Bollyn points to Israeli laboratory as source of nano-thermite

What about Chandler's video in 911Investigator's op?

Looks like a piece of debris explodes as it is flung upwards. I say flung, because debris will be ejected at high speeds during the collapse of a huge office tower; this in itself is not proof of explosives. However, what could cause the debris to break apart like that?
 
stateofgrace said:
Lie 1.

Lie 2.

Lie 3.
Lie 4.

And this is why you are not taken seriously. Even with the most mundane, insignificant chit chat you have to lie.I guess it is second nature to you.
Click to expand...


Of course lying is second nature to him. That happens when you are a Holocaust Denier since you do so much of it.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
What about Chandler's video in 911Investigator's op?

Looks like a piece of debris explodes as it is flung upwards. I say flung, because debris will be ejected at high speeds during the collapse of a huge office tower; this in itself is not proof of explosives. However, what could cause the debris to break apart like that?
Click to expand...

You are kidding me right? seriously, that low rez, almost unwatchable clip?

How do we know the debris wasn't tumbling over, and so at one moment looked one shape, and then at another (a few frames forward), it didn't look different?

How do we know it wasn't 2-3 pieces of debris shot out at the same time, and then as they moved further away, the air current caused them to separate, presenting what looks like a single piece "breaking up".

How do we know that with such force expelling the debris, that a piece of flimsy (or even not so flimsy) material could not break up in such a way anyway?

That video is ridiculous...as is most everything Chandler presents.

TAM:)
 
ImANiceGuy said:
What about Chandler's video in 911Investigator's op?

Looks like a piece of debris explodes as it is flung upwards. I say flung, because debris will be ejected at high speeds during the collapse of a huge office tower; this in itself is not proof of explosives. However, what could cause the debris to break apart like that?
Click to expand...

why is it not visible in the hundreds of other videos? stands to reason that if a piece of metal "looks' like its flying around with a smoke trail like some 30 foot bottle rocket it would be seen in multiple videos. So where is it? Or does Physics toolkit also come bundled with video editing software?
 
A W Smith said:
why is it not visible in the hundreds of other videos? stands to reason that if a piece of metal "looks' like its flying around with a smoke trail like some 30 foot bottle rocket it would be seen in multiple videos. So where is it? Or does Physics toolkit also come bundled with video editing software?
Click to expand...

it is visible from other angles
and this is why chandler fails

chandler either fell for a camera trick or is just a very dishonest person

when ever i think i see something funny, i will immediately start looking for other angles to either prove or disprove what the first angle shows BEFORE coming to a conclusion
chandler doesnt do this out of either stupidity or dishonesty
 
Last edited:
Video confirms spray on fireproofing shed from column during collapse

Of course Chandler ASSerts that the puffs confirm explosives. Which they clearly do not. Note the spray on fireproofing surrounding this typical exterior column. (#38)

wall-column.gif


Note how this fireproofing (#38) is protected by exterior cladding (#40). When this cladding is shed. For instance during a collapse. There is noting to protect it from being shed and breaking apart during subsequent impacts with other debris. Which will present itself as puffs of dust. It alarms me that this ignorant agenda driven ass is teaching children. I would like very much to get him fired. where does he teach at?
 
A W Smith said:
Of course Chandler ASSerts that the puffs confirm explosives. Which they clearly do not. Note the spray on fireproofing surrounding this typical exterior column. (#38)

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wall-column.gif[/qimg]

Note how this fireproofing (#38) is protected by exterior cladding (#40). When this cladding is shed. For instance during a collapse. There is noting to protect it from being shed and breaking apart during subsequent impacts with other debris. Which will present itself as puffs of dust. It alarms me that this ignorant agenda driven ass is teaching children. I would like very much to get him fired. where does he teach at?
Click to expand...

if he was my kids teacher id have a big problem with his ideas

then again maybe hes smart enough to keep the woo out the classroom
then again hes on the internet looking to get famous on the backs of almost 3000 dead
 
http://noliesradio.org/archives/4961

Bollyn mentions Yahudi Zeiri as the possible inventor of the technology that was used to demolish the WTC towers. This gentleman had been working on nano-thermite films and ways to ignite them for more than a decade (40+ minute in the interview).

And again have a look at this video to see how the towers were turned into dust, floor by floor.
 
9/11-investigator said:
http://noliesradio.org/archives/4961

Bollyn mentions Yahudi Zeiri as the possible inventor of the technology that was used to demolish the WTC towers. This gentleman had been working on nano-thermite films and ways to ignite them for more than a decade (40+ minute in the interview).
Click to expand...

Since any and all forms of thermite need 2 pounds of whatever-ite to melt one pound of steel, how does a "film" of the stuff on a structural beam do anything but blister the paint?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Oh... and don't ever flash a grinning emote at me as though there could possibly be any kind of friendly relations between us.
Click to expand...

Which one of my 1,000 posts gave you the impression that I was even remotely interested in a friendly relationship with you?

