too interesting for the mainstream public. His articles do not make it in the MSM. Not many people care abuot these obscure groups and whether or not they have common origins. (I can get titles, names, etc., when I get to work.) But then he made the mistake of studying the wong groups. He did this same technique on Jewish people and Palestinians, and showed that the two groups are identical. Genetically speaking, Jews and Palestinians are the same people, and have the same origins. Jews simply picked a different religion. Of course, all thinking people knew this, but this guy proved it. He submitted his paper to the same journal his submits all his other papers, and for some unknown reason they published it. Bad mistake. The Zionist went wild. They made the publication withdraw the paper, and made them remove it from their website. Not only that, every library in the world was contacted and was asked to physically tear the article out of the hardcopy of the journal! This had nothing to do with science, the geneticist did the exact same thing he had done countless times before with countless other groups. This time, though, he did it to the "chosen people," and the "chosen people" did not like it. I have not followed the story, but it is likely they are now trying to do to the geneticist what they did to Ward Churchill and Norman Finkelstein, and get him removed from his university.
Question: Do you really think any journal on the planet is really going to publish a paper that insinuates that the US government is responsible for 9/11? You have got to be kidding. The journal would be shut down immediately. This has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

"Has anyone verified that their findings to be correct?"

I doubt you have ever submiited a paper for peer review, so let me talk about that as well. Peer review does not "verify" findings. When I submit a paper for review in the pharma chemistry field, they do not repeat my experiments and "verify" my findings. Experimental procedures are assumed to be run correctly. Nobody repeats experiments in a peer review (actually, in chemistry there is one journal that does this, but it is for specfic reactions only that may be widely useful for all chemists). Peer review is mainly concerned with the impact of the article (the 9/11 certainly has that!), the methods used, etc. Usual comments include further testing that could be done to make the article more complete. There is no peer reviewer who would say that the chips were not really found in ths dust, for example. So when you say "how do you know for certain that nanothermite was discovered in the debris?," the answer is: "because the scientists said so." When I mix chemical A with chemical B, and get chemical C which is active against kinase C, which shows activity in cancer models, peer reviewers don't say "did you really mix chemicals A and B together and get C?"
The scientists knew all of this, and likely did not even bother to submit it for peer review to an established journal. If it not for the politics surrounding this article, it would have been accepted immediately.

Thank god:
Here's that article by the geneticist that I mentioned above:

http://kinoko.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~duraid/stolen_science/The_Origin_of_Palestinians_and_Their_Genetic_Relatedness_With_Other_Mediterranean_Populations.pdf

You might want to think twice before clicking on the link. If you do, the Zionists might come to your door asking why you are reading banned material.

Here is a list of the authors other articles:
http://chopo.pntic.mec.es/~biolmol/personal/interpub.htm

When he published this article:
“HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks”
I don't think the Greeks forces the journal to withdraw the paper.

When he published this article:
"HLA gene in Arab-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers, Iberians, Turks and other Mediterraneans"
I don't think Moroccans had the journal withdraw the paper.

Abu:
"What is your theory as to why nanothermite is present in the dust from 9/11?"

Wow Dave, your last post was even more chalked full of red herrings than ever! DNA studies of Jews and Palestinians? Really? I know your condition makes it difficult, but try not to ramble.

As far as how the supposed nano-thermite might have gotten there, I left that open ended. There was alot of very hot iron and aluminum involved so I don't know whether the substance could have formed "naturally" or not. I believe nano-tech generally refers to substances produced or manipulated synthetically at the molecular level, rather than through conventional chemical reactions. NISTs seems to say that the material claimed to be nano-thermite was actually derived from molten aluminum. I'm not an expert on nano-thermite, and I'm guessing you probably aren't either. Like I said I have no desire at this point to argue over tedious minutiae with you, because we could literally keep it up for years, which would be incredibly boring for me, although I'm sure your Aspergers makes it easy for you to spend countless hours on Troofer sites reading with baited breath for each little nugget of "Truth" you can find, and no doubt you have it all meticulously cataloged on a pc somewhere for quick access for your internet debates.

None of this however, changes the fact that your own argument showing the unlikelihood of nano-thermite being planted in the debris to fake evidence applies at least equally if not greater to the idea of some shadowy government cabal having it planted in the towers by a demolition crew. The fact that you are willing to believe a large number of people in our own government and whoever else they would have needed to involve logistically conspired to plant nano-thermite in order to kill 3000 people, but you are at the same time unwilling to entertain the idea that one or more scientists planted it in order to fake evidence says more about your mindset than anything else. I'm sure you won't address this huge gap in basic logic though, and will try to steer the issue back toward the physical, chemical and electrical properties of nano-thermite after throwing out a red herring or two.

I also find it absolutely laughable that you defend the lack of peer review by the Danish scientists when you have railed on Mr. Spencer on numerous occasions for his lack of peer review. Additionally, your claim that peer review does not involve recreating experiments is a bald faced lie. This occurs all the time, and has been used, for example, in recent years to debunk some extravagant claims about fusion energy.

Now go ahead and throw out a few more red herrings and ask me two or three more times "how the nano-thermite got there," while completely ignoring the questions I have posed to you in regard to your logic. I'm starting to get a little bored with it and I doubt I will make further replies to such nonsense.

"...I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission."

- Noam Chomsky on the WTC conspiracies.

I guess you need to explain to this "bozo" how academic and scientific research works in the real world Dave. You're really grasping at straws to explain why your beloved theory has never been verified.

Abu:
"The fact that you are willing to believe a large number of people in our own government and whoever else they would have needed to involve logistically conspired to plant nano-thermite in order to kill 3000 people, but you are at the same time unwilling to entertain the idea that one or more scientists planted it in order to fake evidence says more about your mindset than anything else."
The government has motive and access. The scientists do not have motive, nor access.

