WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

Jesus Christ, just give it up with the conspiracy theories..

its amazing the lengths people will go to in order to protect their belief in the official theory.

I don't know- coming out with a one liner isn't exactly amazing lengths

[shaman_]

I'm still ten pages behind.

this proves my point that you have no evidence to support the notion that burning plastics caused the extraordinary levels of 1,3 DPP. if you had evidence you would have shown it. all you have is a guess from Swartz.

You seem confused. I never claimed that I did. The reason it was mentioned was because I claimed Jones had deceptively quote mined. Scott challenged me to provide an example and I have.

“In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenylpropane- [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] was observed, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.”

so the readings were out of the ordinary, right?

Sooo conspiracy right?

A lot of things that were out of the ordinary happened that day.

1,3dpp is found in trace amounts from the degradation of polystyrene over a long period of time at normal temperatures. it appears that it is not found in abundant quantities from the burning of plastics and polysteyrene. it appears that they cannot form readily under high temperatures.

"the sources Swartz uses to support 1,3-DPP as
a combustion product of polystyrene are not studies of
polystyrene combustion, but of gasses released in the longterm
degradation of enclosed polystyrene food product
packaging"

burning polystyrene produces much more styrene than 1,3dpp, no styrene was sampled by the epa:

"the major product of the combustion or
thermolysis of polystyrene, far outweighing others, is the
monomer styrene. This leads us to the fact that, although
styrene was a species of interest at 290 Broadway during
the same time period as was 1,3-DPP, styrene detections
were not reported in the FOIA provided data (EPA 2004).
Therefore, it appears that Swartz’ first suggested hypothesis,
that 1,3-DPP resulted from combustion of polystyrene,
is not probable."

swartz then suggests (a guess!) how 1,3dpp could have been encapsulated in computer plastic casings, which were liberated when they were pulverised.

thankfully ryan and jones are on hand to put an end to the alchemy of the post 911 dark ages:
"Consumer plastics do not typically have large amounts of
unusual organic compounds just simply ‘‘encapsulated’’
within them."

you really should read paper you so often ridicule:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/...4/fulltext.pdf

Actually I have made little mention of that paper and you are making assumptions based on my previous posts.

it is in the peer reviewed paper which has been published publicy, which you don't appear to have read. 1,3dpp is used in the production of silica based lattice to control the size of the nano-pores for sol gel nanothermates. the molten alumino iron spheres that jones has found in the wtc dust have the chemical signature for a silica based lattice nanothermate. the lattice would be silicon based, the nano sized pores within the lattice contain the aluminium and iron nano particles, the 1,3 DPP regulates the pore size within the lattice during production. the sol gel is dried and the resultant solid is the nanothermate incendary/explosive.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journa...p?doi=b310405b

The synthesis of novel nanostructured materials has
involved the use of 1,3-DPP to functionalize mesoporous
silicas through control of pore size (Kidder et al. 2003).
The resulting novel hybrid materials possess silyl aryl
ether linkages to the silica surface that are thermally
stable to ca. 550 C, but can be easily cleaved at room
temperature with aqueous base for quantitative
recovery of the organic moieties. (Kidder et al. 2005)
Such novel nanostructured materials are known to have
been the focus of intense research in the past 10 years,
particularly with regard to energetic nanocomposites.
Energetic nanocomposites are hybrid sol–gel materials,
often made with a silica base, that have been combined
with metal oxides and nano-scale aluminum powder to
form superthermite materials. Much of this work has been
done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (Gash
et al. 2000; Clapsaddle et al. 2004, 2005; Simpson et al.
2004).

"5 Hypothesis for release of 1,3-DPP and other unusual
species at WTC"
you can read it here:
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journa...p?doi=b310405b

it is a "fact" or an "observation", stop pretending that the people you attack use a single fact to form a conclusion.

That’s right they use lots of 'observations' to support their pre-conceived conclusion. Many weak claims supposedly add up to be credible. Freefall, quote mined witness testimony, symmetrical collapse, melted steel, bombs in the basement, WTC7, pentagon, flight 93 wow there are so many that the conspiracy must be true!

you are cartoonising in your mind, putting the "truth movement" into a neat cartoonised charicature package in your mind, this enables you to ridicule, smear and attack those that disagree with you.

Any ridicule is a retaliation or a result of frustration.