It's all calculated civility, preparing your downfall...

my friend. :D
 
BigAl said:
Since any and all forms of thermite need 2 pounds of whatever-ite to melt one pound of steel, how does a "film" of the stuff on a structural beam do anything but blister the paint?
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Do you remember the video where a flower pot filled with thermite burns through a car motor bloc in seconds? The same amount of nano-thermite reacts in milliseconds rather than seconds. And besides the nano-thermite was used not to melt steel but to pulverize concrete, a different thing altogether. It was regular thermite/thermate that was used to melt steel and weaken the structure.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Rubbish. Do you remember the video where a flower pot filled with thermite burns through a car motor bloc in seconds? The same amount of nano-thermite reacts in milliseconds rather than seconds. And besides the nano-thermite was used not to melt steel but to pulverize concrete, a different thing altogether. It was regular thermite/thermate that was used to melt steel and weaken the structure.
Click to expand...

Given that the concrete in WTC was poured on steel and then covered with adhesive tile or carpet during construction in the 60s, how did anyone get nano-thermite in contact with the concrete?

Two pounds of themite melts one pound of steel. Whatever you saw in that video isn't an entire steel engine block melted. A film of any type of thermite is only going to blister the paint.

I saw the pile. There was plenty of non-pulverized concrete chucks to be hauled away. You've been lied to.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
Given that the concrete in WTC was poured on steel and then covered with adhesive tile or carpet during construction in the 60s, how did anyone get nano-thermite in contact with the concrete?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that WTC in 2001 still had the same carpets from the sixties? Yuk. :D

Two pounds of themite melts one pound of steel. Whatever you saw in that video isn't an entire steel engine block melted. A film of any type of thermite is only going to blister the paint.
Click to expand...

This French lady Pileni, who was a big shot in the French defense establishment and at the same time had a senior position in this Bentham operation, she was a (nano-)thermite expert herself. So you explain to me why all these military people have such a great interest in the explosive power of nano-thermite?

I saw the pile. There was plenty of non-pulverized concrete chucks to be hauled away.
Click to expand...

Nobody says that the walls were smeared/sprayed with nano-thermite as well.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Are you saying that WTC in 2001 still had the same carpets from the sixties? Yuk. :D

This French lady Pileni, who was a big shot in the French defense establishment and at the same time had a senior position in this Bentham operation, she was a (nano-)thermite expert herself. So you explain to me why all these military people have such a great interest in the explosive power of nano-thermite?

Nobody says that the walls were smeared/sprayed with nano-thermite as well.
Click to expand...

Given that floors and sections of floors were refurbished bit at a time over the years, who do you believe put the therm-anything under the tile/carpet and when?

A "film" of therm-anything is only going to blow the tile off the concrete slab. It's not going to dustify anything.


The chemical equations say that about 2 pounds of thermite of (any type) can melt one pound of steel. Saying it in french doesn't change that.

What does "film" mean to you?
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Closer look on older video material:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21018

David Chandler shows us (1:30) that free falling debris from the south tower 'post-explodes' into finer debris, proving the presence of explosives in the building.
Click to expand...

So, then:

1) The type of explosives used were of the kind that flame wouldn't set off (like C4), since otherwise the flames caused by the crash would have set off the explosions.

2) The type of explosives used were so stable that the other explosions didn't set off the explosives embedded in the falling debris, since otherwise it would have exploded before becoming falling debris.

3) Since neither the fire nor the other explosions set it off, the explosives in the debris must have been set off by a timer.

4) Meaning that there must have been multiple timers, and the one embedded in the falling debris was somehow set to have too long a duration.

9/11-investigator said:
And besides the nano-thermite was used not to melt steel but to pulverize concrete, a different thing altogether. It was regular thermite/thermate that was used to melt steel and weaken the structure.
Click to expand...

1) Why would they need/want to pulverize the concrete? Is your claim that the concrete would have held the towers together if the concrete had stayed whole?

2) Where is your evidence that nano-thermite is so insanely explosive that a mere dusting of it is capable of pulverizing concrete? It can be more explosive than other types of chemical explosives, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily that explosive.
 
Matthew Cline said:
So, then:

1) The type of explosives used were of the kind that flame wouldn't set off (like C4), since otherwise the flames caused by the crash would have set off the explosions.
Click to expand...

Looks like it.

2) The type of explosives used were so stable that the other explosions didn't set off the explosives embedded in the falling debris, since otherwise it would have exploded before becoming falling debris.
Click to expand...

Huh? Other explosions setting of explosions in falling debris? Please rephrase.

3) Since neither the fire nor the other explosions set it off, the explosives in the debris must have been set off by a timer.
Click to expand...

Yep. I remember having read or heard the last days about ignition by electricity. Can't find it back now.

4) Meaning that there must have been multiple timers, and the one embedded in the falling debris was somehow set to have too long a duration.
Click to expand...

Oh wait, you are talking about this Chandler video. Maybe the ignition of that particular piece of debris was delayed because locally the nano-thermite sprayed layer was too thin to explode instantaneously; sort of delayed explosion.

1) Why would they need/want to pulverize the concrete? Is your claim that the concrete would have held the towers together if the concrete had stayed whole?
Click to expand...

That's a very good question.

2) Where is your evidence that nano-thermite is so insanely explosive that a mere dusting of it is capable of pulverizing concrete? It can be more explosive than other types of chemical explosives, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily that explosive.
Click to expand...

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

3. Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive links to nano-thermites, developing and judging nano-thermite research proposals for the military and other military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007).

This gives some indication that the explosive potential of nanothermite was recognized by the military.

http://www.nano.gov/html/res/DefenseNano2005.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom