Funny, not a single site on the internet that isn't about 9/11 conspiracies talks about "weapons grade thermite." Must be some new thing or a made up name. What is it?
They mean military-grade thermite, aka for shaped charges, bombs or disabling enemy artillery. There are variants of it that are patented and are used mainly for military applications (such as false-flag terrorism).
The bentham paper does not show 'weapons grade thermite' at wtc, It purports to show active thermitic material found in 3 dust samples the authors claim was taken from ground zero. It is a quantum leap of faith to escalate the findings of the paper to the conclusion weapons grade thermite was found.
But, coupled with all of the other crap, such as two planes knocking down three buildings--the third one falling from the bottom despite the bottom not being on fire--and Cheney suspending NORAD and all that other stuff, you know the lease of the WTC changing hands 2 weeks before the attacks to a private billionaire--well, it makes it all the more compelling.
Tack operation Northwoods onto that and truthers don't look so funny anymore.
The main problem with 9/11 debunkers is that they don't seem to understand that there is a very good reason to be suspicious of the anglo-american establishment and their intelligence agencies when it comes to war-enabling events such as 9/11.
There is a long and documented history of false flag and black operations being used to initiate wars of conquest. Debunkers seem unwilling to even acknowledge this fact. I guess it just doesn't fit into their AMERICA - FUCK YEAH! worldview.
No. I am all for being suspicious of the government/establishment pretty much everything. I have a degree in History, and have been reading about conspiracy theories for 10 plus years (believing them for many), so I have at least a basic understanding of history and the events you speak of, and I assure you I am not of the America, Fuck Yhea mindset. I do not think the government is inherently good or working in society's best interests. I am anti war, anti torture, and I probably share a similar world view with many here. As a debunker I am not unique, painting with such a broad brush is a mistake. How do you feel when the ad hom "truthers living in their mothers basement, or pot smoking truther is used?" Basing your view of an opposing ideology or group on stereotypes is a quick way to stifle intellect.
The issue with 9/11 debunkers isn't one of people not understanding or accepting the motives you speak of, or even an opposing political/world view its that the majority of truther arguments simply do not stand under scrutiny. Take this thread, the topic was thermite; truthers have misrepresented what the paper actually said, to the point people now assert that thermite was definitively found at GZ. You, as a truther, should find the fact that this misinformation is being added to the truther lexicon in spite of it being false troubling. Many debunkers (and truthes) are highly skeptical of Jones' findings, so when people parrot them off a gospel they may be dismissed in many circles, and it has nothing to do with someones view of history. I think people who claim to be skeptical should exercise the same level of skepticism they do on Conspiracy evidence, that they do on offical versions, and vice versa.
What does operation northwoods or the gulf of tonkin add to the discussion on thermite? (not referring to your post) Nothing yet bringing them up is supposed to somehow add to the veracity of a science paper. Discussions are often littered with these red herrings, and serve to distract from what the topic at hand is, namely the Bentham article.
Basing your view of an opposing ideology or group on stereotypes is a quick way to stifle intellect.
Typical debunker psychobabble ;)
I think people who claim to be skeptical should exercise the same level of skepticism they do on Conspiracy evidence, that they do on offical versions, and vice versa.
I do. If you look through my comment history you'll see that I have never asserted that the WTC buildings were imploded. I keep a somewhat open mind on the subject but I've yet to see any compelling evidence. I'm more interested in the ties between the mujihadeen, ISI, CIA, Mossad and other secret societies and their hidden influence in historic and unfolding events. I'm a LIHOP truther, not a space-lasers truther.
The only reason I chime in on such threads is to troll the more aggressive "debunkers" like Jerkimer.
Thankfully you are not one of those people, so +1 for an excellent reply.
Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper.
Since the editor didn't know the paper was going to be published it stands to reason the authors provided their own reviewers. Normal peer review process dictate that the authors do no know the reviewers and the publication arranges to find the reviewers anonymously.
