9/11 Poll

Everything you have said here is nothing but unsupported conjecture and yet you accuse others of bullshit.

It is not in the research phase in 2009. They are simply trying to make it efficient and cost effective. It was probably much further along in 2001 than you want to admit to.

A report from The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San Diego made the below comment:

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 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.

Now if it was a publicly known thing in early 2001 it was probably a reality well before that and it wouldn't have been the first time something new was usurped and used by powerful individuals for their own motives. There is evidence that the umbrella man in the Kennedy assassination was actually firing a paralyzing dart at JFK to make him a sitting duck. See the 1975 Church committee hearings on the existence of a weapon like this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why is this thread in the "pseudoscience" forum?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

were these samples compared to samples taken from the pile or were they not?
were these samples compared with the buildings manifest or were they not?
two simple questions that only require a yes or no.

frankly i couldn't care less if USGS, RJ lee, jones, is full of shit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i know forensic testing is not done as often as "cop shows" imply.

which brings us right back to the question of these buildings were known to be flawed. it was known that these buildings would fail catastrophically instead of failing safe.
the excerpt i presented from JOM seems to support that scenario.

 

Because the head admins of this site believe the official story.

 

Even Jonathan Barnett, a PhD. Fire Protection Engineer who was charged with the investigation of WTC7 collapse debris field, had this to say concerning the examination of the evidence in WTC 7:

We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7.​

Here's the video clip where he says it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8

Despite this and the fact that he found evidence for sulfidation of the steel as well as evaporated/vaporized steel, he still seems to support the official story regarding what happened to the WTC buildings. So you definitely can't claim that he's a "truther".

 

It is sad that the head admins of a site that supposedly discusses "science" should subscribe to belief rather than forensic evidence.

 

for THE FOURTH TIME:
what exactly wasn't he able to do?

the very same person also states in the very same video "it wouldn't take much removal of the insulation for the steel to fail".

i also asked tony if the center of 7 was built upon the gravel backfilled basement.
so far this question has not been answered.

 

Oh dear.

You are waisting more of my time, and quite frankly responding to every one of your silly statements would needlessly increase the size of this thread even further.

The World Trade centre dust was very abundant, and RJ Lee did comparisons to dust from the twin towers and that of dust from other buildings. They proved that the WTC dust is distinct. Proof and confirmation of this also arises in other reports.

You are very ignorant of the facts. I dont think anybody should waste their time responding to your confused diatribe.

 

i take it then that "no" would be the answer to both of my questions, correct?

edit:
i've just done a post search of all your posts thinking i might have missed where you posted such evidence.
you posted a lot of words but no links to any of the papers or abstracts that you mentioned.

 

No was not the answer. You are demonstrating great ignorance once again.

The reason I did not post links to the references is because I was not able to. New users here cannot post links until they have at least 20 posts on their account. If I were to post links, I would have to spend time modifying them in funny ways to get them accepted before the 20-post threshold. I don't have time to waste doing that.

 

Quit yelling and just listen to what he says already. I'll give you a hint- he says what he isn't able to do in the quote I gave you.

Did I say he was infallible? No. I've already stated that he believes in the official story. This doesn't mean that he's incapable of discovering evidence that doesn't fit with said story though.

I believe he answered it a long time ago, although I can't remember what he said about it.

 

Yeah, well, atleast they've allowed the discussion to go on for quite some time, despite a fair amount of thread closures and a one time lockdown on the subject. I only know of one other forum that has a fairly lively debate on the issue (democratic underground), but I prefer it here. Incidentally, I believe I saw Trippy in another forum where they were discussing it; maybe a physicist forum or something, something to do with science anyway. Do you discuss these things anywhere else?

 

(ahem), Hoz, you passed the 20 post mark 7 posts ago ;-).

 

Yes.

But when I posted all the sources to nano-thermite I did not have 20 posts. It was back on page 105.

Correct me If I'm wrong. I'm sure I'm not.

 

the links to the papers you mentioned, what are they?

 

yes, he gave a laundry list of what is normally done.
he DID NOT state what he did or did not do in the case of WTC 7.

 

The first link and reference is the most important!

Gash AE, Simpson RL, Tillotson TM, Satcher JH, Hrubesh LW. Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker. pre-print UCRL-JC-137593, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; April 10, 2000. [Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=15007525

Miziolek AW. Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48. [Accessed February 7, 2009].
Available from: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf

Gash AE, Satcher JH, Simpson RL, Clapsaddle BJ. Nanostructured energetic materials with sol-gel methods. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 2004; 800:
55-66. [Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115856&action=detail

Puszynski JA. Reactivity of nanosized Aluminum with metal oxides and water vapor. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 2004; 800: AA6.4.1. [Accessed February
7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115976&action=detail

Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC-
204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004. [Accessed February 7, 2009].
Available from: http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115879&action=detail

Gash AE, Simpson RL, Satcher JH. Energetic nanocomposites with sol-gel chemistry: Synthesis, safety, and characterization. LLNL UCRL-JC-
146739, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 2002. [Accessed February 7, 2009].
Available from: http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf

Zhao L, Clapsaddle BJ, Satcher JH, Jr, Schaefer DW, Shea KJ. Integrated chemical systems: the simultaneous formation of hybrid nanocomposites of
iron oxide and organo silsesquioxanes. Chem Mater 2005; 17(6): 1358-66.
[Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/cmatex/2005/17/i06/abs/cm048231i.html

Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Prentice D, et al. Formulation and performance of novel energetic nanocomposites and gas generators prepared by sol–gel
methods. LLNL UCRL-PROC–210871, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; March 2005;
[Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf

Tillotson TM, Gash AE, Simpson RL, Hrubesh LW, Satcher JH, Jr, Poco JF. Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies. J Non-
Cryst Sol 2001; 285: 338-345. [Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TXM-435KKJV-
2G&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=96168ef14a
007c2cc1dee1667b0d1b2f

Bandyopadhyay A, de Sarkar M, Bhowmick AK. Polymer-filler interactions in sol-gel derived polymer/silica hybrid nanocomposites. J Polym Sci Part
B. Polym Phys 2005; 43(17): 2399-412. [Accessed August 4, 2008]. Available from: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110572549/abstract

R&D Awards. super-thermite electric matches. [Accessed February 7, 2009].
Available from: http://awards.lanl.gov/PDFfiles/Super-Thermite_Electric_Matches_2003.pdf

 

none of these links provide evidence that links the samples submitted to jones to WTC 1 & 2.

 

Ah ok, I meant now, not before ;-).