"There was alot of very hot iron and aluminum involved so I don't know whether the substance could have formed "naturally" or not."
Stupidest thing I have heard in my life. I showed you what kiind of processes are required to create nanostuctured thermite. To say that this happened "naturally" is the uttering of a complete imbecile. You say this process "was actually derived from molten aluminum." The nanothermite was unreacted! You can make unreacted thermite from a molten metal! It's amazing that the high temperature of the metal does not cause the thermite to react! Here's what might have happened in mid-air to form the nanothermite:

"Using a sol-gel procedure first described by Pekala to make aerogels, a porous organic solid matrix was prepared by the polycondensation of resorcinol with formaldehyde (RF) using Na2CO3 as a catalyst. Subsequent crystallization of an oxidizer, ammonium perchlorate (AP), within the pores of the gel matrix, completes the synthesis. The oxidizer was first dissolved in water, and then added to the reacting RF sol prior to gelation. Gelation of the RF sol occurred first. Crystallization of the AP was then induced by exchanging the liquid residing in the pores for a solvent in which the oxidizer was insoluble. The final step of removing the pore fluid was done by slow evaporation resulting in a dense solid. The wet gels were covered and allowed to age for atleast 24 hours under ambient conditions. After that they were immersed in a bath of absolute ethanol where they were washed for ~1 week. Aerogel samples were processed in Polaron supercritical point drier. The solvent liquid in the wet gel pores was exchanged for CO2 for 2-3 days, after which the temperature of the vessel was ramped up to ~45 °C, while maintaining a pressure of ~100 bars. The vessel was then depressurized at a rate of about 7 bars per hour.(CAUTION: Take special care when doing supercritical drying of energetic composites. We used only CO2 (low temperature ~45 °C) supercritical extraction and place a blast shield in front
of the extraction vessel.)"

I guess in the buildings there was: sol-gel, resorcinol, formaldehyde, sodium carboonate, and ammonium perchlorate. Gelation and crystallization occurred in mid-air, and the material did not have to age for 24 hours, but in the special conditions of 9/11, this happened within a few seconds. There was also ethanol in the buildings, which washed the material, in mid-air. The buildings also fell in an atmosphere of carbon dioxide, which exchanged with the liquid of the wet gel pores, in mid-air. The buildings also fell under a pressure of 100 atmospheres (!!), and the pressured slowly decreased at the correct rate. All of this happened in such a way that the thermite remained unreacted! All of this happened on such a large scale that thermite was found everywhere. This is absolutely amazing!!

Haaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are a complete imbecile.

"NISTs seems to say that the material claimed to be nano-thermite was actually derived from molten aluminum."
I don't believe this. Show me.

"Additionally, your claim that peer review does not involve recreating experiments is a bald faced lie. This occurs all the time, and has been used, for example, in recent years to debunk some extravagant claims about fusion energy."
People repeat other peoples experiments and publish them, but this is not peer review. I review articles. I do not read an articleup for review, then go in the lab and repeat what they did. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN, YOU IMBECILE. Maybe if you had a PhD and reviewed articles, you would know what is involved.

Abu:
Maybe the Danish scientists just wrote the wrong article. Considering the considerable difficulty involved in the known methods of forming nanothermite, their article should have been:

"New Simplified Procedure for the Production of Nanothermite Involving the Reaction of Molten Iron and Aluminum in Mid-air While Falling From a Building"

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank god:
I explained the reasons very clearly why publication would not work. You are unable to respond, because you know it is the truth, so you get Chomsky on your side. Chomsky is wrong as well. Noam Chomsky is a lite-Zionist, and can definitely be a bozo at times. He subscribes to the official theory, and he is wrong, for the reasons I explained. I'll write him an E-mail and ask him to respond to what I said. He has always replied to me previously. I'll let you know in a future thread.

Thank god:
I sent Chomsky an E-mail. Your quote is from 2006, and I asked him if the recent nanothermite article meets his criteria for "serious" discussion, and if he would be willing to do so. I have a feeling this will be the first time he won't respond.

Thank god:
I go to MIT every day to use their health club. Maybe I slip the article under his door.

Dave, you are quite predictable aren't you? I responded to your questions about nano-thermite directly, explaining why I am not at all convinced that it was present in the debris, and if it was, I certainly make no hard conclusions as to how or why, (and nice try misrepresenting my assertion that I thought that "natural" formation of nano-thermite was unlikely.) But as predicted you go off on a long tangent to explain how difficult it is to create nano-thermite. Some "crude hoax" as you asserted earlier, eh? I'm certainly willing to entertain the fact that nano-thermite is so difficult to produce that it effectively has only one source as you suggest. Of course you simply ignored my questions in this regard so I'll ask again. If the substance effectively has only one source, that means the source must have been complicit. If they were complicit, why would they willingly provide a sample to 'your' guys?

You also claim that the government has motive but the scientists have none, but provide no backing for this assertion. They could have numerous motives, ranging from making a name for themselves to financial backing from enemy actors.

Also you've failed to explain why peer review should apply to Mr. Spencer, but not to the Danish scientists. Your assertion seems to be something along the lines "some Danish scientists said there was nano-thermite in the debris, so everyone should just take their word for it." I'm sorry sir, but this simply does not pass muster. I can very easily find you 8 scientists who would claim that the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed and that the Baby Jesus created the earth in 7 days, but the burden of proof is on them and not on the theory of evolution, since it is the generally accepted view.

Thank god: nice work there with the Chomsky quote. I can tell that raised Dave's blood pressure a few points, causing him to digress back to the circular logic mentioned earlier by Hesperado. In this case, his claim is that the conspiracy is so vast that the scientists could never hope to get an article reviewed and published, yet somehow they were able to make the knowledge public. Dave I have to be honest, this conspiracy really is starting to sound bigger than something involving "dozens."

Abu:
"If the substance effectively has only one source, that means the source must have been complicit. If they were complicit, why would they willingly provide a sample to 'your' guys?"

