9/11 Poll

what's wrong with "a particle 200 nanometers across" or "a particle 1/5 of a micron"?

the discussion about these chips is moot though until they can be linked to WTC 1 & 2.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are just being a horse's ass and picking on semantics because you have nothing else if you want to try and diminish the fact that nanothermite exists.

Jump in a lake pal. I don't have time for this sort of nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nothing. It can also be called a nano sized particle. Do you think it qualifies as any other type of meter measurement sized particle?

Is this your way of subtly admitting that in terms of meter measurement, it is indeed a nano sized particle?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tony, I think you went a bit overboard here, something that has happened to many in this thread, which is understandable considering the issue at hand.

I think it's worth considering that unless you're in, say, the semi conductor business, you probably don't deal much with nanometer sized particles. Given this fact, I don't think it's unreasonable that they might believe that a particle hundreds of nanometers in size would qualify as some other type of meter measurement- this would be the case if it were hundreds of centimeters in size- it could at that point be measured in meters, which is only 2 powers of magnitude above centimeters.

 

Scott, the guy was obviously playing a game. Trying to say the term nanometer sized means the item must be in the single digits of nanometers is pure ninny talk and isn't even something worth debating. In reality it simply means it's size is measured in whole numbers of nanometers without using fractional measurements. The particles are in the 20 to 100 nanometer size and the use of microns would be fractional and nanometer is the smallest measurement description for the use of whole numbers.

What do you want me to say when the guy has no real point and is intentionally talking nonsense to get to me and then tells me I am talking out of my butt?

If you want to give him more of a benefit of the doubt that is up to you, but it is fairly obvious what he was doing.

 

I have responded to your post in the 9/11 and JFK thread you created, here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2300639&postcount=44

 

..
It depends on what TRUTH you are talking about. I think it could be used to PROVE a normal airliner could not possibly bring the towers down in less than 2 hours. It probably would not tell us who, why or how it was actually done.

The NIST admits the south tower moved 12 inches 130 feet below the impact point. Therefore it had to move at least 12 inches 130 feet above the impact point. So since the perimeter wall panels were 36 feet tall and there were 76 all of the way around the tower there had to be about 550 that moved 1 foot in less than 2 seconds because of the impact. That does not even count the 20 floor slabs and 260 feet of core. Every analysis that does not get the distribution of steel and concrete correct has to be wrong. The NIST does not even tell us the number and weights of the 12 types of wall panels though they admit those panels supported 50% of the buildings weight. But we are supposed to pay attention to this rubbish about heat conducting down a 1360 foot column and pretend it makes sense to ignore the beams that had to be attached. :shrug:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/worl...ate-towers-should-have-remained-standing-9-11

psik

 

I don't believe he said that, though. And remember, 200 nanometers is in the triple digits, which, if we were talking about centimeters, instead of nanometers, would mean that it would qualify to be classified as the next rung on the meter scale.

I can easily believe that he thought he was correct and thus was not 'intentionally talking nonsense', as you say. One thing I think we probably agree on is that regardless who issues them, insults don't help us with the actual discussion.

I think you could say that I have lived a life where I have found that what seems to be obviously true for some seems to be quite a different creature to me; such as what truly happened on 9/11, for instance...

 

because it isn't a "nanometer sized" particle that's why. it's 200 nanometers.
in other words its 200 times bigger than a "nanometer sized particle".

i admit that it is a 200 nanometer particle, 1/5 of a micron.

 

I think the problem here is that the term 'xmeter sized particle' is not a term commonly used. It simply means that it is in the range of the meter measurement. I did a little digging and found the article on nanoparticles on wikipedia. It starts by stating:

In nanotechnology, a particle is defined as a small object that behaves as a whole unit in terms of its transport and properties. It is further classified according to size: In terms of diameter, fine particles cover a range between 100 and 2500 nanometers, while ultrafine particles, on the other hand, are sized between 1 and 100 nanometers. Similarly to ultrafine particles, nanoparticles are sized between 1 and 100 nanometers, though the size limitation can be restricted to two dimensions. Nanoparticles may or may not exhibit size-related properties that differ significantly from those observed in fine particles or bulk materials [1][2].​

It would seem from the above article that a 200 nanometer object is too big to be a nano particle and yet they talk about the sol-gel technology in that very article and have a picture of a colloidal crystal composed of amorphous hydrated colloidal silica (particle diameter 600 nm). I have a feeling that the wikipedia article may leave something to be desired, so I kept on digging; I took a look at their nanomaterials article. They also talk of the sol-gel material in their nanomaterial article (wouldn't be surprised if it was a cut and paste job).

