|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 16:00:06 GMT -5
"Nano is shorthand ... yada, yada."
Thanks, I appreciate your opinions but all that is also explained at the Journal of 9/11 Studies site and others I provided links to.
"How can thermitic material be made to cut a large vertical steel beam ?"
Good question, look it up.
"I want to see a full scale demonstration of this before I believe the theory to have any validity at all."
Excellent, I saw it but I wouldn't mind seeing it again.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 24, 2013 16:07:37 GMT -5
Don't be biased then.
Show me real proof:- A demonstration of a Thermitic reaction actually cutting down a large scale vertical structural steel beam. Unless someone can do that, claims about the wonderous capabilities of Nano Thermite in relation to 9/11 are empty and false.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 16:17:50 GMT -5
"Don't be biased then."
Your bias is all over this forum. All your posts are one sided, read my last few posts. I agreed that all sides should be heard. I would never disagree with that. You only want your opinions to be heard. I have not single problem with you expressing your opinions.
"Show me real proof:-"
I don't owe you anything, do I? Do the research yourself on whatever subject you're unfamiliar with or even if you are familiar. Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 24, 2013 16:23:55 GMT -5
I've done the research and found no proof to back up the thermite claim. Those making that claim should either put up or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 16:55:41 GMT -5
"I've done the research and found no proof to back up the thermite claim."
No actually you didn't do the research because you never had access to the dust samples, not to mention you don't have the equipment or the expertise. Try not to lie so much, your lies are so blatant. In fact, those who did do the research invite others to peer review their work. That's the point of peer review, so that something can be duplicated. NIST did not want their work peer reviewed, they prohibited it. That's not science, that's alchemy or I'll bulls**t you and you need to trust me because you can't look at my s**t.
"Those making that claim should either put up or shut up."
They did and they didn't shut up, thanks to them we know what we never knew from government nor would they ever tell us if they knew, that's obvious.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 24, 2013 17:16:44 GMT -5
I didn't need access to the dust samples I've seen the pictures of the bending moment actually happening. I've seen enough pictures of the fire and I know these were fully populated office buildings with enough desks paper and plastic in them to burn for months. I know about explosives, I know about thermites and the limitations of thermite (it cannot cut horizontally through a vertical column). I know about the properties of steel in fire, as I've pointed out 80% strength reduction at the temperatures recorded by thermograph of the fires in the twin towers. I know that the sprayfoam fireprotection and drywall fire protection for the steel was inadequate. I know that the outer columns of the twin towers bowed inwardly before collapse.
I know that planes were crashed into the towers that would have ignited any and all charges in the vicinity had there been any.
I know that 9/11 has been a big bonanza for conspiracy theorists selling books DVD's & hoodies but it wasn't an "inside job".
Oh really where's the youtube footage of them neatly diagonally cutting a large vertical steel column with nanothermite ? Why couldn't Truthburn demonstrate this ?
Why am I always being fobbed off with particles found in the dust rather than a full scale practical demonstration to prove beyond any doubt?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 19:15:00 GMT -5
"I didn't need access to the dust samples I've seen the pictures"
Pictures are not research with the actual evidence, they also have pictures, did you see them? So you admit you didn't do the research because you're not able to without the evidence and many other things.
"I know about thermites and the limitations of thermite"
If you say so, the subject is nano-thermite though, I keep telling you but you keep saying thermite, it's not the same thing. If you knew anything about thermite you would know this. So once again you show you're lying.
"I know about the properties of steel in fire, I know, I know, I know ..."
Yes you're a regular Einstein, you know everything but it just happens that most of what you know has been contradicted by experts. And unlike you, they are not anonymous.
"Why am I always being fobbed off with particles found in the dust rather than a full scale practical demonstration to prove beyond any doubt?"
