Why the Harrit Nano-thermite paper has not yet been debunked

paulheinze said:
nanoenergetic materials can contain organic compounds in order to enhance energy density and in order to produce gas on reaction. It makes them explosive.
Click to expand...
And explosives go "boom". No "boom" on any audio, sorry.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
I will agree the collapse could have masked the sound...however, if you claim that demolition devices were used to initiate the collapse, then by definition, at least some of the devices would have had to been activated before the start of the collapse in order to cause the collapse. Anything that produces enough energy to either cut through or heat the columns or trusses to failure would create byproducts...light, sound, smoke, etc.

By the time the towers collapsed, there were hundreds of cameras pointed at them. There is a wealth of video and audio documents that clearly show the events that happened immediately before the collapse initiated. At no time during the last 30 seconds before the collapse do we see or hear anything that would indicate a high energy device going off. There are no flashes of light before the collapse...no extra sounds...no new sources of smoke of a different color...nothing. If a device caused the collapse, there would be evidence of some sort of it going off before the collapse started. We just don't see or hear it.
Click to expand...

You're too logical. Amazing how people can see something that isn't there, isn't it? A strange power of the human mind.

Kind of like seeing the virgin mary in a cheese sandwich, I suppose.
 
Don't listen to anyone who says the rumble of the collapse masked explosive sounds. Anyone who says this doesn't have a clue how loud demolition explosives are.

My wife tells me of when a couple of years ago, she heard a bridge demolition very loud and clear from her home when the actual demolition was taking place 2 miles away.

Nevermind the fact that the initiation of the WTC collapses occurred when there was obviously no rumble to be heard, and yet no blast events were heard prior to the initial collapse, when even then it started as a slow steady rumble.
 
alienentity said:
And wouldn't it have been cool if they had bothered to find out what the 'organic' binder (also found in paint, btw) was?

And cool if they had bothered to discover what the gray layer was?

But they didn't do that. They were satisfied with a partial investigation, leaving several key questions unanswered. But then they went on to claim that they had 'proven' nanothermite.

Not quite. They haven't crossed that finish line yet.
Click to expand...

Well see its like this. When scientists want to provide evidence of nano-thermite they will stick to that. Other secondary questions like you mention, though interesting will be left for future study because they're...well, irrelevant to the main question. Here's a hint again. Fire-proof paints are designed to be fireproof not explosive.
 
cmatrix said:
Well see its like this. When scientists want to provide evidence of nano-thermite they will stick to that. Other secondary questions like you mention, though interesting will be left for future study because they're...well, irrelevant to the main question. Here's a hint again. Fire-proof paints are designed to be fireproof not explosive.
Click to expand...
Except there is no evidence of any sort of therm*te, nano, super, whatever.

And it cannot be used to cut a column... but hey, don't let reality interfere with your fantasy.
 
TruthersLie said:
so you have just pointed out one of the biggest problems with harrits paper...

his paint chips needed air to react... nanothermite wouldn't.

thank you for playing.
Click to expand...

No, the biggest problem with Harrit's paper is the incredibly dumb responses arm-chair "debunkers" come up with in their limp-wristed attempts to refute it. The chips, like thermite, contain a huge amount of oxygen so they don't need air to react.

Sorry. It was a delusion. You weren't even in the game.
 
TruthersLie said:
great provide a citation to support your theory.
Click to expand...

Gee you might consider reading the paper in question.

Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC-
204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004.
 
cmatrix said:
No, the biggest problem with Harrit's paper is the incredibly dumb responses arm-chair "debunkers" come up with in their limp-wristed attempts to refute it. The chips, like thermite, contain a huge amount of oxygen so they don't need air to react.

Sorry. It was a delusion. You weren't even in the game.
Click to expand...

So why didn't they test it in an oxygen-less environment?
 
cmatrix said:
No, the biggest problem with Harrit's paper is the incredibly dumb responses arm-chair "debunkers" come up with in their limp-wristed attempts to refute it. The chips, like thermite, contain a huge amount of oxygen so they don't need air to react.

Sorry. It was a delusion. You weren't even in the game.
Click to expand...

If they're dumb responses, how come nobody's listening to you and your crowd? Delusional, you got that right, keep on dreaming.
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
1. There is a full debunking of this craptacular "paper" (snicker) by sunstealer. Just use the search thread and actually try to read it.
2. Lets talk about the 20 major methodological errors in this "paper" (snicker) which invalidate ANY of their findings.
3. Lets look at the spectographs they tried to pass off as "thermite" which show very interesting results which MATCH the composition of the primer paint listed by the manufacturer.

again and again, it only takes about 10 minutes of investigoogling to find. If reading isn't your thing, look up youtube Hardfire Mark Roberts 911 debates, and you will find the whole iron rich microspheres has already been covered.

10 minutes of research... is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...

Oh you mean the spectrographs which show no significant chromium, zinc and magnesium in the red/gray chips but which NIST says are in the primer paint? I'm sure the rest of your "evidence" is as solid as this.
 
chromium, zinc and mangesium.. oh jeeze how many different types of metals were found in the WTC towers??? care to take a stab..
you're batting a 0 so far


Just to start you off: Computers contain iron, steel, magnesium, nickel, aluminum, silicon in many of the parts....and care to take a guess at how many thousands of computers were in both towers?
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
No, Harrit explicitly states that many tons of conventional explosives had to be used, brought in on 'pallets'.

Also Dr. Jones has backed away from the nanothermite-as-explosive-cutter to nanothermite as a trigger for conventionals.

The reason I think is that they both realize (they're not dumb) that the energy contained in a thin coating of nanothermite is totally insufficient to do anything to a thick steel beam. They realize that conventional cutter charges would be needed.

Must go, can easily verify the harrit and jones info later. Quotes are on the web.
Click to expand...

Oh hey, I'll trust you on the Jones comment.
 
Last edited:
Please provide proof that alien has lied in this thread, or else rescind that comment. Otherwise, it shows you to be the one that has been the liar all along ; although we already know that since that is all you spout are nothing more than lies.
 
cmatrix said:
My guess is Harrit is referring to nano-thermite not conventional explosives.
Click to expand...

There is no need to guess, I provided the link to the actual interview. You can plainly see he is referring to convential explosives.

I think it was a mistake for him to talk about conventional explosives as it leads to annoying misdirections like this.
Click to expand...

You mean it was a mistake because now you have to deal with ALL of his theory and not just the parts you like.

The fact is, the paper shows compelling evidence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust.
Click to expand...

Can you show me where the peer-reviewers said that?

Now how about you answer my questions?

How do you explain no one hearing the conventional explosives described by Dr. Harrit?

How do you explain the complete lack of seismic signatures that would have been created by the conventional explosives Dr. Harrit describes?

How do you explain the complete lack of copper residues that would have been left by the conventional explosives that Dr. Harrit posits?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom