Merged National Geographic Special - "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" Debunks Thermite Myth

[911kongen]

I know you, Mackey, work with NASA. Do NASA use it in there space shuttle? And do you believe it ever will be possible to test "nano-thermite" on steel beams?

 

[triforcharity]

Why would they? If they put the bombs there in the service of public safty as I posulated above, then they quite likely feel comforable matianing serecy on the grounds that their work served its itended purpose. ......


but the possibility of the buildings having been rigged with explosives is far more plausible.

Bombs =/= public safety. Ever. Never have, never will.

It is impossible to have rigged that building for explosives. Nobody, including myself, heard massive, 200 decibel booms that day. Not one person, and not one audio device recorded it. Didn't happen. Its not even plausable.

 

[R.Mackey]

I make no posts here on behalf of NASA. Everything is my own opinion alone. I also divulge no critical engineering data of any kind.

The Space Shuttle predates "nanothermite" by about 30 years, so no, it's not used there. I have never seen it mentioned outside of the Truth Movement and a very few papers from Lawrence Livermore National Labs.

I don't see why you couldn't test it on a steel beam, but the expense would be formidable, and we really don't expect it to do much. It will underperform ordinary thermite by about a factor of two.

 

[triforcharity]

It is the molten steel found at the base of the towers which stands in contradiction to the official story.

Linkey?? Where is the huge pools of molten steel?? I never saw it, and I was on that site for 4 months, starting 9/11/01

It wasn't there.

Try again.

I conclude that you are in fact a Truther to the core. Don't deny it.

 

[kylebisme]

What makes you believe either of those things could have happened? Not the bombing, but the toppling or sliding.

I believe anything is possible as long as I have no rational argument to suggest otherwise. Surely you don't think you have a rational argument to against those aforementioned possibilities?

My point was that it isn't a possibility at all...

Now that is a silly argument, and the rest of them too.

Dead wrong. Not only have you not calculated the fall time in water, instead merely assuming it would take longer, but a standing column of water the size of a Twin Tower would be approximately 1.2 million tons, or approximately four times the mass of the real thing. It's worthless as an analogy.

The mass could vary greatly depending on the girth of the tub, but that wouldn't change the rate the ball fell, and my point remains regardless. That siad, I'll check out your paper.

 

[R.Mackey]

The mass could vary greatly depending on the girth of the tub, but that wouldn't change the rate the ball fell, and my point remains regardless. That siad, I'll check out your paper.

Again, dead wrong. The point is that the average density of your water column, and thus the drag force you suppose, exceeds the actual tower by a factor of four! This is a huge problem for your analogy. It's a worthless model of the actual collapse.

 

[triforcharity]

It should be obvious I was not suggesting a normal CD project, but rather one designed and implemented for the purpose of public safety. but your arguments against the suggestion simply ignore that difference.


A lot more had a large enough bomb been set off a the base of the towers to cause them to topple across the City. Surely you aren't attempting to deny that?


Not nearly so many people would nesseacrly need to know. As for the reasons for keeping the such a secret, please see my previous reply to Brainache at post #688.

Like I have said. NEVER, in the history of mankind, have BOMBS ever been placed ANYWHERE for the sake of public safety. EVER. Bombs =/= public safety.

If a bomb, went off in the lower floors, big enough to fell the tower like a tree, and it was possible to survive this initial blast, than I would imagine that it would be about the same. You see, most of the area around WTC 1& 2 had already been evacuated. Mostly firefighters, police, and the like, were in the immeadiate area. Sure, maybe more casualties, but....The size of the bomb required to fell the tower like a tree would have killed anyone in the area anyway.

 

[911kongen]

I make no posts here on behalf of NASA. Everything is my own opinion alone. I also divulge no critical engineering data of any kind.

The Space Shuttle predates "nanothermite" by about 30 years, so no, it's not used there. I have never seen it mentioned outside of the Truth Movement and a very few papers from Lawrence Livermore National Labs.

I don't see why you couldn't test it on a steel beam, but the expense would be formidable, and we really don't expect it to do much. It will underperform ordinary thermite by about a factor of two.

Hmm, so Jones and Gage is Lying when they say Nasa use "Nano-thermite" on there space shuttle! But im wondering.. if Nano-thermite underperforms thermite... what is the point of using it, or doing the sience to make it possible to produce nano-thermite?

 

[Hokulele]

I believe anything is possible as long as I have no rational argument to suggest otherwise. Surely you don't think you have a rational argument to against those aforementioned possibilities?

I do not need to have any sort of argument if you cannot explain why you would think the Towers would topple.

Without your premise, all of your subsequent possibilities are irrelevant.

 

[triforcharity]

I believe anything is possible as long as I have no rational argument to suggest otherwise. Surely you don't think you have a rational argument to against those aforementioned possibilities?

Now that is a silly argument, and the rest of them too.

The mass could vary greatly depending on the girth of the tub, but that wouldn't change the rate the ball fell, and my point remains regardless. That siad, I'll check out your paper.

baseballs float. Epic fail.

 

[R.Mackey]

Hmm, so Jones and Gage is Lying when they say Nasa use "Nano-thermite" on there space shuttle! But im wondering.. if Nano-thermite underperforms thermite... what is the point of using it, or doing the sience to make it possible to produce nano-thermite?

I haven't seen Dr. Jones or Richard Gage make that claim, so I'm not sure what they're talking about.

Nanothermite does have some interesting properties, just nothing that's useful for building demolition. I answered a similar question earlier today.

 

[911kongen]

I haven't seen Dr. Jones or Richard Gage make that claim, so I'm not sure what they're talking about.

Nanothermite does have some interesting properties, just nothing that's useful for building demolition. I answered a similar question earlier today.

So, nano-thermite does not exist outside the truthers heads?

 

[R.Mackey]

No, it exists, it's just a laboratory curiosity at the moment. Nobody has refined it to practice yet, and it certainly wasn't the "go-to" option to covertly destroy the largest buildings in the world eight years ago.

Here is a paper on the stuff. This particular paper discusses construction of nanothermite blends suitable for microthrusters in spacecraft. There are a few others. But I don't think you can buy it off the shelf anywhere, and the total quantity of it in the entire world is probably measured in grams.

 

[kylebisme]

Baseballs float... I've seen it for myself at McCovey Cove. You kinda suck at analogies.

Good point, replace the baseball with a block of lead.

Bombs =/= public safety. Ever. Never have, never will.

Not in your opinion, but that does nothing to prevent others from thinking otherwise.

It is impossible to have rigged that building for explosives. Nobody, including myself, heard massive, 200 decibel booms that day. Not one person, and not one audio device recorded it. Didn't happen. Its not even plausable.

Again, you keep coming at this from the perspective of a normal CD, rather than one designed for a completely different purpose.

As for reports of explosions, there are many, though I unfortunately haven't posted enough to link yet.

 

[kylebisme]

Again, dead wrong. The point is that the average density of your water column, and thus the drag force you suppose, exceeds the actual tower by a factor of four! This is a huge problem for your analogy. It's a worthless model of the actual collapse.

Your mass/drag argument completely ignores the huge difference in structural integrity between liquids and solids.

Linkey?? Where is the huge pools of molten steel?? I never saw it, and I was on that site for 4 months, starting 9/11/01

It wasn't there.

Try again.

I conclude that you are in fact a Truther to the core. Don't deny it.

I said nothing about huge pools, but you exaggerate my statements to draw false conclusions.

As for the evdince of molten steel I have seen, I'll dig some up and post it when I hit 15 posts.

 

[R.Mackey]

Your mass/drag argument completely ignores the huge difference in structural integrity between liquids and solids.

You mean your argument ignores this. Like I said, it's a crappy analogy. You can't conclude anything on its basis, which you are trying to do.

Calculations or just go away. This is already getting tiresome.

 

[kylebisme]

You mean your argument ignores this. Like I said, it's a crappy analogy. You can't conclude anything on its basis, which you are trying to do.

Calculations or just go away. This is already getting tiresome.

My argument considers it comparing a massive tub filled with watter to a steel and concrete structure filled with air, despite the huge difference in mass. I'm not deriving numbers from the analogy though, just demonstrating the simple fact that falling mass accelerates slower when confronted with structural resistance.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Good point, replace the baseball with a block of lead.

Which changes your entire experiment.

Not in your opinion, but that does nothing to prevent others from thinking otherwise.

In what possible scenario do you think that pre-planting explosives in a densely populated area is a good idea. Do you have any idea about what is required to safeguard and protect explosives from accidental detonation? My job used to be sitting in a room with over 7,000 pounds of explosives (class A, B and C) and almost 800 gallons of self oxidizing fuel whose fumes, if ignited, would kill you in about 30 seconds. You're damned straight that I know what it takes, but do you?

Again, you keep coming at this from the perspective of a normal CD, rather than one designed for a completely different purpose.

The purpose is the same, to bring down a building. What you are suggesting is bordering on insane supposition. No wait, what I meant to say was that it has crossed the border into insane supposition.

As for reports of explosions, there are many, though I unfortunately haven't posted enough to link yet.

It will come soon enough.

 

[R.Mackey]

My argument considers it comparing a massive tub filled with watter to a steel and concrete structure filled with air, despite the huge difference in mass. I'm not deserving numbers from the analogy though, just demonstrating the simple fact that falling mass accelerates slower when confronted with structural resistance.

Yes, we know that. That's why the collapses took about 15 seconds (not counting the core remnants, which failed ~20 seconds after) rather than about 9 seconds.

What you're doing, however, is using this analogy to claim there's no way "gravity alone could have made the buildings down, particularly as quickly as they did." This is wrong.

What you're doing we refer to around here as the Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy. In this case, Quantity A is how fast your giant baseball in water would take to fall. Quantity B is how fast the Towers would collapse with gravity alone as the responsible agent. You haven't calculated A, you don't know B, yet you insist that you do know the relationship between them.

Balderdash. Once again, there are peer-reviewed papers on the collapse timing, multiple ones from independent sources, and they all agree with the actual collapse times. You're simply ignorant of this science. And your weak analogy is hardly sufficient to challenge them.

 

[JohnG]

Not in your opinion, but that does nothing to prevent others from thinking otherwise.

There are probabilities and there are possibilities. There is speculation and there's uninformed speculation. The average five year old may think there's a strong possibility that clouds are made out of cotton candy, but that doesn't mean that Meteorologists are obliged to take those conjectures seriously.