It's not that simple, Al + Fe ≠ Thermite. Also, I think any thermite could be considered "weapons grade", seeing how it burns (very violently) in the thousands of degrees (°C or °F).
Yes, a lot of powdered rust and aluminum should raise some eyebrows. Even if these elements were present in the WTC I don't see any reason why they would be in powder form and mixed together.
if you google 'bentam science publishers' you get really solid backing for them; the second hit is Yale.edu speaking to the rigorous standards that bentam employs.
There must be a lot of debris still available for other scientists to repeat the results. Scientists more acceptable to the anti-truthers. I wonder why this is not happening.
Just keep in mind that the paper wasn't properly peer reviewed. It seems the authors were able to choose their own reviewers. This isn't how peer reviews are supposed to work. The editor of the journal quit after she learned the paper had been included. She didn't even know what was being published in the journal she was supposed to be an editor of.
Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper.
Since the editor didn't know the paper was going to be published it stands to reason the authors provided their own reviewers.
"I think this point needs to be addressed b/c if you haven't taken time to explore the www.benthlam.org site you would not realize that there are hundreds if not thousands of papers that have been submitted and published.
Papers on every possible thing you can possibly imagine most are technical and/or field specific.
Listening to Cam's portrayal of this journal you would think that this is some up start journal with no one except wild researchers endeavors that would never be published anywhere else and not only that they paid big money just to get it done.
It couldn't be further from the truth. I encourage anyone to check the site yourself and look at there archives.
Cam wants us to think that out of all these several hundred papers that have been published that some how THIS ONE (Jones&Co's Paper) was able to by pass all of the editors and was published under their noses.
I'm not buying it, especially from someone who would spend his dying breath defending the government."
Except unlike many of the successful open journals that benthlam publishes that have active editors that are able to put their names on the line for the journal they represent, this journal had only been around for 2 issues and obviously did not have active editors willing to put their name on the line. That's why older journals are more respected than younger ones. They've had time to ensure quality control.
You ask for proof, I provide it. You do nothing to refute my points other than saying bantham does have good journals, which I agree. With nothing left you criticize me for not being able to be critical when confronted with facts. Nice. If all your going to do is resort to attacking me personally then please, stop debating with me.
Your conspiracy theory forum post is not "proof." I don't need to attack you personally, because you illustrate your stupidity crystal clear in your mind-numbing sheep-like following of NIST's targeted whitewash.
* karma: 934
* comment karma: -84
* user for 17 days
dude how many people have actually managed to get negative karma > 10 ? You've had an account for 17 days, 84 downvotes...damn don't really see the writing on the wall do you?
Eh?
hahahahahahahahah!
you're a moron, and a downvoting we will go!
Back to infowars you little unloved, unwanted, seditious, paranoid wingnut!
Comment karma is inversely proportional to intelligence. At this level I am light years ahead of you, xeno. It's not even a fair comparison. Ie.-- I'm Einstein and you're a retarded snail.
And I think my comment karma also might have something to do with the Bury Brigade infesting Reddit, and their festering, slobbering hate for the truth. But honestly I don't give a fuck about them. The truth will get out regardless.
"Comment karma is inversely proportional to intelligence."
aww, man...(here is where i would insert the yahoo! emoticon of the little d00d rolling on and beating the floor with his fist while laughing, if i could)...
these just might open some eyes...not necessarily pointed at you, fuzzo--it's just that it seems very probable that portions of the USGOV and other govs operated together in this...
No. I am all for being suspicious of the government/establishment pretty much everything. I have a degree in History, and have been reading about conspiracy theories for 10 plus years (believing them for many), so I have at least a basic understanding of history and the events you speak of, and I assure you I am not of the America, Fuck Yhea mindset. I do not think the government is inherently good or working in society's best interests. I am anti war, anti torture, and I probably share a similar world view with many here. As a debunker I am not unique, painting with such a broad brush is a mistake. How do you feel when the ad hom "truthers living in their mothers basement, or pot smoking truther is used?" Basing your view of an opposing ideology or group on stereotypes is a quick way to stifle intellect.
