9/11 Poll

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Feb 7, 2009.


Who was responsible for 9/11?

  1. 1- The official story regarding 9/11 is the sacred truth. Questioning it is blasphemous.

  2. 2- The official story regarding 9/11 is more or less right. No need to investigate further.

  3. 3- The official story regarding 9/11 is questionable in some areas.

  4. 4- EoG (Elements of the Government) let 9/11 happen.

  5. 5- EoG let 9/11 happen. EoG prevented the investigation of certain individuals before 9/11.

  6. 6- EoG, perhaps in the form of a secret society, made 9/11 happen.

  7. 7- Other

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Trippy, please tell us what the process was for making nano aluminum particles prior to 2001.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Tell me how something that produces the energy of 1/20th that of paper when burned, just microns thick can cut/melt steel? Jones/Harris paper debunks itself.

    Other than that we know it only exists in a laboratory with not proof it can do what happened on 9/11. All you have is faith.

    It's insane for a number of reasons. How is an umbrella spinning supposed to guarantee a hit on the neck of a man in a moving car with just his head/neck visible. It's completely absurd. You've really hit rock bottom using this conspiracy theory.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    yes, you stated there was no empty basement.
    by what you have stated and by what i've read in the 911 commission report WTC7 was built over a con edison substation, apparently this area was backfilled with gravel according to you. i don't remember reading about the gravel backfill in the report though.
    like i said, i'm not too familiar with the construction of WTC 7.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Have you listened to anything I've said?

    Perhaps more importantly, have you understood anything i've said?

    Big thing dehydrates.
    Big thing breaks into smaller things as it dehydrates.

    Presence of nano particles of aluminium rich materials in the chips found does not mean it was present in that form originally.

    Besides which, it's not me claiming that there were nanometer sized particles of aluminium in the chips in the first place, that's you're claim, and I don't have to explain your claim.

    *Big being a relative term here, Clay particles, which Kaolinite is, are defined as being below smaller than 2 Microns.
  8. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    This is a false argument. It is the rate at which the energy of a substance is transformed which makes it a high explosive....chocolate chip cookies have 8 times the energy of TNT but not one millionth the destructive power because they release their energy very slowly. The same is true of paper relative to high explosives. Nano thermite has twice the energy density of TNT and transforms it's energy at a fairly high rate putting it in the high explosive category. It can also be tailored to minimize noise.

    No, it isn't faith at all at this point. There is now proof of it being in the dust from the WTC collapses from several different places in Lower Manhattan.

    Do you deny that there was a weapon designed to deliver a paralyzing dart with an umbrella? How do you know what aiming mechanisms would have been designed into the umbrella weapon? How do you know the umbrella was spinning during the passing of the motorcade?
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2009
  9. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    It sounds like you can't or won't answer the question I asked about the process for generating nano sized aluminum particles prior to 2001. The question is pertinent as you make the claim that enough of it could not be manufactured to be used to demolish the Twin Towers and WTC 7.
  10. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    The foundation information is available in the NIST WTC 7 report.
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Personally I think it could be your loss too, if you were to miss out on some interesting information. However, I fully understand your dislike of comments like the one Hoz made there. Hopefully Hoz won't use such language in the future. shaman and Kenny have been making a fair amount of insulting comments at me recently as well and I've decided to take a break from such posts for now.
  12. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    You are the one claiming the 9/11 event was not unusual in being called "pyroclastic" so you explain your statement.

  13. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Its the very last thing he says. After the "laundry list" of SOP, he says "We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7."
    I wish he went into more detail as to why he was unable.
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    correct. he says he wasn't able to do all of the things he listed.
    what he was unable to do he doesn't say, he just lists the things done normally.
    he probably did.
    you'll notice that the video cuts immediately after his statement.
    there is a reason for that you know.
  15. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Dust 2 Dust

    Dust info.


    He talks about the potential energy but not the distribution of mass. Skyscrapers are bottom heavy so the potential energy cannot be computed with any precision without accurate distribution of mass information. It is so curious that so many EXPERTS don't bring this up. They include an equation that requires mass and height.

    Last edited: Jul 4, 2009
  16. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    If I say...
    Every morning I eat breakfast and shower. This morning I was unable to do that.

    What do you think I mean?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Then you contradict yourself with this post, because previously you have stated 'nanometre sized particles', when in actual fact we are talking an order of magnitude or two greater.

    That's just sloppy, Tony.
  18. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    The term nanometer sized particles does not imply ONE nanometer in diameter. Just like the term micron sized particles does not imply a ONE micron diameter.

    If you want to say that then it is obvious you are not being genuine, and I have no reason to discuss it any further with you.
  19. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    Response to Trippy: -

    "You mean the same dust that according to Truthers contained pulverized concrete?

    It was basic? Really? Wow, who would have seen that one coming.
    "When cement is mixed with water a highly alkaline solution (pH ~13) is produced by the dissolution of calcium, sodium and potassium hydroxides."

    So, tell me how that was the only point I was making? And also how you can get concrete pulverized to hair-width dust with no concrete floors left? Nobody has made cement with these dust samples.

    "Zinc in the form of Zinc Oxides, which react with Linseed Oil, which formed the base of the paint, to form Zinc Soaps, which are soluble in MEK.
    Your point is what precisely?"

    Where is the linseed oil here? How is this at all relevant? There is NO zinc here at all. Even if there were trace elements of zinc, then that still doesn't support zinc oxide paint-theory which you are suggesting. So stop stating irrelvant information.

    "Right, Harrit soaked an unspecified mass of an unspecified paint, that may or may not have been dried in an unspecified manner, in an unspecified amount of MEK, and then comments on the difference of behaviour.

    Am I the only person that sees the problem there?"

    You are the one who still denies telling me that you admitted the material is nano-thermitic paint lol.

    "The ratio of Al

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    peak heights are the same as in an XEDS aluminium oxide reference spectrum. QED."

    The ratio of Al

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    peak heights, if you bothered to actually read the paper, are NOT enough to oxidize all of the aluminium or even the majority of it. As I said, Jeffery Farrer is an expert in X-EDS and experienced in this and his analysis is much more trustworthy than some disinfo merchant like yourself.

    "Right, consistent with the Ferric Oxide that was used as a pigment in the paint."

    Eh? At nano-sized grain particles interspersed with aluminium plates? What nonsense. This is an engineered material, and its not paint. Your continued persistence in arguing that it is, shows that you lack knowledge.

    "Didn't say they did, Harrit however says that the chip contains silica rich areas that were able to be seperated from the ALuminium rich plates, consistent with the decomposition by dehydration of Kaolinite."

    No, you need to realise that the aluminium and silicon are not bound chemically. I quoted from the paper too, as proof. The nano-particles are bound within a medium at close proximity.

    '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.'

    "Not a claim I have made, I have however siad that MEK oxidizes Aluminium, which is why the lack of a reaction between the MEK and the red chips tells us there was no metallic aluminium in the"

    Nonsense. It is evident that there WAS elemental aluminium and hardly enough oxygen to oxidize it. You are continuing to tell lies.

    Kaolinite (note the spelling) contains a high proportion of water, and is formed of (essentially) paralell layers of alumina and silica. The application of heat causes the kaolinite to dehydrate, and seperate into plates of Alumina and Silica, which can then be seperated by the MEK."

    First of all, who mentioned heat? They did not heat the red-chips to the over 900C required to separate the aluminium bound to the silicate. They didn't heat anything!

    "This contradicts nothing I have said. Once the Kaolinite has dehydrated, and seperated, the Alumina and Silica are no longer chemically bound."

    Well, the material was never chemically bound as kaolonite in the first place.

    Stop spreading your lies and disinfo.
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2009
  20. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    A post by Dr.Jones on 911blogger regarding the kaolonite claim: -

    "1. Far from "refusing" to speak before university or other groups to defend the findings of this paper, I welcome such opportunities. I spoke on these results at a colloquium of the physics Dept. in Sept 2008 at Utah Valley University (about 28,000 students last I heard -- a large university). I will be speaking at Univ of Calif at Davis (and in Sacramento) on April 20- May 1, mainly on the red/gray chips and iron-aluminum rich microspheres and high energy yields which they generate upon ignition, and later this year in Australia. I welcome serious questions from other scientists.

    2. In the section of MEK results in the paper, we state:
    " 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 migra-
    tion and separation of the components. This is a significant
    result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not
    bound chemically."

    In kaolin and other substances which incorporate Al and Si, the Al and Si are bound chemically -- that is, they will NOT separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. That is why these MEK tests are so significant! WE thought of the possibility of an alumino-silicate early on of course, but then we did the MEK tests and were observed a separation of Al from other elements with this solvent - and this test RULES OUT strictly the notion that the aluminum which migrated is bound in an aluminosilicate.

    3. From the paper: " Thus, while some of the aluminum
    may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to ac-
    count for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
    therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
    an important result."

    This result also rules out the possibility that the aluminum is present as kaolin. Again, this is why we did the experiment -- to determine whether elemental (not chemically bound) aluminum was present, and it was.

    4. Most debunkers overlook the high energy/gram yield of the material -- the DSC results -- along with the formation of iron-aluminum rich spheres. See Figures 20, 23 and 25 and associated text. These results mean that a high-energy-yield and high-temperature reaction occurs upon ignition of this red material. THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT ORDINARY PAINT CAN GIVE SUCH HIGH ENERGY/GRAM ACCOMPANIED BY THE FORMATION OF FE-AL RICH SPHERES, nor can they do it!"
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Apparently then you didn't understand the point that I was making with that post (here's a hint, I wasn't commenting on the generation of nanometer sized pieces of aluminium, although from what i've read doing that consistently is still difficult even today, which would seem to be another point against the idea of th chips being thermite of any kind).

    Besides which, the paper discussing the generation of nanometer sized particles of aluminium has already been linked to in this thread.
  22. Hoz_Turner Registered Member


    by Niels Harrit, May/June 09

    It has been suggested, that the red/grey chips discovered in the dust from the WTC collapse catastrophe1 could originate from rust-inhibiting paint (primer paint) applied to the steel beams in the towers. This letter compares the elemental composition and the thermal stability of the two materials based on the description of the protective paint in the NIST report and observations on the red/grey chips.


    The primer paint applied to the steel beams of WTC is described and characterized in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2.

    The primer paint is red/orange and was originally applied in order to protect the steel against corrosion.

    Examples of typical beams are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 1
    M2-C2M (WTC 1, Col.130, Fl 98)
    from NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 2
    Perimeter columns in WTC towers from NIST.

    The color is due to the pigments in the paint. Iron oxide is red and zinc chromate (”zinc yellow”) is – well – bright lemon yellow (Figure 3).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 3
    Composition of primer paint from NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2.

    Since the ”vehicle” is obviously fluid, the values for the ingredients in it must refer to the paint before application in w/w percentage.

    Even though the composition of the Tnemec pigment is proprietary, the content of this component can be obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheet, from which the pertinent information is reproduced in Figure 4:


    Figure 4
    Extract from Material Safety Data Sheet for Tnemec pigment3.

    Talc is magnesium silicate hydroxide, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2.

    The content of calcium silicates and aluminates is inexact, and that the relative contribution of aluminates is not specified.

    Since the Tnemec pigment contributed 33.7 % to the wet primer paint, the content of these two ingredients and the solvent in the wet primer paint was:
    Talc Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 7 – 10 %
    Calcium silicates or aluminates 2 – 3.3 %
    Mineral spirits: 7.6 %

    After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment) amount to (32.3 + 7.6) 40 %. If we subtract these from the w/w composition percentages given above, we get a rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint.

