Nano Thermite found by multiple scientists in WTC dust, peer reviewed reports surface
- Thread starter YOESH!
- Start date
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
^^
Instructions for transforming semis into military-style automatics are, naturally, freely available in the internet. 8) Seems pretty reasonable to me, given the typical use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200805.grayson.loszetas.html
I'd like you to visualize people trying to take you seriously when you have nothing better to talk about than typos... Go on... really try to imagine it.
Last edited:
YOESH!
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 754
The constitution is unambiguous about restrictions on ownership of firearms, but if you're fine with being reduced to a subject rather than a citizen then more [less] power to you. Let the cops keep their full auto MP5s and M4A1s, their microwave guns, their infrared camera equipped helicopters, and their armored personnel carriers, but we don't deserve a semi automatic rifle whose stock and grip are too menacing!
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
here's a thought experiment for you:
What definition of "arms" can realistically be applied to include a grenade launcher, but exclude a small thermonuclear device.
What definition of "arms" can realistically be applied to include a grenade launcher, but exclude a small thermonuclear device.
YOESH!
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 754
Many guns in the previous assault weapons ban were banned based on their looks alone, and not on their functionality.
A thermonuclear device can't effectively be used by an individual for self defense, as far as I can tell. Projectile based weapons that you can carry around, whether it be a .22 or M249, is what I would consider "arms." Full auto or semi, I personally consider them in the same circle.
Are you against Americans possessing the semi-auto weapons that fall under the assault weapons ban? If so, why? Is it because they can kill more people, faster? In my opinion, that's the point. The right to own guns is protected so that they may be used against people, not deer. Thermonuclear device? Man, you're starting to really reach.
Why are you still here? Isn't my logic so clouded that you'd rather not talk to me?
"I'd like you to visualize people trying to take you seriously when you have nothing better to talk about than typos... Go on... really try to imagine it."
I just think that if you're going to attack someone's intelligence and be so rude and condescending, it makes you look a little ridiculous to repeatedly misspell the word argument. (Yeah, I have nothing better to talk about than typos. All my 35 posts in this thread are about typos. No substance.)
A thermonuclear device can't effectively be used by an individual for self defense, as far as I can tell. Projectile based weapons that you can carry around, whether it be a .22 or M249, is what I would consider "arms." Full auto or semi, I personally consider them in the same circle.
Are you against Americans possessing the semi-auto weapons that fall under the assault weapons ban? If so, why? Is it because they can kill more people, faster? In my opinion, that's the point. The right to own guns is protected so that they may be used against people, not deer. Thermonuclear device? Man, you're starting to really reach.
Why are you still here? Isn't my logic so clouded that you'd rather not talk to me?
"I'd like you to visualize people trying to take you seriously when you have nothing better to talk about than typos... Go on... really try to imagine it."
I just think that if you're going to attack someone's intelligence and be so rude and condescending, it makes you look a little ridiculous to repeatedly misspell the word argument. (Yeah, I have nothing better to talk about than typos. All my 35 posts in this thread are about typos. No substance.)
Heuristic
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,263
1. DHS's priority is NOT returning veterans. That's absurd and without foundation. And do NOT simply link me to a document. I want you to QUOTE the portion that you think indicates that returning veterans are DHS's "top priority above that of Islamic terrorism." Understand? I want a QUOTE and a citation. I don't want another youtube link either.
2. Mental background checks concern whether an individual has been involuntarily committed for certain reasons. Whether someone has PTSD isn't an accessible item of information. We simply don't want persons who have extremely serious mental health illnesses to have firearms. They're more likely to hurt themselves, and others. See, e.g., Colin Fergusson.
3. Yes, police and military get to use bigger and better weapons than you do. That's because they work for the American people, and their use and possession of those weapons is stringently regulated and controlled. I assure you that if the government practiced arms control in a civilian population the way it does on a military base you would NOT be happy.
4. Federal, state, and local authorities have been cooperating for many years now. More recently these have become known as Joint Terrorism Task Forces. They better enable information to be share and efforts to be coordinated. Lack of information-sharing and coordination by government agencies, at all levels, was one of the key factors that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to execute their operation.
5. Your civil rights are perfectly secure. The government is working to keep them, and your personal well being, secure. If you feel your civil rights are being violated, visit your local ACLU chapter.
6. If a troop of Boy Scouts wants to visit DHS and have some fun, that's fine by me. Most boys enjoy playing at being a soldier, cop, robber, etc. Relax a little.
2. Mental background checks concern whether an individual has been involuntarily committed for certain reasons. Whether someone has PTSD isn't an accessible item of information. We simply don't want persons who have extremely serious mental health illnesses to have firearms. They're more likely to hurt themselves, and others. See, e.g., Colin Fergusson.