The material is present in the dust, unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that a bunch of scientists risked their livelihood to construct a hoax, all in order to "make a name for themsleves" (because now they are so immensely popular - I think I saw them on TMZ last night!).If we accept it is there, the question is who has better access to it, people at the highest levels of the US government, or some Danish scientists. I believe those at the highest levels of the US government would have better access to the material. I don't know exactly how this occured, but somehow, IT DID OCCUR IF THE MATERIAL IS THERE. It got there somehow. I think in the end, the highest levels of the US government have a easier access to it than Danish scientists do. Also, the the highest levels of the US government have a motive, where Danish scientists have no motive, and actually have formidable disincentives, like losing their careers. Danish scientists would have a risk of being caught, because nobody would have a problem accusing them. They would not have the in-group barrier to free thinking that the US government can take advantage of, as I explained.

"They could have numerous motives, ranging from making a name for themselves to financial backing from enemy actors."
TROOFER!!! This is hilarious. So is Hezbollah funding the scientists? That's a cool conspiracy!

"Also you've failed to explain why peer review should apply to Mr. Spencer, but not to the Danish scientists."
No I have not failed to. I will cut and paste to give you another chance to read. Is this a joke? It must be. If not, allow me to tell you how the world works. I'll illustrate by example. There is a well known geneticist that does research on genetic similarities or differences between diferent groups. For example, he'll look at the DNA of tribe A in Chad, and compare that to tribe B in Libya, and show how they do, or do not, have common origins. He has done this for countless groups, all of which are not too interesting for the mainstream public. His articles do not make it in the MSM. Not many people care abuot these obscure groups and whether or not they have common origins. (I can get titles, names, etc., when I get to work.) But then he made the mistake of studying the wong groups. He did this same technique on Jewish people and Palestinians, and showed that the two groups are identical. Genetically speaking, Jews and Palestinians are the same people, and have the same origins. Jews simply picked a different religion. Of course, all thinking people knew this, but this guy proved it. He submitted his paper to the same journal his submits all his other papers, and for some unknown reason they published it. Bad mistake. The Zionist went wild. They made the publication withdraw the paper, and made them remove it from their website. Not only that, every library in the world was contacted and was asked to physically tear the article out of the hardcopy of the journal! This had nothing to do with science, the geneticist did the exact same thing he had done countless times before with countless other groups. This time, though, he did it to the "chosen people," and the "chosen people" did not like it. I have not followed the story, but it is likely they are now trying to do to the geneticist what they did to Ward Churchill and Norman Finkelstein, and get him removed from his university.
Question: Do you really think any journal on the planet is really going to publish a paper that insinuates that the US government is responsible for 9/11? You have got to be kidding. The journal would be shut down immediately. This has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

In addition, the article is in the public domain. The entire planet can peer review it. Know anyone who has addressed the findings?

"Your assertion seems to be something along the lines 'some Danish scientists said there was nano-thermite in the debris, so everyone should just take their word for it.'"
So now you are saying they made it up. Considering the fact that it is impossible to get otherwise, yes, I think there is no other option. (Except for your conspiracy theory that Hezbollah is funding the Danish scientists to bribe workers at lawrence livermore labs to get the material. Haaa!!)

"I can very easily find you 8 scientists who would claim that the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed and that the Baby Jesus created the earth in 7 days"
First of all, show me a published scientists who has made this claim, or something close. Better yet, if you can find someone to publically make this claim, then please do it.
Second, will these scientists have pictures of the evidence that back up what they say? Are you saying the material in the pctures is not nanothermite, or that Hezbollah gave the Danish scientists the money to get it from lawrence livermore labs. I am confused as to what your theory is. Can you please pick the most probable one? Did it never exist and the pictures are that of simple paint chips? Does the material exist, but they got it from a source at lawrence livermore labs with Hezbollah money? What is your conspiracy theory? I will rephrase the question in the hopes of finally nailing down a response from you:

What is your theory as to why nanothermite is present in the dust from 9/11, or do you think it was not there?

"If the substance effectively has only one source, that means the source must have been complicit. If they were complicit, why would they willingly provide a sample to 'your' guys?"
I was referring here not to the nano-thermite supposedly in the dust but to the sample that YOU stated was obtained by the scientists for comparison:
"So the scientists had to make it first, which is an extremely difficult task, and as far as I know has not been done outside of lawrence livermore labs and other US government labs. So they had to get some people there to make the material and give it to them."
So the labs were complicit in the conspiracy, yet they willingly provided a sample for comparison to the scientists?

"TROOFER!!! This is hilarious. So is Hezbollah funding the scientists? That's a cool conspiracy!"
This is not MY theory. I provided a possible alternative theory to your theory that a government cabal planned and covertly carried out the largest controlled demolition in human history using unproven nano-technology. However, even though the enemy actor funding the scientists theory is not one to which I subscribe, it is still much less elaborate and would require far fewer conspirators than your theory.

What is your theory as to why nanothermite is present in the dust from 9/11, or do you think it was not there?

Jesus you are dense! I answered you directly several times and as I predicted you continue to ask the same moronic question. I'll repeat. I don't believe there is nano-thermite in the debris, and even if I did, this still wouldn't necessarily tell me how or why it got there. So if you don't have anything else entertaining to say (that grand maul seizure inspired "lite-Zionist" comment about Chomsky was good for a chuckle at least,) then I'm done with you.

One more thing:

"First of all, show me a published scientists who has made this claim, or something close. Better yet, if you can find someone to publically make this claim, then please do it."

The 'creation science' movement is quite well known. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to use the search engine of your choice in order to look up its proponents.

Abu:
"I don't believe there is nano-thermite in the debris"

I'll take this as your answer. Thank you. Although you qualified it afterwards by saying "and even if I did, this still wouldn't necessarily tell me how or why it got there," this sounds like the less probable theory in your opinion going by the way the sentence was phrased. I asked you for the "most probable" theory, and your answer, then, is that there was no nanothermite in the debris, and the Danish scientists conspired together to commit a hoax. The scientists have good positions in academia, but they decided to risk it all to conduct a hoax in order to either (a) make a name for themselves, or (b) make money that was being supplied by "enemies." I failed to try and pin you down on whether (a) or (b) is more probable in your opinion, but I would guess (b). Certainly, these scientists have not made a name for themselves. They have not become famous, nor would any sentient being expect to become famous from writing such a paper.(b)seems much more likely.

