John Cuthber

No I don't.

LOL the power required to electrolyse 5 litres of water a second isn't what you get from a car battery. Also, things don't need to be electrolytes to be oxidised or reduced in an electrochemical cell so the idea wouldn't work properly.

I don't.

Let's be clear about this. A statement like "Meet the modern day dipole, it was my discovery, derived from my inner perception, and philosophy." has nothing to do with science.

The real problem will be that you simply don't get magnesium this way.

The decomposition must refer to the hydrate.

QM drives all chemistry.

"I am not giving circular reasoning." Oh yes you are.

"Being right about a true conspiracy holds great value," Or it gets you killed to keep you quiet.

"A simple explanation for the molten metal is that it is steel melted with thermate." A simpler explanation is that it's rather hot aluminium. It really doesn't make sense to claim that thermate is a simple explanation because, if it were there it would have shown up in the measurements made by the people who claimed to have found termite. (It's not as if they would have kept quiet about it.) The barium would have shown up in the elemental analyses. So, thermate cannot have been present or the papers cited earlier would have found it when they were analysing what they claimed was thermite. Specifically, the dispersive Xray analysis they talk about here http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM would have shown up the presence of Barium. (The stuff on DSC is bollocks, but the Xray analyses are fairly reliable; they show what they claim is thermite- they don't seem to see a problem with the fact that it hadn't' "gone off" so to speak). Barium would have stuck out like a sore arse. It wasn't found (if it had been, those same people would have had a field day with that discovery). It wasn't there. There was no thermate But without the addition of the barium nitrate, the stuff doesn't burn hot enough to cut girders. So the girders were not cut that way. Why do you insist that this is a "cover up?"

LOL! Even a candle burns hotter than 1000 C Steel loses a lot of it's strength by the time it's at 500C. The eutectic (which, incidentally is about 1100C rather than 703C and is practically speaking, the melting point of cast iron) has nothing to do with it.

I predict that, in a week or so, we will get a post here that starts "I am a reporter for a local news station and I want to know how I would get food from a restaurant tested for drugs. Can anyone here help?"

What we can measure doesn't affect what exists. Lithium atoms had energy levels before there were people to wonder about them. Also it is, in a sense, perfectly simple to measure individual atoms. If you look at the yellow light from an old street light through a spectroscope you will see that almost all the light is one of two wavelengths. That's because the light is emitted by single atoms. Each photon of light was emitted by just one atom. If you put a little effort into the measurement you can count the photons individually and measure their energy. That tells you about the energy states of individual atoms in the lamp. You can even get some information about how fast it was going.

Surely the Earth shields the Moon more than the Moon shields the Earth?

I don't think any drug would do that anyway. I think you just found a really good meal and are now being troubled by this effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_fruit Possibly, together with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin

Have you seen Ben Nevis? OK, it's only about a seventh as high, but it's only 5 miles or so from the coast.

Mercifully, they don't.

I think it's clear that something came unbuckled. If you start at the ribs, work your way up through the windpipe to the back of the throat then go up another 2 inches or so you will find the place where the unbuckling took place. (Normally. I'd describe it as "behind the eyes" but I'm not sure that works with a Cyclops.)

I'm perfectly certain it did. The Iraq war is the most blatantly obvious case in point. They said it was the "War on terror" They tried to lie about it, but the truth came out. So now we know that: You can't have a war on terror because nobody can sign the armistice. They attacked the wrong country. This proves that they are not good at keeping secrets. Why do you think they managed to keep the 9/11 conspiracy secret, but failed miserably with the war?

"I say the video proves that it's possible to cut girders with thermite (or thermate)." That is an absurd position to take. It's like saying "Here is a video of someone cutting steel plate with an oxyacetylene torch. That proves it's possible to cut steel sheet with a candle (or an oxyacetylene torch)" It's technically a true statement, but it's irrelevant. There was no thermate.

Iodine vapour has a band spectrum it's purple (other colours happen too, but the purple colour of iodine is quite well known) If you look in detail at the spectrum you will see that it's made up of lots of lines very close together in the green region of light. If you don't look so closely it's just a splodgy looking broad absorption. There's a picture of it here http://home.sou.edu/~chapman/ch445/Iodine.htm The different absorbtions occur because, in addition to moving the electron from one excited state to another, the molecule is left vibrating. The different amounts of vibration correspond to different energies and so to different wavelengths of light.

Both sets are infinite so a strict comparison is meaningless. But you don't seem to have answered my direct question. Do you believe that men landed on the moon?

Thanks for providing a link like this; t was very funny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DonpXB6gjPA#t=8m16s where by using thermate rather than thermite Adding a hydraulic ram and some tungsten sheets. Then enclosing it a welded steel box and finally bolting it to the column you can indeed cut the column ( though it doesn't actually break- you have to work on it later. That proves my point. You can't cut girders with thermite. In some circumstances you might cut it with thermate (which burns a lot hotter and more fiercely) Does anyone think that is important? I mean- do you not think someone would have noticed someone drilling holes in all the girders (many of which won't have been accessible, and adding tons of thermate (incidentally there wasn't evidence of thermate at all. The evidence for thermite was bad enough- but there really was no thermate there). I thought I should add this. In one case you say that you will not believe a group of scientist. In the other case you say you will believe a group of self appointed experts. Can I ask you if you are sure that is anything other than prejudice?

OK, to start with part 1 Firstly, we should ideally qualify "near free fall speed". There isn't one. If they were in free fall they would accelerate continuously on the way down. The collapse is difficult to see well on any video because it's dusty and the people often stop filming to run. As far as I can judge the floors fall as they would be expected to if the building pancaked. The delay between one floor and the rest is similar, but that delay doesn't get much shorter as the building falls. Each floor starts from rest as the floor above hits it. In free fall, each floor would fall at the same rate and the floors wouldn't get squashed together until they hit the ground. If they were in free fall because the girders were cut, then the first floor to break would be relatively slow, the second one would be faster the third faster still and so on. There's some evidence of that, but not as much as you would get with free fall. It's a bit of an oversimplification but the girders at the corners of the building have nothing to hold them out, but the impact of the debris pulling them in. That's why they get pulled down. They "roll up" into the building. Also you make an assertion that is unsupported and doesn't make much sense "and if it's from the falling inertia of the floors, then they wouldn't fall at free-fall speeds." What other speed would they fall at? Fundamentally, there isn't much difference between the two states. In one case you cut most of the supports with cutting charges and so the building falls- one layer lands on the one below it and that collapses. Those two land on the next one down and so on. In the case of the WTC, one floor was weakened by a massive fire. The weight of the floors above collapses that floor, and it lands on the one below. The impact smashes that and the whole lot carries on down pancaking the floors under it in turn. The failure modes are so similar it isn't possible to say clearly from the video which happened. Part 2 The simple answer is that normally, if there's a damn great fire in a skyscraper the whole fire service is mobilised to do something about it. In this case, they were busy. It's not realistic to compare that fire with an "ordinary" one. Apart from anything else, ordinary fires only have one "seat". The one in that building set lots of floors alight at the same time. There was not the usual supply of water or manpower to put it out, There's your assertion that "nor was its structure compromised by debris" which is odd. It was clearly hit by a lot of debris- there is no evidence that the debris didn't do any damage? part 3 " The Bush administration destroyed evidence and fought against independent investigation. This is not evidence of anything in particular" You said it. As I have pointed out there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. They wanted the mess tidied up so the city could recover quickly. There was no evidence at that time to suggest anything other than a terrorist outrage so there was no reason to look for clues about the cause of the collapse. They fell because the planes (or debris) hit them. Why make things worse by delaying the clear up? Also, re " I don't accept as fact any scientific conclusion where the evidence is kept secret, destroyed, or made unscrutinizable" Logically you don't believe in a lot of things then. Do you believe that men landed on the moon? If you do the you have contradicted yourself. If you don't then people will draw their own conclusions. Part 4 As I explained, there is, at best, evidence that if thermite was present, it didn't burn. Finding three of the commonest 5 elements on the planet is hardly evidence of anything. (oxygen, iron, aluminium) If it had been there and burned it wouldn't have done much, as shown by that video clip. In any event thermite isn't an explosive. What explosives? Is there actually any evidence of any? In particular is there evidence of the massive amounts that would have been needed? Part 5 5) Testimony of individuals having foreknowledge that the towers would be demolished. Testimony isn't evidence I'm afraid. People are prepared to lie for any number of reasons. The art of "prediction" has been with us for a long time, but it was never very credible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus I agree that 5 points was arbitrary- but I only have so much time to spend on things like this. As you said, one point would be enough. Unfortunately all the points you raised were somewhere between dubious and wrong. Now, if the best 5 reasons to believe the conspiracy are not valid, there's no point whatsoever looking at numbers 5 to 10 or 10 to 1000000. So, we can stop now.

Can I just point out something really rather dull. I have still not seen any evidence, or even purported evidence, of explosives in the debris. Thermite is not an explosive. As a second, rather uninteresting point. They seem to have found iron oxide and aluminium. They seem not to have taken any notice of the fact that iron oxide is formed from steel in the presence of hot air. There were steel beams in the building. A fire was seen in the building. Fires create hot air (rather a lot in this case). There is a perfectly sensible explanation for the presence of iron oxide. The aircraft were largely made from aluminium. There is a perfectly sensible explanation for the presence of aluminium. Perhaps the real killer is that they found a mixture with the right components to make thermite (big deal- lots of kids make it so it's not difficult) What they didn't seem to find was the molten iron and alumina that you get after a thermite reaction. What they have found might be thermite- but if it is then it didn't work. Another dull fact is that people who know how to drop buildings use shaped charges. They don't use thermite to cut steel beams. There's a really good reason why not. Watch this vid and see if you can work out why. (You might want to turn the sound down). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_-jVzYpQzc&feature=related The teeny weeny little problem is that thermite doesn't really cut through steel very well. Now, I wonder if you would be good enough to comment on my idea that you let me know your top 5 reasons. (Up to 10 or so won't kill me if you really can't tell the story in just 5)