The issue with 9/11 debunkers isn't one of people not understanding or accepting the motives you speak of, or even an opposing political/world view its that the majority of truther arguments simply do not stand under scrutiny. Take this thread, the topic was thermite; truthers have misrepresented what the paper actually said, to the point people now assert that thermite was definitively found at GZ. You, as a truther, should find the fact that this misinformation is being added to the truther lexicon in spite of it being false troubling. Many debunkers (and truthes) are highly skeptical of Jones' findings, so when people parrot them off a gospel they may be dismissed in many circles, and it has nothing to do with someones view of history. I think people who claim to be skeptical should exercise the same level of skepticism they do on Conspiracy evidence, that they do on offical versions, and vice versa.
What does operation northwoods or the gulf of tonkin add to the discussion on thermite? (not referring to your post) Nothing yet bringing them up is supposed to somehow add to the veracity of a science paper. Discussions are often littered with these red herrings, and serve to distract from what the topic at hand is, namely the Bentham article.
62 comments
8 [deleted] 2009-06-03
apparently you should have just messaged military gunner.
i have never seen so many infowars links on the main page.
link
6 ThreeHolePunch 2009-06-03
Funny, not a single site on the internet that isn't about 9/11 conspiracies talks about "weapons grade thermite." Must be some new thing or a made up name. What is it?
-1 Military_gunner 2009-06-03
They mean military-grade thermite, aka for shaped charges, bombs or disabling enemy artillery. There are variants of it that are patented and are used mainly for military applications (such as false-flag terrorism).
5 cyince 2009-06-03
The bentham paper does not show 'weapons grade thermite' at wtc, It purports to show active thermitic material found in 3 dust samples the authors claim was taken from ground zero. It is a quantum leap of faith to escalate the findings of the paper to the conclusion weapons grade thermite was found.
9 docsavage96 2009-06-03
you do realize that the meaning of quantum is tiny, or singular, right?...
;-)
edit: typo
8 cyince 2009-06-03
I do now. When I typed it I was thinking of the show quantum leap. I will leave my original post unaltered to preserve my shame.
3 docsavage96 2009-06-03
see how easily the nwo's mass media trap works to dumb us down?...it's insidious...
and it does, of course, happen with myself, as well...
5 spinspin 2009-06-03
...because they're aliens, and that's how they roll.
1 Hangly 2009-06-03
Quantum means "amount"
1 docsavage96 2009-06-03
it means significantly, um, more than simply "amount*, as at least two references in my definition link, above, attests...
"discrete amount", "indivisible entity", and "smallest discrete quantity"--in other, commonly used words; tiny, or singular...
8 [deleted] 2009-06-03
But, coupled with all of the other crap, such as two planes knocking down three buildings--the third one falling from the bottom despite the bottom not being on fire--and Cheney suspending NORAD and all that other stuff, you know the lease of the WTC changing hands 2 weeks before the attacks to a private billionaire--well, it makes it all the more compelling.
Tack operation Northwoods onto that and truthers don't look so funny anymore.
Edit: Gulf of Tonkin too!
5 xandercruise 2009-06-03
The main problem with 9/11 debunkers is that they don't seem to understand that there is a very good reason to be suspicious of the anglo-american establishment and their intelligence agencies when it comes to war-enabling events such as 9/11.
There is a long and documented history of false flag and black operations being used to initiate wars of conquest. Debunkers seem unwilling to even acknowledge this fact. I guess it just doesn't fit into their AMERICA - FUCK YEAH! worldview.
8 cyince 2009-06-03
No. I am all for being suspicious of the government/establishment pretty much everything. I have a degree in History, and have been reading about conspiracy theories for 10 plus years (believing them for many), so I have at least a basic understanding of history and the events you speak of, and I assure you I am not of the America, Fuck Yhea mindset. I do not think the government is inherently good or working in society's best interests. I am anti war, anti torture, and I probably share a similar world view with many here. As a debunker I am not unique, painting with such a broad brush is a mistake. How do you feel when the ad hom "truthers living in their mothers basement, or pot smoking truther is used?" Basing your view of an opposing ideology or group on stereotypes is a quick way to stifle intellect.