So here is your conspiracy:
Eight scientists were paid off by US "enemies" to concoct a hoax and fabricate the article being discussed. This must have been a very elaborate hoax, since even pictures of the material are shown, which is material that is basically impossible to get. So the pictures are also fabricated, and are of some material that is not what the scientists claim it is, which leaves open the possibility of anyone familiar with nanothermite or nanotechnology in general of being able to easily show that the material is not nanothermite at all, the result of which would likely be the end of the scientists career. But maybe the payoff money was so great that they don't care if they get fired? If they made that much money, I wonder why they have not retired immediately after publishing the article?
Anyway, it's quite a good conspiracy theory, but I think mine is much more plausible, especially considering the other hundreds of issues that support mine that we have not even discussed. All in all, I think your conspiracy theory is a bit wacko.

"So here is your conspiracy: Eight scientists were paid off by US "enemies" to concoct a hoax and fabricate the article being discussed.

Now you seem to have lost the ability or will to read. I stated the following:
"This is not MY theory. I provided a possible alternative theory to your theory that a government cabal planned and covertly carried out the largest controlled demolition in human history using unproven nano-technology. However, even though the enemy actor funding the scientists theory is not one to which I subscribe, it is still much less elaborate and would require far fewer conspirators than your theory."

I think it is probably more likely that they are mistaken. I don't think that 'creation science' kooks are involved in a cynical hoax. I think that they genuinely believe the theories that they put forward, mistaken as they are.

Abu:
I said to "show me a published scientists who has made this claim"

You said:
"The 'creation science' movement is quite well known. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to use the search engine of your choice in order to look up its proponents."

OK. There is this:
https://www.csm.org.uk/speakers.php

The first guy is Dr. David Rosevear. I said "published scientist," so I tried to look up his pubs. I searched Artstor, EBSCO, and Web of Science, and found a total of zero. ZERO.

I said "published scientist." David Rosevear is a wackjob who happens to have a PhD. In contrast, here are some pubs from Harrit, most of which relate directly to his qualifications as an expert in the field under duscussion:

Pyrylium Salts and Hydroxylamine in Acid Medium. Synthesis of Pyridine N-Oxides from Pyrylium Salts.” N. Harrit, C.L. Pedersen and O. Buchardt, Acta.Chem. Scand. 24 (1970) 3435-3443.
“Light-Induced Ring Expansion of Pyridine N-Oxides.” O. Buchardt, C.L. Pedersen and N. Harrit, J.Org.Chem. 37 (1972) 3592-3595.
“Detection of Transients in Low-temperature Photochemistry of 4-Phenyl-1,3,2-oxathiazolyio-5-oxide by Ultraviolet and Electron Spin Resonance Spectrometry.” A. Holm, N. Harrit, K. Bechgaard, O. Buchardt, and S. Harnung, Chem.Commun. 1972, 1125.
“The Photochemical Behavior of Aromatic 1,2-Diazine-N-Oxides.” K.B. Tomer, N. Harrit, I. Rosenthal, O. Buchardt, P.L. Kumler and D. Creed, .J.Am.Chem.Soc. 95 (1973) 7402-7406.
“Photochemical Rearrangement of 3-Methyl-2-methylthio-5-phenyl-(1,3-thiazol-4-ylio)oxide to 3-Methyl-4-methylthio-5-phenyl-1,3-thiazol-2-one.” O. Buchardt, J. Domanus, N. Harrit, A. Holm, G. Isaksson and J. Sandström, Chem. Commun. 1974, 376-377.
“Photolyse af 4-Phenyl-1,3,2-oxathiazolylio-5-oxid. Mekanisme og metode.” Licentiatafhandling. 215 sider. Kemisk Laboratorium II, H.C.Ørsted Institutet, Københavns Universitet 1975.
“Photochemistry of Thiatriazoles. Benzonitrile Sulphide as Intermediate in the Photolysis of Phenyl-Substituted 1,2,3,4-Thiatriazole, 1,3,2-Oxathiazolylio-5-oxide and 1,3,4-Oxathiazole-2-one.” A. Holm, N. Harrit and N.H. Toubro, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 97 (1975) 6197-6201.
“The Photocycloaddition of Cyclohexene to Carbostyrils.” O. Buchardt, J. J. Christensen and N. Harrit, Acta Chem. Scand. B30 (1976) 189-192.
“Oxathiiranes as Intermediates in the Photolysis of Sulfines.” L. Carlsen, N. Harrit and A. Holm, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. I, 1976, 1404-1408.
“On the mechanism of Photolysis of 4-Phenyl-1,3,2-oxathiazolylio-5-oxide in ethanol. Evidence for Ketene Intermediates.” A. Holm, N. Harrit and N.H. Toubro, Tetrahedron 32 (1976) 2559-2563.
“Enviromental Effects as a Determining Factor in Photochemical reactions: Photolysis of matrix-isolated 4-Phenyl-1,3,2-oxathiazolylio-5-oxide.” I.R. Dunkin, M. Poliakoff, J.J. Turner, N. Harrit and A. Holm, Tetr. Letters 1976, 873-876.
“Photoinduced Ring Opening and COS Elimination of Mesoionic Thiadiazoles.” A. Holm, N.H. Toubro and N. Harrit, Tetr. Lett. 1976, 1909-1912.
“Photolysis of 1,2,5-Selenadiazoles. Formation of Nitrile Selenides.” N. Harrit, C.L. Pedersen, M. Poliakoff and I. Dunkin, Acta Chem. Scand. B31 (1977) 848-858.
“Strong Evidence for Thiazirines as Stable Intermediates at Cryogenic Temperature in the Photolytic Formation of Nitrile Sulfides from Aryl Substituted 1,2,3,4-Thiatriazole, Thiatriazole-3-oxide and 1,3,4-Oxathiazol-2-one.” A. Holm, N. Harrit and I. Trabjerg, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin I 1978, 746-750.
“Evidence from the Absorption and Emission Spectra of Trimethylenemethane Derivatives for two Molecular Species in Thermal Equilibrium.” N. Harrit, N. Turro, M.J. Mirbach, J.A. Berson and M. Platz, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 100 (1978) 7653-7658.
“Photoinduced Ring Opening and Fragmentation of Isomeric Mesoinic Anhydro-4(5)-hydroxythiazolium Hydroxides and of Anhydro-5-hydroxy-3-methyl-2-phenyloxazolium Hydroxides.” N.H.Toubro, B. Hansen, N. Harrit, A. Holm and K.T. Potts, Tetrahedron 35 (1979) 229-231.
“Absence of Triazirine Intermediates in the Photolytic Formation of azides from Mesoionic 3-Substituted 1,2,3,4-Oxathiazolylio-5-oxides.” C. Bjerre, C. Christophersen, B. Hansen, N. Harrit, F.M. Nicolaisen and A. Holm, Tetrahedron 35 (1979) 409-411.
“Photolysis of 1,2,3-Selenadiazole. Formation of Selenirene by Secondary Photolysis of Selenoketene.” N. Harrit, S. Rosenkilde, B. D. Larsen and A. Holm, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin I 1985, 907-911.
“Viscosity-dependent Fluorescence and Low-temperature Photochemistry of Mesoionic 4-Phenyl-1,3,2-oxathiazolylium-5-olate.” N. Harrit, A. Holm, I. Dunkin, M. Poliakoff and J.J. Turner, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin II 1987, 1227-1238.
“On Selenoketenes. Formation of 1,3,4-Selenodiazoline from Carbodiselenide and Diazoalkanes.” R.H. Berg, N. Harrit, E. Larsen and A. Holm, Acta Chem. Scand. 43 (1989) 885-887.
“Pregnancy Zone Protein, a Proteinase Binding Macroglobulin. Interactions with Proteinase Binding Macroglobulin. Interactions with Proteinases and Methylamine.” U. Christensen, M. Simonsen, N. Harrit and L. Sottrup-Jensen, Biochemistry, 28 (1989) 9324-9331.
“Mixed-function-oxygenase in Juvenile rainbow Trout Exposed to Hexachlorobenzene or 3,3’,4,4’-tetrachlorobiphenyl.” H. Tyle, M. Egsmose and N. Harrit, Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 100 (1991) 161-164.
“Pregnancy Zone Protein, a Proteinase Binding -Macroglobulin. Stopped-flow Kinetic Studies of its Interaction with Chymotrypsin.” U. Christensen, L. Sottrup-Jensen and N. Harrit, Biochem. Biophys. Acta, 1076 (1991) 91-96.
“The Peroxide Chemistry of triaryl Substituted Imidazoles. Fenflumizole, a Non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory Agent.” P.L. Frandsen, K. Håkansson, A. Holm and N. Harrit, Acta Chem. Scand. 45 (1991) 627-631.
“Photolysis of N-2,4,6-Trinitrophenyl Substituted Amino Acids.” J. Frederiksen, B.D. Larsen and N. Harrit, Tetrahedron Lett. 32 (1991) 5823.
“Photolysis of 1,2,3-Thiadiazole. Formation of Thiirene by Secondary Photolysis of Thioketene.” B.D. Larsen, N. Harrit, H. Eggert and A. Holm, Acta Chem. Scand. 46 (1992) 482-486.
“Two Different Ca2+ Ion Binding Sites in Factor VIIa and in Des(1-38) factor VIIa.” J. Schiødt, N. Harrit, U. Christensen and L. Petersen, FEBS Letters, 306 (1992) 265-268.
“Correlations Between the Rate Constant of Singlet Oxygen Quenching by Imidazole Derivatives and Anti-inflammatory Activity in Rats.” R.V. Bensasson, J. Frederiksen, M. Rougée, D. Lexa and N. Harrit, Mol. Pharmacol. 42 (1992) 718-722.
“Synthesis of New Sulfur Heteroaromatics Isoelectronic with Dibenzo[g,p]chrysene by Photocyclization of Thienyl- and Phenyl-Substituted Ethenes.” E. Fischer, J. Larsen, J.B. Christensen, M. Fourmigué, H.G. Madsen and N. Harrit, J. Org. Chem. 61, (1996) 6997-7005.
“Ordering of the Disk-like 2,3,6,7,10,11-Hexakis(hexylthio)triphenylene in Solution and at Liquid-Solid Interface.” Gabriel, J.-C., Larsen, N.B., Larsen, M., Harrit, N., Pedersen, J.S., Schaumburg, K. and Bechgaard, K. Langmuir 12 (1996) 1690-1692.
“Photoconductivity of Langmuir-Blodgett Films of Corbathiene.” A. Komolov, K. Schaumburg and N. Harrit, Thin Solid Films 293 (1997) 159.
