9/11 Poll

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes we went through this manure in the last post.? At the time you had yet to actually make a point. You just kept posting text as if it meant something. It certainly appears as if you don’t read or understand what you are posting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
When I worked for IBM I was sent to Atlanta for a training course. A man from Washington had brought film cannisters of dust from Mt. St Helens to give away. It would not surprise me if hundreds of people saved dust from 9/11 since it was such a shocking historical event. More rare than a volcano going off probably.

psik

 

Nano-thermite. Any woowoos care to prove such a thing exists?

Please refer to this;

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2272543&postcount=753

 

How about this RFP from the Navy.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...no-thermite milling&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Additionally, you will see that the sizes are not one nanometer in diameter. They are in the 20 to 100 nanometer range and the oxide layer allows for handling and does not prevent a reaction. Read page 3 of this link to see that

http://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/he.pdf

and here

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=96168ef14a007c2cc1dee1667b0d1b2f

 

You have already shown with recent posts and the Madrid Tower posts that you don’t read or understand what you are posting.

Your guess is based on ignorance and your faith in the 9/11 religion.. Perhaps you could explain why they don’t hold water?..

(This is where you pretend not to see the request Scott)

Taxpayer money to satisfy the poorly informed, the fanatical, the stupid and the crazy? No.

There are plenty of mundane explanations. There are some things we will never know for sure. This is no reason to launch a foolish and unnecessary investigation.

No you hadn’t made a point at all you were just posting text and hoping for the best. Your profile has you at 33 but you come across like a 14 year in his first internet forum. Eventually you posted someone else’s arguments that were almost consistent with your claim. That’s about as good as it gets with you I guess Scott.

Oh right so when I read your comments I should always read several paragraphs ahead to make sense of them. Yeah ok.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What do you do with your life Scott. You don’t work do you?

There was nothing to counter. Jedi with light sabers might explain it as well. It’s a theory based on fantasy and it appears that your is as well.

..Possibilities which you cannot actually refute. You have no response so all you can do is claim that they are vague and put possibilities in quotes and hope that is as good as a rebuttal.

Hey there might be good refutations to the comments of Barnett and his colleagues but once again you are trying to ridicule an argument you are unable to attack.

Yeah thanks for the link to the post directly above it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Trippy...

Thermite is a pyrotechnic combination of a metal powder and a metal oxide. I think everybody agrees on this definition. Now, you are trying to tell everybody here that Associate Professor of Chemistry Neils Harrit does not know whether a material can be identifed as such. Do you realise how unfounded this insinuation of yours is? Mr. Harrit is also well knowledgable when it comes to nano-technology.

So, it is clear that the structure of the material found shows nano-sized aluminium platelets as a metal (a curious shape indeed for a paint arrangement eh?) interspersed with iron oxide grains in a consistent arrangement. This is, as I have stated, a thermitic arrangement that rivals the conventional powder form of thermite and is hence much more energetic and reactive. It ignites at an appreciably lower temperature than conventional thermite and the thermal spike and iron microsphere produced is also available from the report authors (and can be seen also in the UC Davis presentation).

As for the claim about the aluminium platelets containing kaolonite, this claim has been refuted and laid to rest not only in the paper, but further addressed in this May 1st 2009 talk by Steven Jones at UC Davis university: -

h t t p : / / blip(.)tv/file/2187868/

 

yes, but this does not prove it came from WTC 1 or 2.
this only proves where the sample was taken from.
furthermore, if the storage conditions cannot be verified as being secure it could very well be thrown out of court.
this wouldn't be a problem if these samples were submitted soon after the fact but 4 years is definitely stretching it.

no one, absolutey zero people on that pile has come forward with any kind of bomb debris. you can call it whatever you want to tony.

and how exactly did the firemen at my van fire determine it was arson?
they made that decision on the spot. they did not send anything off to any lab.

 

Your insults are getting to be too much for me, so I'll leave it at this one point for now and perhaps for a while. You're now asking me to do the investigation the government should have done; only unlike NIST, I'm not getting paid a dime for it and I've already seen tons of evidence pointing towards the case for controlled demolition. Do you see anything wrong with my logic? I certainly haven't seen you point out any flaws in it. All you do is insult, insult insult. I asked -you- a question. A question you didn't answer. Were they explored? Based on the fact that they were trashing the steel at record rates, I find that it's reasonable to postulate that they didn't. I further find it reasonable, given the evidence pointing towards a coverup, that they know full well that the only logical explanation was that the sulfidation was caused by thermate or a similar compound. You have certainly not presented any evidence to counter this claim and I have a strong feeling that you'll never be able to. But go ahead and try, if you like.