So I dug even further, and found the following article:
and found the following article:
What is a nanoparticle?

A definition

There is no accepted international definition of a nanoparticle [emphasis mine], but one given in the new PAS71 document developed in the UK is: "A particle having one or more dimensions of the order of 100nm or less".

There is a note associated with this definition: "Novel properties that differentiate nanoparticles from the bulk material typically develop at a critical length scale of under 100nm".

The "novel properties" mentioned are entirely dependent on the fact that at the nano-scale, the physics of nanoparticles mean that their properties are different from the properties of the bulk material.

This makes the size of particles or the scale of its features the most important attribute of nanoparticles.

What is different about a nanoparticle?

There is no strict dividing line between nanoparticles and non-nanoparticles. The size at which materials display different properties to the bulk material is material dependant and can certainly be claimed for many materials much larger in size than 100nm.

Definitions certainly become more difficult for materials that are a very long way from being a sphere, such as carbon nanotubes for example. One of the aims for these materials is to grow them into long tubes, certainly not ‘nano’ in length, but as they have a diameter in the order of 3nm for a single walled tube, they have properties that distinguish them from other allotropes of carbon, and hence can be described as ‘nanomaterials’.

This sort of nanomaterial has led to the extension of the idea of nanomaterials being considered as such if any one of their structural features are on a scale of less than 100nm, that cause their properties to be different from that of the bulk material.​

Another point, continuing from the same article, concerning the size they had when found after the WTC collapses:

Manufacturing methods for nanoparticles

Many of these nanomaterials are made directly as dry powders, and it is a common myth that these powders will stay in the same state when stored. In fact, they will rapidly aggregate through a solid bridging mechanism in as little as a few seconds. Whether these aggregates are detrimental will depend entirely on the application of the nanomaterial.​

How about we just call them nanomaterials? They are certainly in the nanometer range anyway.

 

how about we call them particles 200 nanometers, or 1/5 micron, in size?
that describes what they are.

i'm not arguing this point with you any longer, but i remind everyone that these particles are 200 times larger than nanometer sized particles

 

So does calling them nanomaterials and probably nanoparticles, atleast in some quarters. The reason it's important is because phlog was arguing that the article he was referring to was sloppy because it was calling a 200 nanometer material a nanometer sized particle. However, from the last article I posted, it now seems clear that the definition of a nanoparticle is so new that it's still not one that is internationally defined. I think the important thing to figure out is if it has what we might call nano qualities- that is, does it behave in a way that is a fair amount different then if the material were in more bulky sizes? And there, atleast, I think we have a resounding yes.

Even by the UK definition of a nanoparticle, they're only twice as large. And as mentioned, ultimately the important thing is not whether we define it as a nano particle or a nano material, but rather whether it could have taken the WTC buildings down.

 

Perhaps. I decided to look up the term "formal proof" on wikipedia; I've seen it before, but I think this time I'll put up an excerpt:

Formal proofs often are constructed with the help of computers in interactive theorem proving. Significantly, these proofs can be checked automatically, also by computer. ​

If we could come up with something that a computer could verify to be true, I think we'd be on to something; ofcourse, we'd have to make sure that no tweaking was done

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I skimmed through the article; definitely a lot of good stuff in there, a fair amount of which I believe I've seen before. While we may focus on different aspects concerning the evidence, or lack thereof, I believe we can agree that the official story is full of holes.The main issue, then, is to try to persuade these official story believers of these holes.

 

Asking me to back up my claims isn't the problem; your insults are. Speaking of insults...

there you go again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

For those who are having a hard time getting their heads around what the phrase nanometer sized particle refers to in generally accepted scientific language, take a look at the titles of the below links and see what the actual sizes of the particles are that are being refferred to as nanometer sized.

http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Ramachandran/index.html

http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/Al_particles.html

http://www.find-health-articles.com...nanometer-sized-particles-known-potential.htm

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jnm/2008/169536.html

http://www.masstechportal.org/IP3089.aspx

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00078000023003708000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

http://books.google.com/books?id=Co...-tisBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

 

There has been no release of information on what the perimeter column strengths and wall thickness were at different levels in the towers.

The outside configuration of the perimeter columns has been released and it is constant from the 9th floor to the 110th.

The size and strength of the perimeter tree columns below the 9th floor and their supporting lower columns down to the foundation has not been released.

We do have complete information on the core columns as their sizes, strengths, and locations have been released. However, we haven't been told the sizes, strengths, and spacing of the horizontal bracing beams in the central core and what they were at each level.