However it is an unreasonable conspiracy and the people who think the government would bother demolishing the same building which is going to be smashed into by planes should probably get a thick skin because ridicule is going to happen. Why jeopardize the whole conspiracy by demolishing a building which didn't need to be demolished?

Why fly a missile into the pentagon? Why set off bombs in the basement? Why use methods that armchair youtube experts can supposedly spot in an incident that was always going to be filmed from many angles? Do you have no problem with these questions?

you think it is cool to do so.

That's pretty funny.

I have this annoying tendency to argue against stupid claims when I see them… I’m going to call it as I see it. You are welcome to keep complaining about this but you should probably get yourself a tissue.

it isn't cool. it is fascist. did you know that the FBI paid people to spit at soldiers returning from vietnam in order to smear the antiwar movement? do you understand the methodology behind false flags? can you prove to me that the death beams from space and plane holograms are genuine theories put forward by genunine people?

A large % of the US believe in UFO abductions, astrology, young earth ect. Do you think the government is claiming those things as well? Whether people are ill informed, not too bright or just crazy there are always going to be followers of stupid conspiracy theories. You actually use those extreme theories to your advantage. When compared to those unreasonable ones, yours start to sound a little more credible.

isn't it more likely they are put out by disinformationists to discredit anyone questioning 911 ?

You seem very intelligent headspin. Come on do you really believe that?

nonsense, what are you talking about? the paper was peer reviewed and published in an open mainstream scientific journal. always with attacking the man, never the argument.

At this point I’m attacking his methods and his so called evidence. I have ridiculed him many times though. While the chemistry in his latest claims goes above my head I have read his previous work which was certainly understandable to the laymen. His evidence had all the makings of a person with a deep belief who was seeing conspiracy everywhere. You focus on list most recent work as if it is the only thing he has ever produced.

Was it really a mainstream journal? Had you read it before Jones’ article?

i have no idea what you are talking about. he uses the swartz quote to illustrate and substantiate a FACT (that the levels of 1,3 DPP were extraordinarily high is a FACT). once a scientist has assembled the FACTS you can formulate a hypothesis to explain all the FACTS. The apparant guess of swartz on the cause of the 1,3 DPP has no bearing on the FACTS. The FACTS are the FACTS. opinions are not FACTS. got it?

Then why did he feel the need to address that claim later on?

He did not even mention it or attempt to rule it out in the early papers. He selected one sentence as proof for his theory and ignored the following one, and he did not even address the possibility that the computers were responsible. This was being discussed because I made the comment that Jones had quote mined and used photos deceptively. He has.

I don’t actually think he is particularly dishonest and I don’t think they are big issues. I am however backing up my statement.

[shaman_]

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 379 in this thread.



That's just the appetizer. Here's the main course concerning the arguments that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/

Yes, I know, I know, you've supposedly countered it somewhere. By all means, please point out these counters.

Scott those claims make up the vast majority of this thread and the previous one. To challenge me to link to the rebuttals is a stupid game.

I still don't understand why you think that my tactics are immature and dishonest.

Yes you do.

Perhaps, instead of insulting me, you should continue to try to explain to me why you feel this way.

Considering I have numerous times, that sentence is another example of you playing dumb.

This post is another response to shaman_'s post 379 in this thread.



Headspin may not have the time, but I have a bit. I found a particularly amusing link which was a link within the first link you mention in post 185, (wouldn't open, JREF can be real slow sometimes):

Jones thinks vehicles around WTC site may have been set afire by "thermite dust." As opposed to, you know, paper.

Must be some pretty lethal 'paper' ...

So was that done by the thermite that burns, cuts or explodes? Was is nanothermite, superthermite, thermite, thermate, or just bombs?

If steel was found that was twisted and softened and floors were seen bowing due to the heat then what role does thermite play?

[Headspin]

Why use methods that armchair youtube experts can supposedly spot in an incident that was always going to be filmed from many angles

Youtube was created in Feb 2005. and the internet in 2001 was not what it is today. Without the internet the mainstream media could have easily controlled information flow to the public.

should I now ridicule you because i feel frustrated at your stupid responses?

should i accuse you of being deceptive by deliberately claiming youtube was around in 2001?

[John99]

If steel was found that was twisted and softened and floors were seen bowing due to the heat then what role does thermite play?

None

headspin how much thermite is in your underwear?

[Buffalo Roam]

Yes i agree with your statement, thermite powder is not explosive, it is classified as an incendary. I have not claimed anywhere that Thermite was explosive. I have not seen anyone else claim it to be explsoive.

So you did post a claim that Thermite was explosive:

nanothermite (MICs) is completely different in its chemical properties and behaviour to macro thermite. you cannot limit the discussion to macro-thermite. the statement is just false - "the only way thermite burn through and cuts anything is in concentrated piles, or by placing Thermite Grenades"

A whole new high tech field has opened up since at least 1995 using nano scale thermite reactants to make lightweight tunable high explosives.
"certain key MIC (Metastable Intermolecular Composites) characteristics are very attractive and quite promising for practical applications. These include energy output that is 2x that of typical high explosives, the ability to tune the reactive power (10 KW/cc to 10 GW/cc), tunable reaction front velocities of 0.1-1500 meters/sec, and reaction zone temperature exceeding 3000K (equivalent to 2700 Celcius or 5000 Fahrenheit)"

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf

You have outlined just a single specific application for the technology. Technologies can be used in many different applications.

Yes done at a scale so small that it has no practactial use out side anti cancer medical treatments.

Nanothermite allows for a greater release and a quicker release of energy due to its higher surface area. it behaves explosively. there are technical documents which classify nanothermite as stradling low explosive and high explosive. it is between an incendary and an explosive.
page 181 (8-11)
"Nanostructure High Explosives using Sol-gel Chemistry"
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/238334.pdf

Low explosive is low explosive, High explosive is high explosive, Incendiary is Incendiary, Thermite, nano or macro, is a incendiary, it still does it job by, intense exothermic reaction.

ok, so you are saying that high tech explosives can be created using the thermitic reaction, which would leave a trace in the form of thermite reaction residue?

No, a thermic reaction is a thermic reaction, it is not due to explosive action, and would leave no thermic residue.

[QUOTE=Headspin;2125812]you are ignoring the chemical analysis of those chips.[?QUOTE]

No, the chemical analysis is deliberately misreported.

What is one of the prime uses of Thermite? Welding, and Thermite and Nano Thermite is used for that purpose, it is used in powder form, and is poured, so the powder dust would get every where in microscopic amounts, the breeze is always blowing up there on skyscrapers, and the dust is always there.

are you claiming rust from structural steel/iron has high aluminum, silicon, potassium, and sulfur?
are you claiming that slag beads have high aluminum, silicon, potassium, and sulfur content?
10% aluminum:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...CHighTemp2.pdf

Does this answer your question?

[PDF]Of interest to the specialist — Innova...
have developed a wear-resistant aluminum-bearing cast iron for the manufacture of parts ... It also contains boric acid, potassium permanganate, and a moistening agent. ... (C). steels may contain silicon, manganese, sulfur, phosphorus, ... on the steel's carbon content. Structural steel is classified in grades by ...

www.springerlink.com/index/VN04G3K214151137.pdf - Similar pages

[ More results from www.springerlink.com ]

how do you know just by looking at a picture? thermite debris only looks like welding debris - it is very different in composition. the chemical analysis shows a thermite signature, not a rust or welding signature.

Exposed iron rust, exposed steel rust, that material was exposed to the weather and the elements, along with water from the plumbing and fire systems of the buildings, along with water from the fire fighters trying to put out the fires already in the building, so the red is rust, I am a old farm boy, I know rust when I see it.


As to the Slag particles, beads are the most common cast off from welding, along with chips as from hammering off excess weld material.

I have swept up many ton of the material in the shops of Mid State, it kept me busy when I wasn't on the road, I also have done some welding my self, and I have many friends is the skills trades.

Tin Bangers, Pipe Fitter, Iron Mongers, Welders, My nephew is a Black Smith, he has a business shoeing horses.