“Photophysical properties of 2,3,6,7,10,11-Hexakis(n-hexylsulfonyl)triphe-nylene and 2,3,6,7,10,11-Hexakis(n-hexylsulfonyl)triphenylene in solution.” D. Baunsgaard, M. Larsen, N. Harrit, J. Frederiksen, R. Wilbrandt, H. Stapelfeldt, J.Chem.Soc., Faraday Trans., 93 (1997) 1893-1901.
“Fluorescein-Conjugated Lysine Monomers for Solid Phase Synthesis of Fluorescent Peptides and PNA Oligomers.” J. Lohse, P.E. Nielsen, N. Harrit and O. Dahl, Bioconjugate Chem. 8 (1997) 503-509.
”Synthesis, Structure, and Fluorescence Properties of 5,17-Distyryl-25,26,27,28-tetrapropoxycalix[4]arenes in the Cone Conformation.” Mogens Larsen, Frederik C. Krebs, Mikkel Jørgensen, og Niels Harrit, J.Org.Chem., 63 (1998) 4420-4424.
”2,6,10-Tris(dialkylamino)trioxatriangulenium Ions. Synthesis, Structure, and Properties of Exceptionally Stable Carbenium Ions.” Bo W. Laursen, Frederik C. Krebs, Merete F. Nielsen, Klaus Bechgaard, Jørn B. Christensen, and Niels Harrit, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 120 (1998) 12255 –12263.
”Vibronic Activity in the Phosphorescence Spectra of Disklike Aromatic Molecules: A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Investigation.” D. Baunsgaard, N. Harrit, M. El Balsami, F. Negri, G. Orlandi, J. Frederiksen and R. Wilbrandt, J. Phys. Chem. A, 102 (1998) 10007 –10016.
”The Phosphorescence Spectra of Triphenylene and Truxene: A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of The Vibronic Structure.” D. Baunsgaard, M. El Balsami, J. Frederiksen, N. Harrit, F. Negri, G. Orlandi and R. Wilbrandt, Laser Chemistry, 19 (1999) 349-351.
”Synthesis and conformational studies of a series of 5,17-bis-aryl-25,26,27,28-tetrapropoxycalix[4]arenes: The influence of - interactions on the molecular structure.” Mogens Larsen, Frederik C. Krebs, Niels Harrit, and Mikkel Jørgensen. J.Chem.Soc.Perkin Trans. 2, 1999, 1749-1757.
”Vibrational spectroscopic and quantum chemical studies of the trioxatriangulenium carbocation.” Johannes Reynisson, G. Balakrishnan, Niels Harrit, and Robert Wilbrandt. J.Mol.Struct., 520, 2000, 63-73.
“Structural properties of DNO investigated with pyrene excimer formation.” Johannes Reynisson, Lise Vejby-Christensen, Robert Wilbrandt, Niels Harrit, Rolf H. Berg, J. Pept. Sci. 6, 2000, 603-611.
“Synthesis of a Hoechst 32258 Analogue Amino Acid Building Block for Direct Incorporation of a Fluorescent, High-Affinity DNA Binding Motif into Peptides.” Carsten Behrens, Niels Harrit, Peter E. Nielsen, Bioconjugate Chem. 12 (2001) 1021-1027.
„Photophysics of Trioxatriangulenium ion. Electrophilic reactivity in the ground state and excited singlet state.“ Jóhannes Reynisson, Niels Harrit, Robert Wilbrandt, Vibeke Brinck, Bo W. Laursen, Kasper Nørgaard, and Albert M. Brouwer, Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences 1 (2002) 763-773.
“System and Method for the Classification of Biological Samples and their Diagnostic Potential”, Lars Nørgård, Morten Albrechtsen, Ole Olsen, Niels Harrit og Rasmus Bro-Jørgensen, Patent (WO2001092859).
„Redox regulation of gene expression of chemoprotective enzymes and of chemoprotection against inflammation and carcinogenesis.“ Vincent Zoete, John Frederiksen, Niels Harrit, Rodger Scurlock, Michel Rougée and René V. Bensasson, Free Radical Research, 36 (2002) 111-114.
„Intercalation of Trioxatriangulenium Ion (TOTA+) in DNA: Binding, Electron Transfer, X-Ray Crystallography, and Electronic Structure.” Jóhannes Reynisson, Gary B. Schuster, Sheldon B. Howerton, Loren D. Williams, Robert N. Barrnett, Charles L. Cleveland, Uzi Landman, Niels Harrit and Jonathan B. Chaires, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 125 (2003) 2072-2083
“Novel Synthesis of Protected Thiol End-Capped Stilbenes and Oligo(phenylenevinylene)s (OPVs).” Nicolai Stuhr-Hansen, Jørn B. Christensen, Niels Harrit, and Thomas Bjørnholm, J. Org. Chem., 68 (2003) 1275-1282.
“Oligodeoxynucleotides Containing -L-ribo¬ configured LNA-type C-aryl Nucleosides: Synthesis and Properties as a Universal Base.” B. Ravindra Babu Raunak, Mads D. Sørensen, Virinder S. Parmar, Niels H. Harrit and Jesper Wengel, Organic & Biomolecular Chem. (RSC), 2 (2004) 80-89.
“Spectroscopic Properties of Sintered BaMgAl10O17:Eu2+ (BAM)
Translucent Pellets. Comparison with Commercial Powder.” E. Zych, W. Goetz, N. Harrit and H. Spanggaard, J. Alloys and Compounds, 380 (2004) 113-117.
”2,6,10-Tris(dialkylamino)-¬trioxa¬triangule¬nium salts - a new promising fluorophore. Ion-pair formation and aggregation in non-polar solvents.” Bo W. Laursen, Jóhannes Reynisson, Kurt V. Mikkelsen, Klaus Bechgaard and Niels Harrit, Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences (RSC), 4 (2005) 568-576.
“Fluorescent Pyrene-Functionalized 2’Amino-LNAs for Nucleic Acid detection in Homogenous Assays.” Patrick J. Hrdlicka, B. Ravindra Babu, Mads D. Sørensen, Niels Harrit, and Jesper Wengel, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 127 (2005) 13293 – 13299.
“Expanding the Optical Trapping Range of Gold Nanoparticles.” Poul Martin Hansen, Vikram Kjøller Bhatia, Niels Harrit, and Lene Oddershede, Nano Letters, 5 (2005) 1937 – 1942.
" Fluorescence spectroscopy and chemometrics for classification of breast cancer samples-a feasibility study using extended canonical variates analysis." Lars Nørgaard, Gyorgy, Soletormos, Niels Harrit, Morten Albrechtsen, Ole, Olsen, Dorte Nielsen, Kristoffer Kampmann, and Rasmus Bro, Journal of Chemometrics (2007), 21, 451-458..
"Close Columnar Packing of Triangulenium Ions in Langmuir Films." Jens B. Simonsen, Kristian Kjaer, Paul Howes, Kasper Norgaard, Thomas Bjornholm, Niels Harrit, Bo W. Laursen, Langmuir 25 (2009) 3584-3592.
"Time-resolved X-ray scattering of an electronically excited state in solution. Structure of the 3A(2u) state of tetrakis-mu-pyrophosphitodiplatinate(II)." Morten Christensen, Kristoffer Haldrup, Klaus Bechgaard, Robert Feidenhans'l, Qingyu Kong, Marco Cammarata, Manuela Lo Russo, Michael Wulff, Niels Harrit, Martin Meedom Nielsen, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 131 (2009) 502-8.
"Structural Tracking of a Bimolecular Reaction in Solution by Time-Resolved X-ray Scattering." Kristoffer Haldrup, Morten Christensen, Marco Cammarata, Qingyu Kong, Michael Wulff, Simon O. Mariager, Klaus Bechgaard, Robert Feidenhans'l, Niels Harrit*, Martin M. Nielsen*. Angewandte Chemie. 2009. "Hot paper" pre-published on the web: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122369907/PDFSTART

If course, he is ready and willing to throw away this impressive career to publish some 9/11 hoax about nanoparticles. Nice conspiracy theory! Haaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!

Abu:
You tell me I am dense, but you keep changing your story. First you say "I don't believe there is nano-thermite in the debris, and even if I did, this still wouldn't necessarily tell me how or why it got there," now you say "I think it is probably more likely that they are mistaken."

So you are saying this material was in the dust, but it was not nanothermite, but some other unknown material, and the 8 scientists are wrong in thinking it was nanothermite? If so, don't you expect someone to come out and simply show that this is not nanothermite? The debunking movement has been putting out material for years. This paper is now the crown jewel in the troofer hat. When will this simply be debunked? Showing that this material is paint chips would end the troofer movement overnight. Why don't they do it? Why instead are their stupid claims made that nanothermite is used to weld railroad tracks? Why not just show it is not nanothermite?

"This must have been a very elaborate hoax, since even pictures of the material are shown."

Dave, do you know for certain that that is nanothermite that you're looking at in those pictures? If so, how? Please don't say because that's what it says in the report.

"which leaves open the possibility of anyone familiar with nanothermite or nanotechnology in general of being able to easily show that the material is not nanothermite at all, the result of which would likely be the end of the scientists career."

Really? So if a scientist proposes a hypothesis, conducts a test that he believes proves his hypothesis and then another scientist conducts the same test and achieves a different result, the first scientist will lose his job. I guess that would explain why he's not taking his samples to another lab for verification.

Haha, there you go with that meticulously cataloged information I knew you had stored away somewhere!

I said "published scientist."
You also said:Better yet, if you can find someone to publically make this claim, then please do it."
Looks like you found that all by yourself without my help.
But here are a couple names of published creationism kooks: Willem J. Ouweneel, Wayne Frair, Siegfried Scherer. I could waste more time finding other names, but what is the point really? Its quite tangential to the entire discussion, and your own opinion seems to be that peer review is a somewhat arbitrary requirement (at least when it suits your purposes.)

Furthermore, your assertion that ending their careers would have been a disincentive to fake a hoax, should equally disincentivise their making the claim that 911 was a conspiracy as well. After all, if shadowy Zionists are powerful enough to suppress a potential paper from being published, they should certainly be powerful enough to ruin all their careers, which is precisely what you claimed they did to Ward Churchill and Norman Finkelstein, and are trying to do to a geneticist.

Haha, there you go with that meticulously cataloged information I knew you had stored away somewhere!

I said "published scientist."
You also said:Better yet, if you can find someone to publically make this claim, then please do it."
Looks like you found that all by yourself without my help.
But here are a couple names of published creationism kooks: Willem J. Ouweneel, Wayne Frair, Siegfried Scherer. I could waste more time finding other names, but what is the point really? Its quite tangential to the entire discussion, and your own opinion seems to be that peer review is a somewhat arbitrary requirement (at least when it suits your purposes.)

Furthermore, your assertion that ending their careers would have been a disincentive to fake a hoax, should equally disincentivise their making the claim that 911 was a conspiracy as well. After all, if shadowy Zionists are powerful enough to suppress a potential paper from being published, they should certainly be powerful enough to ruin all their careers, which is precisely what you claimed they did to Ward Churchill and Norman Finkelstein, and are trying to do to a geneticist.

thank god:
"Dave, do you know for certain that that is nanothermite that you're looking at in those pictures? If so, how? Please don't say because that's what it says in the report."

"Because that's what it says in the report" is a very good reason. I make decisions all the time based on reading. I believe the Eiffel tower exists because of pictures, and I believe that Indium and diiodomethane will cyclopopanate an olefin, because I just read a paper that says it does. I just tried it today, and guess what? It does afford a cyclopropyl group! Amazing. A qualified scientist reports something, and it is true. It happens pretty often. From my point of view as a chemist, the Harrit paper is sound.

"I guess that would explain why he's not taking his samples to another lab for verification."
You don't take your sample to other labs. This is not what is done. If you are a qualified scientist and want to perform additional tests, contact the author via the address in the paper, and he will provide you a sample.

You tell me I am dense, but you keep changing your story. First you say "I don't believe there is nano-thermite in the debris, and even if I did, this still wouldn't necessarily tell me how or why it got there," now you say "I think it is probably more likely that they are mistaken."

What? How the hell is saying 1. "I don't believe there is nano-thermite in the debris" to 2. Telling you I don't think it is likely that the scientists are involved in a hoax but rather "I think it is probably more likely that they are mistaken." Wow Dave, you are really floundering at this point. These two ideas clearly support each other, rather than showing any "changing" of my story. You either can't realize this (or more likely you do and you're simply trying to twist and distort.) Either way, I really don't think you are worthy of any further replies from me at this point.

Abu:
"Haha, there you go with that meticulously cataloged information I knew you had stored away somewhere!"

Yes, I stored it on Google:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:ngg9qYSj8JEJ:www.mito11settembre.it/attach/Niels%2520Harrit%2520%2520LIST%2520OF%2520PUBLICATIONS.doc+%22Packing+of+Triangulenium+Ions+in+Langmuir+Films%22+%22of+publications%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

“Willem J. Ouweneel”

Academica Search Preimier = Zero. JSTOR =Zero. Web of Science=Zero. Artstor=Zero. Where exactly is he published? On the web?

“Furthermore, your assertion that ending their careers would have been a disincentive to fake a hoax, should equally disincentivise their making the claim that 911 was a conspiracy as well.”

Publishing a 9/11 paper anywhere will do nobody’s career any good, but it’s a far cry from publishing a hoax.

So you are saying this material was in the dust, but it was not nanothermite, but some other unknown material, and the 8 scientists are wrong in thinking it was nanothermite. When the material is ignited, it forms microspheres that analyze just like ordinary thermite does. However, unlike ordinary thermite, the ignition temperature is much lower, which points to the material being nanothermite. The resistivity of the red material is completely different than ordinary paint, and unlike paint, MEK does not dissolve it. Also, the red material contains aluminum and iron oxide, which is found in thermite. Also unlike paint, the chipe ignites to produce very high temperatures. But I am sure they are mistaken, I am sure it is paint chips. Or maybe plaster chips. That’s it.

thank god:
"So you only believed the result when you read it but confirmed the results when you tested it yourself. Shouldn't the same method be applied to Harrit's theory?"

I didn't run the reaction to "confirm" the results, I ran the reaction because I needed to make something similar to what the authors made, in a similar manner. When you read a lit article, there is never a question as to what the author observed. If the author puts chemicals A and B into a flask and gets C, then that's what happens. There is no need to repeat it. If a scientist measures the metal composition of a sample using a proven technique and finds a large amount of iron, then there is a large amount of iron in the sample. I did not first repeat what the authors did, and then do what I needed to do. I assumed the authors were correct, and I knew if they were correct, then my reaction should also work, because of the close similarity. I did the reaction, and of course it worked. Nobody repeats what other people did first.
I have read and worked from other people's work my whole life. Nobody is "mistaken" in their experiments. What they conclude from their experiments might be incorrect, however, and this can be debated simply from reading the article. A scientist might say "you found this in your experiment, but I think it means this, and not what you thought." Nobody says, "you did the experiment wrong, and if I did it, I would find something else." Harrit ran experiments and wrote a paper, like he has done 54 times before. His findings are valid. You may draw other conclusions from what he found, but this can be done by reading the article. For example, someone might say that the material is more likely plaster than nanothermite, but they would be an imbecile, because it doesn't match the experimental results. I have seen nobody address this paper and propose any other explanation than what the authors did. There IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION. The only way the debunking movement can deal with this paper is to ignore it. This will be the only approach to the paper and its results. Any attempt to address the results will look completely foolish to any person of even average intelligence, so the paper will be ignored. That's why when Abu said "NISTs seems to say that the material claimed to be nano-thermite was actually derived from molten aluminum," I immediately suspected that he was lying. I asked him to show me, and the request was ignored. I don't think even NIST would be stupid enough to address this issue in this way. It is best for you to ignore this paper. You worldview will remain intact that way.

MASH message for Peter Gadiel:

Dear Mr. Gadiel,

You said: "Muslims have to acknowledge that it was their co-religionists who committed this act in their name." We couldn't agree with you more. Please know that there are Muslims who are disgusted with Kent officials' cowardice. Without acknowledging what happened on 9/11, there is no way forward. Germany acknowledged the Holocaust and other atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in WWII and Germans became a better people for it. We would like to add our voices to your demand that "Murdered by Muslim terrorists" be added on your son's memorial plaque.

Respectfully,

Muslims Against Sharia

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2009/10/father-of-911-victim-fights-to-have.html

Dave742.

I’ve been an aircraft maintainer for 20 years in the military, and prior to that in the infantry. My trade has exposed me to a lot of extra curricular training and I was watching the first tower burn in my Sqn canteen when the second plane hit. I was even recently at ground zero site a couple of weeks ago, and I can say without reservation that any conspiratorial crap being spouted about pre-planned demolishian is nothing but. Anybody who’s investigated flight safety investigations regarding kinetics and the misting of high flash point jet fuel will know that once begun, the explosive nature and self emulation of said materials is worse than regular avgas. Gasoline burns, but jet fuel explodes and is designed to burn, when ignited, at a much higher temperature than regular fuel. A low temp ignite will always fail, but add kinetics and/or compression and you have yourself a nice melting pot. Add to this the construct of the towers, vectored air currents in the building, and simple heat degradation of protected construction materials overwhelmed by a fast acting fuel for which it was not designed, well then, you have what happened.

Regardless of the latest nanothermite post impact residual recovery, you still can’t discount the joy islamist danced in their streets after the attack or the escalading and increasing violence by the followers of islam since 9/11.

And then there is the obvious catalystic reality of a large aluminum plane impacting a steel building, loaded with fuel and magnesium alloy parts: They can easily account for the residual presence of aluminum and iron oxide, which can be easily misconstrued as aluminothermic reactions. The sub-micrometer particals and solid formation during thermal stressing have yet to be fully recreated, and without proving/disproving the results of an aluminum airframe laden with fuel impacting a steel building and burning for hours, why is the conspiratorial leap of faith being made? Because the muslims are innocent of course, and Americans would kill their own and blame it on islam to further the…(OK, you fill in the blanks, military, industry, banking, oil, government, blah, blah, blah…)

But this all detracts from the real reason that this thread started from in the first place. In the end, islam must take responsibility for festering the violence that it continues to spread; it must reform or die. Because if it doesn’t, the only path it allows for is for all who don’t follow islam is to pay a tax, convert or die. And when a parent tries to put the truth of the cause of death on the headstone of his child, and that very last freedom of expression is suppressed to supplicate a belief that doesn’t respect freedom…well SCREW that!

Kaffirkanuch:
None of your plane apologetics workd for building 7.

"Regardless of the latest nanothermite post impact residual..."
The presence of nanothermite has to be account for beyond saying "regardless of..."

"can’t discount the joy islamist danced in their streets after the attack"
What about the Israelis dancing during the attack, taking pictures and laughing in front of the burning buildings?