The issue with 9/11 debunkers isn't one of people not understanding or accepting the motives you speak of, or even an opposing political/world view its that the majority of truther arguments simply do not stand under scrutiny. Take this thread, the topic was thermite; truthers have misrepresented what the paper actually said, to the point people now assert that thermite was definitively found at GZ. You, as a truther, should find the fact that this misinformation is being added to the truther lexicon in spite of it being false troubling. Many debunkers (and truthes) are highly skeptical of Jones' findings, so when people parrot them off a gospel they may be dismissed in many circles, and it has nothing to do with someones view of history. I think people who claim to be skeptical should exercise the same level of skepticism they do on Conspiracy evidence, that they do on offical versions, and vice versa.
What does operation northwoods or the gulf of tonkin add to the discussion on thermite? (not referring to your post) Nothing yet bringing them up is supposed to somehow add to the veracity of a science paper. Discussions are often littered with these red herrings, and serve to distract from what the topic at hand is, namely the Bentham article.
2 rhoadesb2 2009-06-03
I'm likely what you would term a "truther". However I liked your reasoning and voted you up.
1 xandercruise 2009-06-03
Typical debunker psychobabble ;)
I do. If you look through my comment history you'll see that I have never asserted that the WTC buildings were imploded. I keep a somewhat open mind on the subject but I've yet to see any compelling evidence. I'm more interested in the ties between the mujihadeen, ISI, CIA, Mossad and other secret societies and their hidden influence in historic and unfolding events. I'm a LIHOP truther, not a space-lasers truther.
The only reason I chime in on such threads is to troll the more aggressive "debunkers" like Jerkimer.
Thankfully you are not one of those people, so +1 for an excellent reply.
2 samurai725 2009-06-03
Right. Thermite or no thermite, propaganda is propaganda.
3 Hangly 2009-06-03
Don't forget the fascinating demise of Mr. John P. O'Neill (February 6, 1952 – September 11, 2001)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O%27Neill
2 seeker135 2009-06-03
We never looked that funny to people of intelligence with open minds.
4 docsavage96 2009-06-03
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
just to be sure folks see the link...no disrespect, jerusalem...
peace...
4 Herkimer 2009-06-03
He said "peer reviewed" and that paper has not been peer reviewed.
4 Fountainhead 2009-06-03
The editor quit after she learned that the paper had been published without her knowledge.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread458758/pg1
The paper has also not been properly peer reviewed.
http://www.bentham.org/open/topcj/MSandI.htm
The relevant part:
Since the editor didn't know the paper was going to be published it stands to reason the authors provided their own reviewers. Normal peer review process dictate that the authors do no know the reviewers and the publication arranges to find the reviewers anonymously.
4 fitzgb 2009-06-03
What difference does it make whether it was weapons grade or not? Any kind of thermite should raise eyebrows.
4 cyince 2009-06-03
Aluminum and iron at a collapse site should raise eyebrows? I'm just saying, cause that is what thermite is.
8 amsterdamn 2009-06-03
It's not that simple, Al + Fe ≠ Thermite. Also, I think any thermite could be considered "weapons grade", seeing how it burns (very violently) in the thousands of degrees (°C or °F).
-1 Hangly 2009-06-03
Not iron, iron oxide.
Yes, a lot of powdered rust and aluminum should raise some eyebrows. Even if these elements were present in the WTC I don't see any reason why they would be in powder form and mixed together.
4 bobjones97 2009-06-03
Nonsense. They simply were storing thermite on floors 96 and 81 of the two towers respectively...
3 trannypunk 2009-06-03
if you google 'bentam science publishers' you get really solid backing for them; the second hit is Yale.edu speaking to the rigorous standards that bentam employs.
http://www.google.com/search?rls=en-us&q=bentam+science+publishers
4 cyince 2009-06-03
I can't tell if people are sarcastic here, so i apologize in advance if I'm missing your humour...from that link
etc
Link
Its a letter about how Bentahm spams universitys for editors for its hournals. It talks of the low standards it has.