[Buffalo Roam]

Originally Posted by Headspin
nanothermite (MICs) is completely different in its chemical properties and behaviour to macro thermite. you cannot limit the discussion to macro-thermite. the statement is just false - "the only way thermite burn through and cuts anything is in concentrated piles, or by placing Thermite Grenades"

A whole new high tech field has opened up since at least 1995 using nano scale thermite reactants to make lightweight tunable high explosives.
"certain key MIC (Metastable Intermolecular Composites) characteristics are very attractive and quite promising for practical applications. These include energy output that is 2x that of typical high explosives, the ability to tune the reactive power (10 KW/cc to 10 GW/cc), tunable reaction front velocities of 0.1-1500 meters/sec, and reaction zone temperature exceeding 3000K (equivalent to 2700 Celcius or 5000 Fahrenheit)"

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf [/QUOTE]

Your article talks about Nano Thermite for it's "Intense Exothermic Reaction", not that it is a explosive.

"The reason that Fe2O3 is chosen
is because its thermite reaction with UFG aluminum is very
exothermic (with only CuO and MoO3 yielding greater energy
of reaction"

One current promising nanocomposite being pursued by the
researchers at LLNL involves the use of Fe2O3 which is generated
using the sol-gel method. The reason that Fe2O3 is chosen
is because its thermite reaction with UFG aluminum is very
exothermic (with only CuO and MoO3 yielding greater energy
of reaction). An example of the high degree of mixing and uni-

Thermobaric Weapons, not thermite Weapons, improve the function of the weapons, as a add on to the weapon.

Still in the R&D, nothing fielded, at that time, the report you cite is from:

The AMPTIAC Newsletter, Spring 2002, Volume 6, Number 1

The Attack on the WTC Center took place on Sep. 11, 2001.

The technology wasn't out side the Lab.

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 and propellant applications. Figure 1 represents
some concepts of how nanomaterials, especiallynanoenergetics could
be used for improving components of munitions.

The figure shows that nanoenergetic composites
and ingredients can be used in the ignition, propulsion, as well
as the warhead part of the weapon. With regards to the latter
application, 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.

Weapon war heads, not demolition charges.

[shaman_]

Youtube was created in Feb 2005. and the internet in 2001 was not what it is today. Without the internet the mainstream media could have easily controlled information flow to the public.

Video did exist however as did the internet.

should I now ridicule you because i feel frustrated at your stupid responses?

should i accuse you of being deceptive by deliberately claiming youtube was around in 2001?

You are ignoring the actual the point of my comment just to return fire. Whether youtube was used is irrelevant. People shared videos before 2005. You are trying to make a point but it just appears petty.

If you had tried to have a debate with scott then perhaps you would get frustrated too.

[Headspin]

So you did post a claim that Thermite was explosive:

you are nit-picking and obfuscating, the data is available with regard to reaction speeds of various explosive forms of thermite compunds. saying "thermite is not explosive" is too general a statement to be of any use. people think of "thermite" as a thermite grenade or a flowerpot engine block experiment, nowhere have I claimed that is explosive.

Yes done at a scale so small that it has no practactial use out side anti cancer medical treatments.

where do you get your information from? what made you think nanothermite can only be used at the nanoscale such as targetting drugs into cells? was it the "nano" part of "nanothermite" that convinced you? what about the documents i have shown you that describe a process by which silica aerogels can be made dried from a solution to hold nano-sized thermite reactants (aluminium, iron oxide and oxidizers such as potassium permanganate) to make nanothermite at the macro level (big chunks of nanothermite that could be molded into shaped charges). why do you deny this? if you simply handwave it away dismissively and stick to your false statement that it is only useful for molecular level applications then it is pointless continuing any discussion with you, since you will simply ignore anything that you want not to be true.

you are ignoring the chemical analysis of those chips.

No, the chemical analysis is deliberately misreported.

How do you know it was mis-reported? you don't want it to be true so it must be a lie, right? you do not get to create reality, you only get to acknowledge it or deny it. this is a perfect example of what i was saying above.

What is one of the prime uses of Thermite? Welding, and Thermite and Nano Thermite is used for that purpose, it is used in powder form, and is poured, so the powder dust would get every where in microscopic amounts, the breeze is always blowing up there on skyscrapers, and the dust is always there.

life is a breeze when you decide what is real and what you can ignore. the truth is sometimes more difficult to accept, like a wife who denies her husband is abusing the children. nanothermite welding in the towers construction? are you being serious?

Does this answer your question?

garbled nonsense which doesn't even support your position, steel does not have 10% aluminum or 14% silicon.

