James B. over at Screwloosechange recently commented on the debate between Richard Gage and Chris Mohr. James apparently thinks that Gage is contradicting himself by saying that explosives took down WTC7 but that thermite is an incendiary and makes no explosive sounds. From this, James concludes that this "magical thermite stuff" proves "trutherism is a mythology, not a science." Interestingly, James has brought up this issue before regarding the Twin Towers. What James still doesn't seem to grasp is the fact that thermite can be formulated as a quiet explosive. Granted, there was no "lack of sounds" as David Chandler has already demonstrated.
Explosions can be heard, but they are obviously quieter than normal explosions. But is this possible to accomplish with thermite? Well, as pointed out in the Active Thermitic Material paper, in April 2001 the American Chemical Society held a symposium on the defense applications of nanomaterials in which they stated:
________________________________________________________
At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. ________________________________________________________
The authors then go on to point out that:
________________________________________________________
The feature of ‘impulse management’ may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level. ________________________________________________________
This certainly doesn't sound like magic or mythology to me. All it sounds like is science.
So yes, thermite can be formulated as an explosive, but it can also be formulated to reduce the explosive sounds. Certainly those close to WTC7 might have heard these explosions, and it is those types of witnesses Gage references.
Gage has good reason to criticize Mohr for claiming that WTC7 and other demolitions "sound completely different,” because as the NFPA 921 guide points out:
_________________________________________________________
Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.
_________________________________________________________
Below is an edited version of Gage and Mohr's debate where I have added comments and videos to address the sound issue and other points raised by Mohr.
Related Info:
Unedited version of Gage and Mohr's debate with visual aides and download link.
9/11 Controversy Strikes Again at UC Boulder Face-Off
2/25/11 Answers from NIST to Questions by Chris Mohr, Journalist
Showing posts with label James B. Screw Loose Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James B. Screw Loose Change. Show all posts
Friday, March 18, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Loughner and Zeitgeist in Perspective
James B. over at Screw Loose Change recently posted part of an article claiming that the film Zeitgeist heavily influenced Jared Loughner. James apparently felt that the article made "enough good points about Jared Loughner and the pan-conspiracy movie Zeitgeist" and "thought it deserved a post." Now while I don't agree with everything about the Zeitgeist Movement, all these claims about the film's connection to the shooting are ridiculous. Poster Freethinkaluva22 has a thread at the FreeThoughtNation forum discussing this incident, and has made some very good points about why all these accusations against the film are baseless.
_______________________________________________
To our knowledge, there has never been a single violent incident at any Zeitgeist meeting or showing worldwide, or any call to violence by any member of the Zeitgeist Movement or fan of the Zeitgeist films.
Jared Loughner's friend who claimed Zeitgeist was one of Loughner's favorite films hadn't seen him in two years.
Like the Zeitgeist Movement, we here at Freethought Nation, Truth Be Known and Stellar House Publishing are diametrically opposed to war and violence.
_______________________________________________
Related links:
Public Statement by Peter Joseph
Miley Cyrus wants to murder innocent children!
_______________________________________________
To our knowledge, there has never been a single violent incident at any Zeitgeist meeting or showing worldwide, or any call to violence by any member of the Zeitgeist Movement or fan of the Zeitgeist films.
Jared Loughner's friend who claimed Zeitgeist was one of Loughner's favorite films hadn't seen him in two years.
Like the Zeitgeist Movement, we here at Freethought Nation, Truth Be Known and Stellar House Publishing are diametrically opposed to war and violence.
_______________________________________________
Related links:
Public Statement by Peter Joseph
Miley Cyrus wants to murder innocent children!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Loud Debunker-Not
Calling Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth "The Quiet Juggernaut," James B. of the Screw Loose Change blog states:
And having an article published about their group in The Washington Times is a big deal!
SpookyPunkos comment - March 4, 2010:
James B's position is obviously a poor attempt to belittle this important story. I would remind the debunkers that although the Washington Times printed this 911 story first, heaps of other papers have taken up the issue when they covered the Washington Times article.
The other papers didn't have to write their own substantial copy, they just repeated what was already there, largely without ridiculing it !
If the 911 story was so bad why did other papers take it up ? Plus why did they not wholesale deride the copy when they presented it ?
I just googled the story and there was a lot of good coverage:
http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIC_enAU311AU311&q=Washington+Times+911+story
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIC_enAU311AU311&q=Washington+Times+911+story&start=10&sa=N
On February 25, the Swiss paper The Daily Bell also published an original article inspired by the Washinton Times piece.
They state:
Related Info:
AE911Truth.org Press Conference Video and Media Coverage
AE911Truth held their series of 47 press conferences yesterday, but apparently the press failed to show up. From searching Google news it appears they actually managed to make it into 1 actual newspaper...They also got some TV coverage James.
And having an article published about their group in The Washington Times is a big deal!
SpookyPunkos comment - March 4, 2010:
James B's position is obviously a poor attempt to belittle this important story. I would remind the debunkers that although the Washington Times printed this 911 story first, heaps of other papers have taken up the issue when they covered the Washington Times article.
The other papers didn't have to write their own substantial copy, they just repeated what was already there, largely without ridiculing it !
If the 911 story was so bad why did other papers take it up ? Plus why did they not wholesale deride the copy when they presented it ?
I just googled the story and there was a lot of good coverage:
http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIC_enAU311AU311&q=Washington+Times+911+story
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIC_enAU311AU311&q=Washington+Times+911+story&start=10&sa=N
On February 25, the Swiss paper The Daily Bell also published an original article inspired by the Washinton Times piece.
They state:
The Washington Times, a mainstream, beltway newspaper, is seemingly opening up the issue again. There was no need to cover yet another 'trufers' story and yet the Times has done so - to the astonishment of the alternative blogosphere. We think, not to make a pun, that this is in fact a sign of the times. The pressure to understand what really happened on 9/11 simply won't go away. It is all over the 'Net and is in fact gaining momentum in our opinion.Concluding:
Yesterday, the Washington Times covered an important 9/11 story once again. It was supposed to be dead by now. As dead as Jack Kennedy. Yet articles and research regarding 9/11 are posted to the Internet every day. They are like drops of water that erode the hard shell of the established government narrative.Those Debunkers will say anything to water down or whitewash any significant 911 truth developments. It's very transparent disinfo tactics considering their position juxtaposed to reality ...
Related Info:
AE911Truth.org Press Conference Video and Media Coverage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)