6 hommedumonde 2009-06-03
There must be a lot of debris still available for other scientists to repeat the results. Scientists more acceptable to the anti-truthers. I wonder why this is not happening.
2 Hangly 2009-06-03
Reasons other than the desire to remain employed?
1 trannypunk 2009-06-03
More editors = better content? Like wikipedia perhaps?
5 Fountainhead 2009-06-03
Well the editor of the journal that published the paper quit when she found out it was published.
It doesn't say much for the journal if the editor doesn't even know what is going to be published.
0 SovereignMan 2009-06-03
It doesn't say much for an editor that doesn't know what their own journal is publishing.
1 Fountainhead 2009-06-03
She actually requested several times for more information about her role as "editor" but got little to nothing back from Bentham.
3 Fountainhead 2009-06-03
Just keep in mind that the paper wasn't properly peer reviewed. It seems the authors were able to choose their own reviewers. This isn't how peer reviews are supposed to work. The editor of the journal quit after she learned the paper had been included. She didn't even know what was being published in the journal she was supposed to be an editor of.
-2 Military_gunner 2009-06-03
Where's proof of this, Fountainhead?
5 Fountainhead 2009-06-03
About the editor quiting:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread458758/pg1
About it not having proper peer review:
http://www.bentham.org/open/topcj/MSandI.htm
The relevant part:
Since the editor didn't know the paper was going to be published it stands to reason the authors provided their own reviewers.
2 Military_gunner 2009-06-03
Read the comments section, especially page 2:
"I think this point needs to be addressed b/c if you haven't taken time to explore the www.benthlam.org site you would not realize that there are hundreds if not thousands of papers that have been submitted and published.
Papers on every possible thing you can possibly imagine most are technical and/or field specific.
Listening to Cam's portrayal of this journal you would think that this is some up start journal with no one except wild researchers endeavors that would never be published anywhere else and not only that they paid big money just to get it done.
It couldn't be further from the truth. I encourage anyone to check the site yourself and look at there archives.
Cam wants us to think that out of all these several hundred papers that have been published that some how THIS ONE (Jones&Co's Paper) was able to by pass all of the editors and was published under their noses.
I'm not buying it, especially from someone who would spend his dying breath defending the government."
3 Fountainhead 2009-06-03
Except unlike many of the successful open journals that benthlam publishes that have active editors that are able to put their names on the line for the journal they represent, this journal had only been around for 2 issues and obviously did not have active editors willing to put their name on the line. That's why older journals are more respected than younger ones. They've had time to ensure quality control.
-1 Military_gunner 2009-06-03
You're obviously one who will go with the official government line no matter what, so there's no sense in debating you.
4 Fountainhead 2009-06-03
You ask for proof, I provide it. You do nothing to refute my points other than saying bantham does have good journals, which I agree. With nothing left you criticize me for not being able to be critical when confronted with facts. Nice. If all your going to do is resort to attacking me personally then please, stop debating with me.
-1 Military_gunner 2009-06-03
Your conspiracy theory forum post is not "proof." I don't need to attack you personally, because you illustrate your stupidity crystal clear in your mind-numbing sheep-like following of NIST's targeted whitewash.
4 Fountainhead 2009-06-03
Then don't.
-2 Military_gunner 2009-06-03
Alright, Herkimer.
1 [deleted] 2009-06-03
Military_gunner
dude how many people have actually managed to get negative karma > 10 ? You've had an account for 17 days, 84 downvotes...damn don't really see the writing on the wall do you?
Eh?
hahahahahahahahah!
you're a moron, and a downvoting we will go!
Back to infowars you little unloved, unwanted, seditious, paranoid wingnut!