 

I am talking about major highly planned deceptive crimes usually requiring laboratory analysis to determine if there was arson involved.

Sorry if your van fire does not qualify.

 

Regarding claims about the authenticity of the dust samples: -

"Tests revealed the dust to be extremely alkiline with a PH of 12.1 and that some of it was as caustic as liquid drain cleaner..."
- Gregg Swayze, USGS

It has a distinct PH, as well as chemical composition (see "The Environmentalist" paper), as well as a mix of many fine-grained building materials distinct to the Twin Towers (see the RJ Lee report and also USGS). The origin of the dust samples can be traced, and also checked against other independent reports.

Now, for some chemistry: -

Dr. Jeffery Farrer is an expert in X-EDS.

The aluminium and silicon peaks are clear on the X-EDS for the red layer of the material, as is the iron and oxygen. Also, please be aware there is no presence of Zinc (see below). There is also no manganese present in the X-EDS, so no proof it is from the steel used in the towers.

Appendix D of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 433-438 of the NIST report includes detail of the composition of the primer paint used in the WTC buildings, and it shows the clear presence of Zinc (almost 20%). There is also Zinc in the pigment too. There is no Zinc present in the red-gray chip samples.

Soaking the chip in MEK did not dissolve the chip. Harrit et al soaked paint samples and they did show dissolution and\or dissolving.

Post MEK X-EDS shows that there is a large Aluminium peak and a very small comparative adjacent Oxygen peak with conclusions clear that there is clearly not enough for the majority of the aluminium to be oxidized.

Post MEK X-EDS shows a very large oxygen peak associated with the iron in the red-portion of the chip. Plenty of it to oxidize all the iron.

The red-chip regions do NOT contain alumino-silicates. Paint solvent (such as MEK) does not reduce aluminium. MEK doesn't make aluminium out of aluminium oxide or out of alumino-silicates. And it cannot be Kaolonite. How do you separate the silicon from the aluminium for one thing, and an alleged alumino-silicate with a paint solvent? Silly.

Also note this from the Neils Harrit et al paper: -

"Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon, located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migration and separation of the components. This is a significant result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not bound chemically."

A final note is that people need to remember that the thermite reaction approaches temperatures of 3,000C and you need to realise that aluminium has a much higher boiling point than its melting point. Hence it is ideal for thermitic reactions.

 

how were these samples connected with WTC 1 and 2 when no samples was taken from the pile itself?

what about the "manifest" of these buildings?
you DO realize that various floors of WTC 1 and 2 were used as storage space, right?

 

it isn't just my van fire.
the facts of the matter are very few crimes are solved with forensic testing.
usually forensic testing is done so the prosecutor will have an airtight case, the case itself already being solved.

 

Why do you insist on claims about a "pile". Are you actually trying to tell everybody that the buildings "collapsed" into a neat pile. They exploded outwards with dust with concrete particles pulverized to the width of a human hair and in virtually pyroclastic clouds spread out in a radius out from Ground Zero.

Are you trying to tell me that USGS, RJ Lee and Jones et al are all full of shit regarding the analysis and origin of the dust?

 

Can you honestly say that forensic laboratory testing and use of the steel to help recreate a possible sequence of failure should not have been done on all of the steel in the fire affected areas of the towers and WTC 7, especially given the unprecedented nature of these collapses?

What I can tell you is that engineering failures always have forensic testing done and these collapses were unprecedented and catastrophic engineering failures first and a crime second.

 

It exists in some labs in a research phase. The fact that it's still in a research phase in 2009 should tell you all you need to know. It very likely exists only in very small quantities and probably takes great time and expense just to fill a beaker with it.

Truthers like it because nobody knows much about it and this allows truthers to make a lot of idiotic claims based on no evidence such as... it can cut through structural steel quickly and quietly, that hundreds of tons of it were used on 9/11.

You can't make it up. The truth movement is pathetic and so are all the people here trying to defend this bullshit.

 

KennyJC are you blind or stupid?

I posted several sources that linked back the official existence of nano-thermite to before 2000. Tony Tzamboti also posted more sources.

 

LOL! I can't help but laugh every time some moron makes the pyroclastic clouds argument. Each time a building collapses it gives off a large dust cloud. It doesn't matter if it was a demolition or a normal collapse, you will get a large dust cloud!

In actual controlled demolitions, it's not the explosives that do the damage, it's gravity. And not all of the concrete was pulverized as large chunks of concrete are seen in images at ground zero.

USGS and RJ Lee didn't find nanothermite in the dust and made no idiotic claims as such. Jones is full of shit because he calls it energetic even though it burns at a fraction of that of good old hydrocarbons. His data, not mine.