It's called EVIDENCE based research, have ever heard the term? These people are not your dictates and they don't do special requests as far as I know. If you don't like what they've done, I'm sure they have e-mail addresses you can contact. Maybe they'll do you a favor and give you a personal show and tell. Do the debunkers have e-mail addresses? They don't even seem to have a name anyone can find.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 28, 2013 5:27:27 GMT -5
Nano thermite is the same stuff as ordinary thermite but with smaller microscopic nano-metre sized particles. Saying Nano does not change the fact that no delivery method exists for it to cut horizontally through a vertical column. As I've said, Thermite is an Aluminium Iron Oxide incendiary, Steel is Alloy of Iron and Carbon, the steel columns were clad in Aluminium. So traces of Aluminium & Iron oxides aren't evidence in themselves of the use of Thermite and microscopic quantities of Iron oxide spherules (rust) do not in themselves indicate foul play. Aluminium is capable of burning in fire, So too is Iron If this were not so it wouldn't be possible to make Thermite. But the presence of Thermite constituents in a pile of debris made of Thermite precursors is not evidence that Thermite/Nano Thermite caused the collapse.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 28, 2013 8:04:28 GMT -5
"Nano thermite is the same stuff as ordinary thermite but with smaller microscopic nano-metre sized particles."Which makes it behave quite differently than conventional thermite, according to experts. Nano-thermite requires a sophisticated lab and equipment to manufacture and does not occur naturally and is not found in ordinary office buildings. Each nano-thermite chip can be custom made to behave differently depending on how it's made and its size. If your claim were true there would never be any need to manufacture nano-thermite as it would serve the same purpose as ordinary thermite. That is a no-brainer for anyone with a brain, no need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. "Saying Nano does not change the fact that no delivery method exists for it to cut horizontally through a vertical column."I have no clue how nano-thermite was used but it is an incendiary and it was found in abundance in all 4 independent dust samples in reacted and unreacted form along with microscopic iron spheres. This is the paper written by Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Niels Harritt and others on their discovery: www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdfThe following is a discussion with Dr. Harritt, chemistry professor at the University of Copenhagen, on how nano particles (including nano-thermite) differ: www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090415231352441
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 28, 2013 12:28:30 GMT -5
So it burns more rapidly than conventional Thermite. That's the difference. But the debris fires burned for months. So it must have been wood and plastic and paper. Nano particles of iron oxide / aluminium oxide could easily be formed by oxidisation of those metals in fire and there was an abundance of aluminium and iron particles in the debris. Nanometre sized particles of metal oxides that are related to Thermite in a burning pile of debris are nothing to be worked up about when the whole building was made from metals related to Thermite.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 28, 2013 12:29:57 GMT -5
In fact come to think of it, the planes were also made of metals related to Thermite.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 28, 2013 13:23:33 GMT -5
"So it burns more rapidly than conventional Thermite. That's the difference."
No that's your opinion. I'll take what the experts have to say about it over your opinion any time.
"But the debris fires burned for months. So it must have been wood and plastic and paper."
That's your opinion and it makes no sense. Those materials do NOT burn for months and create rivers similar to lava.
"Nano particles of iron oxide / aluminium oxide could easily be formed by oxidisation of those metals in fire and there was an abundance of aluminium and iron particles in the debris. Nanometre sized particles of metal oxides that are related to Thermite in a burning pile of debris are nothing to be worked up about when the whole building was made from metals related to Thermite."
You're not referring to engineered nano-thermite chips that were found in abundance in reacted and unreacted form, along with equally abundant microscopic iron spheres, which is a tell tale sign of an extremely high temperature reaction. Temperatures were not high enough to melt steel, that was confirmed by NIST. Those who discovered the nano-thermite particles were actually surprised at what they found. They said they had no idea what they might find before they started their research. In other words, what you believe is "nothing to be worked up about" turned out to be something that was extremely unique and unheard of in a building fire.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 28, 2013 13:51:23 GMT -5
Excuse me but STEEL IS MADE OF IRON. Iron rusts in fire. Fire was hot enough to weaken steel 800 C ergo high temperature reactions took place as a result of office fires started by burning jet fuel from the planes. Fires in the debris burned for months. Thermite burns up in seconds. So Thermite wasn't burning in the debris piles but desks were. Also the contents of the planes and the aluminium skins of the planes were capable of burning. See example below: Nano particle Aluminium and Iron oxide chips will also be present in that wreckage but did a Thermite reaction bring it down ? Of course not.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 28, 2013 21:07:35 GMT -5
"Excuse me but STEEL IS MADE OF IRON."
So?
"Iron rusts in fire. Fire was hot enough to weaken steel 800 C ergo high temperature reactions took place as a result of office fires started by burning jet fuel from the planes. Fires in the debris burned for months. Thermite burns up in seconds. So Thermite wasn't burning in the debris piles but desks were. Also the contents of the planes and the aluminium skins of the planes were capable of burning."
All speculation sprinkled with nonsense. "Debris" does not turn into extremely hot pools of metal that looks like a foundry (as described by firefighters) and is too hot to approach for weeks. Adding further suspicion to the NIST fraud is that Shyam Sunder claims he never even heard about this and that's on video. And that's after the story was in the news for weeks.