0 Military_gunner 2009-06-03
Comment karma is inversely proportional to intelligence. At this level I am light years ahead of you, xeno. It's not even a fair comparison. Ie.-- I'm Einstein and you're a retarded snail.
And I think my comment karma also might have something to do with the Bury Brigade infesting Reddit, and their festering, slobbering hate for the truth. But honestly I don't give a fuck about them. The truth will get out regardless.
3 docsavage96 2009-06-03
aww, man...(here is where i would insert the yahoo! emoticon of the little d00d rolling on and beating the floor with his fist while laughing, if i could)...
-1 trannypunk 2009-06-03
this was recently posted, but is super related to this article:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/3/738515/-9-11-Metastasizing:-the-Lefts-Co-Dependency
-2 [deleted] 2009-06-03
[deleted]
6 joseph177 2009-06-03
Tell a lie enough times and it becomes your truth.
2 rhoadesb2 2009-06-03
Tell it even longer, and it may become the truth.
-6 [deleted] 2009-06-03
[deleted]
2 fuzzo 2009-06-03
hey, big tough man, you talk like dick cheney. are you dick cheney?
he can't prove you wrong just yet, but the odds of someone other than americans planting those charges is so negligible that it's almost impossible.
now come on back with your dickless flame and see what happens, hothead.
2 joseph177 2009-06-03
Wow, he didn't like that...I was just about to reply to him:
Proof? That would be like telling a fish that birds fly high above their head. The proof is out there; you just don't look up.
1 docsavage96 2009-06-03
Fabled Enemies...
and "the secret government", also available on google video, is also eye-opening in it's revelations on USGOV and middle-east relations, as well...
and--
these just might open some eyes...not necessarily pointed at you, fuzzo--it's just that it seems very probable that portions of the USGOV and other govs operated together in this...
peace...
edit: typo, lay-out
1 fuzzo 2009-06-03
uh, right. i said "someone other than americans". see? that means i think americans did it.
2 docsavage96 2009-06-03
and i'm pointing out that there is considerable reason--dare i say "evidence?"--to think they did it--along with at least one other nation's gov...
0 samurai725 2009-06-03
he's agreeing with ya'
1 docsavage96 2009-06-03
and i'm not disagreeing with him--i'm saying it was americans and at least one other group, too...
who do ya think upvoted the d00d?...
-5 Pfmohr2 2009-06-03
No, because there isn't one.
3 adenbley 2009-06-03
that was pretty lame.
8 cyince 2009-06-03
No. I am all for being suspicious of the government/establishment pretty much everything. I have a degree in History, and have been reading about conspiracy theories for 10 plus years (believing them for many), so I have at least a basic understanding of history and the events you speak of, and I assure you I am not of the America, Fuck Yhea mindset. I do not think the government is inherently good or working in society's best interests. I am anti war, anti torture, and I probably share a similar world view with many here. As a debunker I am not unique, painting with such a broad brush is a mistake. How do you feel when the ad hom "truthers living in their mothers basement, or pot smoking truther is used?" Basing your view of an opposing ideology or group on stereotypes is a quick way to stifle intellect.
The issue with 9/11 debunkers isn't one of people not understanding or accepting the motives you speak of, or even an opposing political/world view its that the majority of truther arguments simply do not stand under scrutiny. Take this thread, the topic was thermite; truthers have misrepresented what the paper actually said, to the point people now assert that thermite was definitively found at GZ. You, as a truther, should find the fact that this misinformation is being added to the truther lexicon in spite of it being false troubling. Many debunkers (and truthes) are highly skeptical of Jones' findings, so when people parrot them off a gospel they may be dismissed in many circles, and it has nothing to do with someones view of history. I think people who claim to be skeptical should exercise the same level of skepticism they do on Conspiracy evidence, that they do on offical versions, and vice versa.
What does operation northwoods or the gulf of tonkin add to the discussion on thermite? (not referring to your post) Nothing yet bringing them up is supposed to somehow add to the veracity of a science paper. Discussions are often littered with these red herrings, and serve to distract from what the topic at hand is, namely the Bentham article.