Exposed iron rust, exposed steel rust, that material was exposed to the weather and the elements, along with water from the plumbing and fire systems of the buildings, along with water from the fire fighters trying to put out the fires already in the building, so the red is rust, I am a old farm boy, I know rust when I see it.

all those old farm boys, why bother with metallurgy, bubba will sort it out for a bottle of moonshine.

As to the Slag particles, beads are the most common cast off from welding, along with chips as from hammering off excess weld material.

I have swept up many ton of the material in the shops of Mid State, it kept me busy when I wasn't on the road, I also have done some welding my self, and I have many friends is the skills trades.

Tin Bangers, Pipe Fitter, Iron Mongers, Welders, My nephew is a Black Smith, he has a business shoeing horses.

and this disproves my position in what way?

[Enmos]

its amazing the lengths people will go to in order to protect their belief in the official theory.

lol
Never mind me, carry on

[Headspin]

Weapon war heads, not demolition charges.

ahhh, so things that explode, not things that explode, I getcha.

[psikeyhackr]

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
What the hell does that mean?

ROFL

That is the major problem with this entire mess. Opinionated people that don't know squat about physics trying to pretend that they do.

psik

That certainly bears repeating.....

So why aren't the people claiming to know physics demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers?

How do you solve a physics problem without accurate data?

psik

[scott3x]

So why aren't the people claiming to know physics demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers?

How do you solve a physics problem without accurate data?

psik

psikey, 9/11 research never got back to me concerning Jerry Russell's calculation that it was 90,000 tons of concrete per tower. As some here may know, Jerry Russell has a master's degree in engineering. I have just submitted a comment to Jerry's blog; it's currently awaiting moderation. Not sure if he'll get to it soon though because the blog in question hasn't been updated in a year :-/. Assuming it was actually 90,000 tons of concrete, what would your calcuations say?

Update: Jerry has now responded to my blog question regarding his calculations :-)...
http://crookedshepherds.wordpress.co...ated/#comments

[John99]

Do you know Jerry Russel Ph.D?

[scott3x]

Do you know Jerry Russell Ph.D?

Personally? No. I only know him through some of the work he's done concerning 9/11.

[John99]

So you know nothing about this person?

There are more errors on the second link on the second to last post you made that it is almost pointless to discuss it.

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 5

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:

7. Symmetrical collapse –through the path of greatest resistance –at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

This is simply incorrect. Neither collapse was symmetrical. In WTC2, most debris falling outside the footprint went east and south. In WTC1, most debris falling outside the footprint went north and west.

9/11 Research says this concerning the North Tower/WTC 1 in its article Symmetry:

The North Tower's collapse commenced suddenly. The top of the tower seemed to effortlessly telescope down into the intact portion of the building. The collapse remained symmetrical from start to finish.

It would seem that 9/11 research and Urich can't both be right. Headspin, you have a take on this?

As to the South Tower/WTC 2, 9/11 research says this:

The South Tower's collapse behavior was more complex. Its top first tipped for about two seconds, then started to descend. Despite the initial asymmetry of the collapse, it became more and more symmetric after the top started to fall. Once the top disappeared into the enormous dust cloud, there was no further evidence that the top had started to topple, except for a leaning anvil-shaped cloud of darker dust.

Gregory continues:

Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that the structure provided resistance to the extent that 40-60% of the original PE was dissipated prior to debris impact at the foundation.

Headspin, your help would be appreciated on this point. Don't know what PE means for starters :-p.

[John99]

Professional Engineer (P.E.)

Of which i happen to be.

[scott3x]

Do you know Jerry Russell Ph.D?

Personally? No. I only know him through some of the work he's done concerning 9/11.

So you know nothing about this person?

I invite you to re-read what you're responding to

There are more errors on the second link on the second to last post you made that it is almost pointless to discuss it.

You couldn't have just linked to the link you had in mind? In any case, are you referring to this link?

[scott3x]

Gregory continues:

Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that the structure provided resistance to the extent that 40-60% of the original PE was dissipated prior to debris impact at the foundation.

Headspin, your help would be appreciated on this point. Don't know what PE means for starters :-p.

Professional Engineer (P.E.)

Of which i happen to be.

Really ? The way you've acted in the past, I'm quite surprised . In any case, if what you say is true in this context, it would mean Gregory wrote:

Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that the structure provided resistance to the extent that 40-60% of the original Professional Engineer was dissipated prior to debris impact at the foundation.

I don't think this is what he had in mind