I have seen on video what thermite (not nano-thermite) does to metal. All 3 towers had pools of molten metal under them. I can understand that if massive amounts of nano-thermite reacted with the steel frame of the towers that the reaction could continue for a long time and turn all that metal into molten pools. Speculation (and it's only speculation) is that the nano-thermite may have been mixed with paint and that the steel frame in all 3 towers could have undergone a paint job prior to 9/11 without the ones who did the job actually being aware of what was in the paint. But again, that's just speculation that might explain how nano-thermite may have been coated onto the steel frame and appears in abundance in the dust samples. All that speculation means is that it is one possibility that could explain some things. It certainly doesn't mean that's what it was.
"Nano particle Aluminium and Iron oxide chips will also be present in that wreckage but did a Thermite reaction bring it down ?"
What does that have to do with ENGINEERED nano-thermite that was found in 4 independent samples of dust in abundant quantities both in reacted and unreacted form? All you're trying to do is make a case (obfuscating) that engineered nano-thermite is the same or similar to aluminum and iron oxide. It isn't working, experts have explained what engineered nano-thermite is and its potential properties. They also wrote a paper about NIST's connections to nano-thermite, which they deliberately and admittedly did not investigate. But you dismiss anything you don't agree with and mock known experts by calling them "so-called experts".
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 29, 2013 13:10:16 GMT -5
The fires in the debris were hot enough to melt aluminium. There were large quantities of aluminium in the debris. A fire hot enough to melt aluminium in the presence of aluminium would have melted it. Logic. The fires might just about have been hot enough to melt copper, and the wiring in the WTC's was all copper. But steel, the fires didn't melt the steel, they weakened some of it and corroded a lot of it.
"engineered" nano thermite = your opinion. Not substantiated by evidence.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 29, 2013 13:51:14 GMT -5
"The fires in the debris were hot enough to melt aluminium. There were large quantities of aluminium in the debris. A fire hot enough to melt aluminium in the presence of aluminium would have melted it. Logic. The fires might just about have been hot enough to melt copper, and the wiring in the WTC's was all copper. But steel, the fires didn't melt the steel, they weakened some of it and corroded a lot of it."
All your opinion.
""engineered" nano thermite = your opinion. Not substantiated by evidence."
It's not my opinion, it's been substantiated by EVIDENCE discovered by experts in the 4 independent samples of dust and its volatility was verified by yet another independent expert using highly sophisticated scientific tools. Again, I'm not an authority on thermite or nano-thermite and certainly neither are you, but they are.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 29, 2013 14:58:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 29, 2013 21:15:23 GMT -5
So let me get this straight. All these people who have listed their verifiable credentials are only experts in my opinion. People such as: Major General Albert Stubblebine General Wesley Clark Lt. Col. Robert Bowman Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford John Lear Commander James R. Compton Dwain Deets Dr. Niels Harrit William F. Pepper Andreas von Bülow Ferdinando Imposimato Mike Gravel Barbara Honegger Erik Lawyer Judge Andrew Napolitano There are many, many more and I didn't even name one architect or engineer, there are almost 2,000 who have signed their names and provided their credentials, all VERIFIED. And you interviewed all those people you named above and they all told you that in their opinion the people I provided links to are not experts. One of these people is Professor David Chandler, he was able to get Shyam Sunder to admit that WTC7 was in free fall for at least 2 seconds (8 floors), but you claim Shyam Sunder told you David Chandler is not an expert. If that's true, then why would Shyam Sunder agree with David Chandler, an alleged "so-called" expert? What kind of nonsense are you trying to spew? Do you actually believe everyone who reads your silly wild claims is completely %$&@? Why are you going to such idiotic lengths to try to discredit those you don't agree with? Are you that desperate?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 30, 2013 9:54:40 GMT -5
How much do you know about Major General Albert Stubblebine? He's mentioned in Jon Ronson's book The Men Who Stare at Goats www.jonronson.com/goats_chapter.html His failed attempts to walk through the wall of his office and sponsorship of paranormal investigations are on record. General Wesley Clark isn't a structural fire engineer, not an expert. Lt Col. Robert Bowman, not a structural fire engineer, not an expert. Lt Col Shelton F Lankford, not a structural fire engineer, not an expert. John Lear was a famed ufo conspiracist back in the 1990's, his friend Bob Lazar said of him "Well, John Lear's a nice guy. I like him, but he does have the tendency to add about fifteen percent color to stories, and if a story goes through him twice, it's thirty percent, and it doesn't stop." www.ufomind.com/area51/people/lear/ when his friends basically say he exaggerates and invents stuff to support his theories what credibility has he got ? Commander James R. Compton, not a structural fire engineer Dwain Deets ex Nasa Pilot, is concerned by unsafe speed of the hijacked aircraft. Hijackers weren't worried about crashing them so why would they worry about Velocity Never Exceed ? The RAF took a Handley Page Victor beyond it's VNE and through the sound barrier back in the 1950's. A test pilot took a Hawker Hunter beyond it's VNE and through the sound barrier too despite neither plane having been designed to reach such speed, SO an aircraft not being designed to fly at such speed and being capable of flying at such speed albeit dangerously are two different things. Dr. Niels Harrit, chemist, not a structural fire engineer. William F. Pepper, Attorney and conspiracy theorist not structural fire engineer, well meaning but misinformed. Andreas von Bülow, German SPD politician, well meaning but hopelessly ignorant. Ferdinando Imposimato, Italian prosecutor. Not structural fire engineer. Mike Gravel, former Senator. Not structural fire engineer. Barbara Honegger, former researcher and policy analyst for Regan Administration, not structural fire engineer. In other words clueless. Erik Lawyer, Seattle firefighter, wasn't there, hasn't seen full picture, is not structural fire engineer, misinformed but well meaning amateur sleuth. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a judge not a structural fire engineer, not an expert. So please, how about a real expert from the field of structural fire engineering, instead someone with an impressive sounding title ? Professor David Chandler is a Professor of International Relations at the Centre for the Study of Democracy. What he probably doesn't know about WTC7 is that as it fell it fell slightly backwards. It damaged Fitterman Hall during it's collapse. By falling backwards there was less resistance to it. This is what 7 did to Fitterman Hall:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 30, 2013 10:07:09 GMT -5
Are you that dense or do you just pretend to be dense?
All the people listed are EXPERTS in their own specific disciplines. Why on earth do they all have to be structural fire engineers or else they're dismissed by you (who is only an expert at lying and not a good one at that) as "so-called experts"? They each have their opinions given their backgrounds and many of them have been able to EXPOSE the official 9/11 garbage as a bunch of fraudulent lies. If anyone is "clueless" it's you or you just pretend to be clueless. 9/11 was NOT about structural fire engineering, it was about many, many things. In your narrow world, it was "simple" but in reality it was an extremely complex event.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 30, 2013 10:10:44 GMT -5
They aren't experts in the relevant disciplines to understand what happened to the structure of the buildings. As a result they aren't competent.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 30, 2013 10:12:21 GMT -5
Why on earth do they all have to be structural fire engineers Because structural fire engineers understand the fire engineering issues of a steel building collapsing due to structural damage and fire. Your 'experts' do not.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 30, 2013 10:38:18 GMT -5
Why on earth do they all have to be structural fire engineers Because structural fire engineers understand the fire engineering issues of a steel building collapsing due to structural damage and fire. Your 'experts' do not. Bulls**t, even I understand that 3 high rise steel frame towers cannot collapse in the manner they did collapse on 9/11 strictly due to fire or airplanes and fire. It doesn't take an expert to figure that out and especially when experts point out the many issues regarding the collapses. But like I said, 9/11 was NOT just about the 3 tower collapses anyway. All these EXPERTS have opinions on many different aspects of 9/11 and they ALL agree that the official story is mostly a fairy tale meant for the ignorant and gullible.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 30, 2013 11:58:02 GMT -5
Every structural fire engineer in the world disagrees with you and I agree with them. It's not my fault that you have no interest in the mechanics of what happens to overloaded steelwork in fire. It's not my fault that you are ignorant and abusive towards the true experts simply because your distrust of your government has been taken to such paranoid extremes.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 30, 2013 13:19:21 GMT -5
"Every structural fire engineer in the world disagrees with you"Yet another wild unsubstantiated claim. You spoke to ALL of them and they ALL told you they disagree with me? Why do you need to make things up? Never mind, that's a rhetorical question. The answer is because you rarely ever have any FACTS or LOGIC to back up your wild claims. Whatever you do have is almost always partial, a distortion or irrelevant to the point. "... and I agree with them."What you agree with is irrelevant to me. "It's not my fault that you have no interest in the mechanics of what happens to overloaded steelwork in fire."Why would I give a s**t about what your fault is or isn't? I read many, many articles written by experts and viewed many videos. I know enough to know that 3 towers CANNOT collapse in the manner they did on 9/11 from fire or airplanes and fire. Whatever I didn't know before 9/11, I have learned since and that took place over the last 8 years following the time I first became aware that the official story was filled with huge holes. I have spend many, many hours learning about the subject almost daily and I'm still finding and learning new things to this day. You don't even scratch the surface in trying to convince me of any of your bulls**t. The more I learn, the more I'm convinced 9/11 was at the very least a DELIBERATE STAND DOWN and at worse a fully detailed plan for and execution of an INSIDE JOB. Either way, it was criminal complicity to terrorism and mass murder. I strongly lean toward the latter because the EVIDENCE and LOGIC supports it. "It's not my fault that you are ignorant and abusive towards the true experts simply because your distrust of your government has been taken to such paranoid extremes."Nor do I give a s**t that you believe I'm ignorant and abusive toward true experts. You won't find a single post that shows I'm "abusive" toward true experts. In fact, I posted many links with regard to true experts. Just because you want to call them "so-called" experts does not mean it's true. That is nothing more than an ignorant and childish claim. And on another note, you keep bringing up a list of people: fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/steelinfire/contact.htmlBut you never posted one single article from any of these that has anything to do with 9/11. Did any of them write any article based on any 9/11 research? If not, why are these people relevant to 9/11?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 30, 2013 13:27:23 GMT -5
You're lying. They aren't experts they're judges chemists architects but not experts in the relevant fields of study to understand that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. They're fishing for a good story but throwing all the inconvenient facts that disprove their theories back into the water.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 30, 2013 17:56:28 GMT -5
"You're lying. They aren't experts they're judges chemists architects"
That's a really funny statement when taken in the above context. They're judges chemists architects but they're not experts, I lied about that.