3. Yes, police and military get to use bigger and better weapons than you do. That's because they work for the American people, and their use and possession of those weapons is stringently regulated and controlled. I assure you that if the government practiced arms control in a civilian population the way it does on a military base you would NOT be happy.
4. Federal, state, and local authorities have been cooperating for many years now. More recently these have become known as Joint Terrorism Task Forces. They better enable information to be share and efforts to be coordinated. Lack of information-sharing and coordination by government agencies, at all levels, was one of the key factors that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to execute their operation.
5. Your civil rights are perfectly secure. The government is working to keep them, and your personal well being, secure. If you feel your civil rights are being violated, visit your local ACLU chapter.
6. If a troop of Boy Scouts wants to visit DHS and have some fun, that's fine by me. Most boys enjoy playing at being a soldier, cop, robber, etc. Relax a little.
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
I'm not really seeing anything along the lines of "has a mother of pearl handle" in the criteria. Bayonets, expanded magazines, and collapsible stocks have functional value.
Nothing in that good old second amendment about an individual... just "the people" and "a well-regulated militia". This is, of course, about preserving a free State. Nuclear deterrence would be just as meaningful, even more so, if it existed within the border, rather than without.
Besides, what you consider arms-- personally deployable weapons-- is going to change dramatically in the next 50 years. Who is going to be permitted to use that lethal force?
Once again: no distinction between a nuke, and an assault rifle (to kill people, as efficiently as possible).
My problem with assault rifles is not that they are intended to kill people-- its that they do kill people unlawfully. Targeting gun control, either through a ban, or through registration and absolute accountability for the owner and merchant for a gun used in the commission of a crime makes sense to me.
The firearms lobby is funded by gun manufacturers. They make more money by selling assault rifles, and their sales increase when more guns get into the hands of people who use them to commit crimes. Please have no illusions about this. It is, unfortunately, intertwined in a constitutionally protected right, but there are parties making big money off of innocent people dieing in the street like animals-- which is certainly a violation of civil rights.
Possessing a nuke is a thought experiment, of course. It was postulated to show you the error of your reasoning. Furthermore-- SCOTUS opinions are all over the fucking map on the second amendment. None of them have the kind of internal validity one would expect.
YOESH!
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 754
1: "Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement."
"The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups"
http://infowars.com/media/rightwing-dhs.pdf
2:
"What H.R. 45 Does
The legislation has three main components.
1. Increasing requirements for firearms purchases.
2. Creating a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.
3. Stiffen penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database formed in section 2.
To purchase a firearm a person would be required to pass a written firearms examination, release all health records -- including mental heath records -- to the Attorney General's office, and submit to a two-day waiting period, as well as pay an "appropriate" fee of $25 per firearm."
3: The police work for the corrupt government, enforcing (sometimes brutally) unjust, unconstitutional laws. You can't guarantee me anything.
4: Centralized authority is not good. Our system is based on checks and balances, and those are disappearing. Public Private Partnership = fascism IMO. The 9-11 attack argument doesn't hold up for me because I don't buy the official story. Remember the memo, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US" or something like that? Lack of communication between agencies? I don't buy it.
5: The drug war illustrates perfectly that my rights are NOT secure. This is just one example.
6: Indoctrination of children is bullshit, any way you slice it.
Forgive the sloppiness of this response, but I have to go somewhere. Will be back to continue this discussion later though.
Cheers, mates!
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement."
"The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups"
http://infowars.com/media/rightwing-dhs.pdf
2:
"What H.R. 45 Does
The legislation has three main components.
1. Increasing requirements for firearms purchases.
2. Creating a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.
3. Stiffen penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database formed in section 2.
To purchase a firearm a person would be required to pass a written firearms examination, release all health records -- including mental heath records -- to the Attorney General's office, and submit to a two-day waiting period, as well as pay an "appropriate" fee of $25 per firearm."
3: The police work for the corrupt government, enforcing (sometimes brutally) unjust, unconstitutional laws. You can't guarantee me anything.
4: Centralized authority is not good. Our system is based on checks and balances, and those are disappearing. Public Private Partnership = fascism IMO. The 9-11 attack argument doesn't hold up for me because I don't buy the official story. Remember the memo, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US" or something like that? Lack of communication between agencies? I don't buy it.
5: The drug war illustrates perfectly that my rights are NOT secure. This is just one example.
6: Indoctrination of children is bullshit, any way you slice it.
Forgive the sloppiness of this response, but I have to go somewhere. Will be back to continue this discussion later though.
Cheers, mates!
Heuristic
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,263
1. Your quote says that stockpiling of weapons by rightwing extremists remains "a" primary concern of government. While this is poor wording on the part of the writer, the implication is that this is one concern of many, otherwise he would have written "the" primary concern. More importantly, your quote did NOT state that returning veterans were a primary concern in any way. It simply speculated about the possibility of extremist groups attempting to recruit veterans.
2. Ah yes, HR45. The purpose of the release of the mental health records in that bill is to enable the Attorney General to determine whether subsection (g) of section 922 of Title 18 has been violated. Subsection (g) prohibits anyone adjudicated to be a "mental defective" or who has been "committed to a mental institution" from receiving a firearm. That's it. Having PTSD or having had PTSD is not a disqualification. Okay?
3. The police work within the system of government, and are highly regulated. If you feel your civil rights have been violated by a police officer, you have ample legal remedies at your disposal; these legal remedies will be enforced. Police departments, and certainly federal agencies, also have substantial resources devoted to the internal monitoring and investigation of complaints, and possible abuses, by officers or agents. Generally speaking, though, these people protect you and make your life safer; they do at sometimes great risk to their own lives.
4. Information-sharing and coordination does not disrupt our system of federalism, or any checks and balances.
5. The drug war illustrates that government will respond forcefully to organized and repeated violations of laws which have been legitimately passed, and are the law of the land. While you may not agree with these laws, they nonetheless were passed by your representatives. You are free to seek to change those laws, and to speak out against them. Many do, and many are.
6. Their parents presumably approved of the little field trip, Yoesh. Their parents approved of their joining the Boy Scouts. I'm fine with my child being "indoctrinated" with values that I myself approve of. You're free to do differently.
I found your response refreshingly concise, not sloppy.
2. Ah yes, HR45. The purpose of the release of the mental health records in that bill is to enable the Attorney General to determine whether subsection (g) of section 922 of Title 18 has been violated. Subsection (g) prohibits anyone adjudicated to be a "mental defective" or who has been "committed to a mental institution" from receiving a firearm. That's it. Having PTSD or having had PTSD is not a disqualification. Okay?
3. The police work within the system of government, and are highly regulated. If you feel your civil rights have been violated by a police officer, you have ample legal remedies at your disposal; these legal remedies will be enforced. Police departments, and certainly federal agencies, also have substantial resources devoted to the internal monitoring and investigation of complaints, and possible abuses, by officers or agents. Generally speaking, though, these people protect you and make your life safer; they do at sometimes great risk to their own lives.
4. Information-sharing and coordination does not disrupt our system of federalism, or any checks and balances.
5. The drug war illustrates that government will respond forcefully to organized and repeated violations of laws which have been legitimately passed, and are the law of the land. While you may not agree with these laws, they nonetheless were passed by your representatives. You are free to seek to change those laws, and to speak out against them. Many do, and many are.
6. Their parents presumably approved of the little field trip, Yoesh. Their parents approved of their joining the Boy Scouts. I'm fine with my child being "indoctrinated" with values that I myself approve of. You're free to do differently.
I found your response refreshingly concise, not sloppy.
Last edited:
FrostyMcFailure
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2004
- Messages
- 4,524
Its not because a black mans president,.Maybe its because they're trying to destroy the second amendment & america subconsciously (as a whole) is preparing for "something" who knows what.
Man there is soo many Pro-armed states quotes from the founding forefathers its not even funny cause that's what protects the constitution.
Obama admin tried restricting guns with a bill but couldnt so now they are going after ammo, its a fact. the most popular 2 varieties of ammo arent being sold and ammunition is multiplying in value as we speak since now they're restricting ammo sales due to not being able to pass there gun restrictions. Are you sure he was born in kenya? The admin denied showing his real birth certificate & claimed he was "born in hawaii" but the date & his mom's age apparently should have DQed him from running for president. Now thats fucked up.
Have you ever wondered why the police have baton's in london?
Police are prostitutes and they shouldn't be taking young children & whoring them out THAT early! The worst part is the dumb ass po(lice) stare i despise so much is clearly on the face of one particular child in picture.
Man there is soo many Pro-armed states quotes from the founding forefathers its not even funny cause that's what protects the constitution.
Obama admin tried restricting guns with a bill but couldnt so now they are going after ammo, its a fact. the most popular 2 varieties of ammo arent being sold and ammunition is multiplying in value as we speak since now they're restricting ammo sales due to not being able to pass there gun restrictions. Are you sure he was born in kenya? The admin denied showing his real birth certificate & claimed he was "born in hawaii" but the date & his mom's age apparently should have DQed him from running for president. Now thats fucked up.
Have you ever wondered why the police have baton's in london?
Police are prostitutes and they shouldn't be taking young children & whoring them out THAT early! The worst part is the dumb ass po(lice) stare i despise so much is clearly on the face of one particular child in picture.
Last edited:
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
then cite the relevant text from the bill, please.
go ahead and cite that too. A primary source would be great.
what's fucked up is becoming a tool for the bigots who circulated that rumor.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_a_smoking_gun_been_found_to.html
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_states_going_to_require_serial_numbers.html
check your head, dude.
No, i haven't-- because I know they face considerably less danger from criminals using lethal force on them.
thanks for sharing.
tambourine-man
Bluelight Crew
Because the liberals confiscated their baton guns that used to fire them out at 600 batons-per-minute.
Now they just have to whack people over the head with the leftover ammunition.
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
proffered in absence of any real arguement.
Beenhead
Bluelight Crew
SO this research was done in a laboratory that was frewuently looking into nano science? Sounds like the case of the dirty glassware to me, or bad analytical technique. Why was the nanoscientist looking into this anyway? What gave him the inspiration that nano science was at all involved in this? Sounds like the UFO researcher. Any light in the sky is now a UFO....
Beenhead
Bluelight Crew
Harrit et. al. said:
SO if the material is evenly distributed like they say at around 0.1% you would be looking at tones of this material. Tones of a nano particle. That is stupid. Not feasible.
SO if 0.1% of material is unreacted thermite, in a highly favorable and energetic reaction, think about how much material there would of been. It makes this sound even more dumb
Wow, Iron Oxide, Aluminum, Oxygen, Silicon..... all in the rubble of an exploded building? I have used Thermogravimetic analysis on samples of lead ( a very expensive and sensitive TGA that can meaure micrograms) The combustion of which created lead oxide. I guarantee this would happen if the lead were exposed to these very high temperatures. This article trys to use The popular subject of Nanotech, and some over your head jargon to make you think that George Bush blew up the WTC. This is the most retarded paper I have ever read. I did not see the point of most the of instrumentation being used. All they did was find the components of the dust, and their ratios. While this may give ideas of the original compnents, there are many different more likely original components, such as steel. Aluminum is everywhere. When you are looking at macroscopic samples, it is difficult to tell get the original molecule when you do not know the starting amount, nor the final total mass. Actually it is impossible. All they did was find the ratio of chemicals in a few samples.
Beenhead
Bluelight Crew
Boy Scouts training to be junior Homeland Security officers! Isn't that cute!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html
Meanwhile, DHS says in internal documents that the huge numbers of US citizens buying guns right now, faster than at any time in history as well as veterans returning from combat are their PRIMARY CONCERN, not Islamic jihadists...
Let's read the first sentence of this NY Times article together, shall we?
"IMPERIAL, Calif. — Ten minutes into arrant mayhem in this town near the Mexican border, and the gunman, a disgruntled Iraq war veteran, has already taken out two people, one slumped in his desk, the other covered in blood on the floor."
If you read their internal documents, like the Virginia Domestic Terrorism Threat Assessment and Missouri Information Analysis Center reports, put out by federal government organizations like FUSION centers (their motto: "Federal, state, local, private") with the intent of integrating local police with DHS and federal authority in general. They keep talking about these kids being trained as Border Patrol, but this scenario has nothing to do with securing the border. It just happens to take place in a border town. Also, see the discussion about "college gunmen" and other situations that have nothing to do with securing the border. The constitution doesn't apply 100 miles in from the border, at least as far as searches go! Definitely some cruel and unusual punishment going on too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZqNb4gx1Ss
Just Border Patrol doing their job as they see fit! And by the way, I have been following this man's resistance to the unconstitutional warrantless suspicionless checkpoints for nearly a year before this event happened.
Do you think any of this would be going on without the (requisite) catastrophic, catalyzing events of September 11th?
Also, does anyone want to talk about the reacted thermite evidence? I'm referring to those microscopic iron spheres which could only have formed in a liquid state. Reacted as well as unreacted material was found, and not in negligible amounts as some have suggested. Based on estimates I can only assume are relatively accurate, sourced from (6 I think) different locations and calculated using the ratio of thermitic material to non-thermitic material found in the dust samples, a handful of tons of it would have been present..
Ah, bollocks.
"Everything is fine. Everything is fine. Everything is fine."
Enjoy the police state Rach and Heur, you apologists.
Dude, the spheres were formed in the DSC, not in the blast. There were no spheres found in the samples, but made, with the DSC.
Nowhere in that study does it claim to have found unreacted thermite. DSC nor TGA can absolutely determine the identity of anything
I also am having trouble with figure 29. This shows a DSC graph. When there is an increase in the heat flow, this means that the machine must be pumping in more heat to keep the temperature rising, this means that energy is being absorbed by the sample. This is an endotherm. The problem is there is an endotherm in figure 29. While the caption says that this is showing a reaction, of the decomposition. When you add heat to a sample and it decomposes, from oxidation, heat is released. This means that the released heat would make it easier for the machine to keep the heat risng. That is called an exotherm. Why is the graph showing an endothem wihen it should be an exotherm?
Last edited:
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
great contribution. thumbs up