    That is, by dividing by 0.6 we get the following values for the decisive ingredients of the hardened paint (dismissing the trivial elements iron, silicon, carbon and oxygen):
    Component Composition in wet paint Composition in dry paint
    Zinc chromate (ZnCrO4) 20.3 % 34 %
    Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2) 7 – 10 % 12 – 17 %
    Calcium silicates or aluminates 2 – 3.3 % 3.3 – 5.5 %

    Table 1
    Pertinent components of primer paint corrected for solvent evaporation.


    The elemental composition of the red/gray chips was obtained by means of X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) in the SEM mode1. Before measurement, the chips were broken (with one exception to be discussed below) in order to secure a fresh uncontaminated surface from which the SEM XEDS was obtained. NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four independently collected samples, showed signals from either zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above the baseline noise. See the right panel of Figure 5 below in which the intensity scale is expanded. Strong signals from these three elements could be expected from the primer paint according to Table 1.


    Figure 7 in Harrit et al.1, showing the four different samples investigated.


    The same spectrum as in frame (a) with intensity (vertical) and horizontal scales expanded. Minute signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur, calcium, chromium and strontium.

    Figure 5
    SEM XEDS (beam energy 20 keV) spectra from fresh surfaces of red phase of red/gray chips.

    In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).


    Figure 6

    SEM XEDS (beam energy 20 keV) from unbroken chip before soaking in MEK. The calcium and sulfur are likely to originate from contamination with wallboard material (gypsum, calcium sulfate). The signals from zinc and chromium could be from surface contamination with primer paint.

    Magnesium was never observed, which is another element characteristic of the primer paint (Table 1).

    It should also be noticed, that the only possible source of aluminum in the primer paint is the rather vague reference to ”calcium silicates or aluminates” in 3.3 – 5.5 % presence. Without attempting any quantitative estimates (not a trivial matter in XEDS), it is still very hard to accept this component as the source of the bright-and-clear signals for aluminum from the red phase of the red/gray chips.


    NIST was interested in the thermal response of the primer paint since examination of the condition on the recovered steel beams could be indicative of the temperatures they had been exposed to.

    NIST carried out temperature studies on selected beams and made the following observations2. The paint is unaffected to temperatures up to 250 °C (Figure 7a). At higher temperatures the paint starts showing ”mud-cracks” as they can be seen in Figure 7b (left). This fracture is due to the different expansion coefficients of the steel and the paint. It gets worse at 650 °C (Figure 7, right) at which temperature black ”scales” (layers) begin to form between the paint and the steel (Figure 8). NIST took the samples beyond 800 °C at which temperature the scale formation and peeling off of the paint from the steel was prevailing. One may hypothesize that formation of the black scales is due to charring of the organic binder.


    Primer paint on exterior WTC column at temperatures below 250 °C (panel a) and beyond (panel b).


    Exposure of primer paint on steel to 650 °C for 1 hr.

    Figure 7


    Figure 8
    From NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2 showing formation of a black layer under the primer paint at temperatures beyond 650 °C.

    Notice, that the primer paint – being basically a ceramic material – is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 °C.


    In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 °C. The reaction must produce temperatures no less than ca. 1500 °C, since the residues of molten iron are clearly seen in the optical microscope (Figure 9).


    Figure 9

    Optical microscope picture of red/gray chip after reaction in a DSC instrument1.


    The properties of the primer paint and the red/gray chips are inconsistent.

    The red/gray chips cannot be the primer paint as it is characterized by NIST.


    (1) Harrit, N.; Farrer, J.; Jones, S. E.; Ryan, K.; Legge, F.; Farnsworth, D.; Roberts, G.; Gourley, J.; Larsen, B.
    Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust From the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Chemical Physics Open Journal 2009, 2, 7-31.
    (2) NIST. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. 2005. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-3C Appxs.pdf
    (3) http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf
  23. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    I am not going to play a game Trippy. If you don't want to take the effort to convey your thoughts properly then they won't be understood. Most people, if they think somebody isn't understanding what they are saying, would have simply tried to reiterate their point in a little different language to ensure the other person understood.

    It really sounds like you can't show a basis for your claim that not enough nanothermite could have been manufactured to be used in demolitions of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page