"You're lying. They aren't experts they're judges chemists architects but not experts in the relevant fields of study to understand that 9/11 wasn't an inside job."
The 3 disciplines you named are only some of the relevant fields of study to understand what couldn't and didn't happen on 9/11. The rest come from the many other disciplines I provided links to, that are ALL relevant, especially as a sum total of knowledge. There's nothing I'm lying about.
Your premise is itself a lie and a fake. One can never discount a potential possibility prior to an investigation of this kind. That should be quite obvious to one who knows anything about criminal investigations. In criminal investigations, multiple sciences are involved, the same applies (or should apply) here. And in proper investigations, no preset premise should ever start an investigation. All 3 government "investigations" started on a given premise, that what government said prior to these "investigations" is true. I believe about 25% of the footnotes in the 9/11 Commission Report was taken from "confessions" from Gitmo detainees, all of whom were tortured to "confess" (KSM was waterboarded 183 times and "confessed" to doing everything from A to Z, probably even the JFK assassination). One of these signed a "confession" that he wasn't allowed to read. All "confessions" were given 3rd party to the Commission because the Commission members were not allowed to talk directly to these detainees.
"They're fishing for a good story but throwing all the inconvenient facts that disprove their theories back into the water."
This is just more of your baseless opinion. Most studies I've read and in fact the 4 videos about the column 79 theory show clearly how NIST threw out inconvenient facts and substituted other facts. I guess you never read those because it comes from that awful website that has 60+ papers on virtually every subject about 9/11, all written by EXPERTS in many, many different fields ALL relevant to 9/11. There is one however, that is written anonymously. I read it once but I automatically discount it because it is anonymous.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 30, 2013 18:50:45 GMT -5
In your opinion. But in the opinions of experts the only relevant issues are this: Hijacked planes, structural damage and fire. Your opinions about Thermite or about it being (allegedly) an inside job are baseless and unsubstantiated. Open your eyes and see past your lies.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 30, 2013 19:10:21 GMT -5
"In your opinion."
I cited both fact and opinion so a good deal of what I posted is FACT, not opinion.
"But in the opinions of experts the only relevant issues are this: Hijacked planes, structural damage and fire."
That's your opinion, certainly NOT the opinion of experts. There are NO such limitations for real experts. You show you know nothing about criminal investigations or you're just pretending because the above statement is totally absurd on its face. You actually believe the above 3 things you mentioned are the ONLY things experts should be concerned with regarding 9/11? Because you say so?
"Your opinions about Thermite or about it being (allegedly) an inside job are baseless and unsubstantiated."
Not for me it's not. As for you, well who cares but you?
"Open your eyes and see past your lies."
I haven't lied about anything, that's your M.O., not mine. My opinions are NOT lies, they're just my opinions. The facts I post are not lies, they're just the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2013 1:58:06 GMT -5
In your opinion. But in the opinions of experts the only relevant issues are this: Hijacked planes, structural damage and fire. Your opinions about Thermite or about it being (allegedly) an inside job are baseless and unsubstantiated. Open your eyes and see past your lies. Do you think Holly has psychics working for them or is the actor on the show who siad the CIA gave them the storyline for that episode telling the truth this episode was filmed a full 9 months before 9/11
|
|