Merged David Chandler (ae911) sez "WTC7 was in free fall part of the time"

[A W Smith]

The American Chemical Society is quoted as saying nano-energetics are tailorable to produce just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise.

I would imagine you would like to see what was said at the annual ACS meeting in April 2001 http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf.

You are attributing a property of nanotechnology that does not exist in the article you cite tony. When you continue to lie you will be called on it. Have I made myself clear?

 

[Scott Sommers]

Let's see how crazy we can get Tony to talk.

The Australian Institute of High Energetic Materials has some events coming up. Send them a paper and see how it goes. Or are they in on it too? Can't believe those scientists now can we. It's only Alex Jones who speaks the truth.

Seriously Tony, 'millions' you say? How come I can't find a single one - not even one - credible scientist on this one? There's not a single thermite expert anywhere standing behind you on this one. As I said, if there was, you wouldn't be chatting on the JREF about this. And why don't you take me up on the challenge? Fire off something to the 2010 International Conference on High Energetic Materials and Dynamics of Ultrafast Reactive Systems. Some of those millions must be members - right?

And here's the math to prove it
No Plane = Nut case
Thermite = Nut case
No Plane = Thermite

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A text search finds no occurrences of "noise" or "fragmentation". Those were the properties you claim made nano-something relevant to claims of man-made demolition.

I wait for someone that knows what they are talking about to explain how fragmentation is relevant to the cutting beams as big as large trees.

Do you want to try again?

Does impulse management mean anything to you?

You probably didn't see that as you probably didn't even read anything.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You are attributing a property of nanotechnology that does not exist in the article you cite tony. When you continue to lie you will be called on it. Have I made myself clear?

It sounds like those like you who either can't imagine 911 was an inside job or are defending something are going to try and lean on specific words here as they can't deny it any other way.

Tailorability and Impulse Management are mentioned in the article and with an explosive that means it is controllable to get just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise.

 

[BigAl]

It sounds like those who just can't imagine 911 was an inside job are going to lean on specific words here as they can't deny it any other way.

Impulse management with an explosive means the right amount of fragmentation while minimizing noise.

The only occurrence of "impulse" in your citation is for something completely unrelated to the demolition of structural beams.

Do you want to try a third time? (a page number would be nice.)

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The only occurrence of "impulse" in your citation is for something completely unrelated to the demolition of structural beams.

Do you want to try a third time? (a page number would be nice.)

If you read the article you might learn something.

 

[WildCat]

Tony, how's that paper coming along? You know, the one you're going to submit to a real actual engineering journal?

 

[BigAl]

If you read the article you might learn something.

I read that entire pub when it first came out. If you give us a literal quote and a page number I'll consider it again.

 

[BigAl]

Does impulse management mean anything to you?

You probably didn't see that as you probably didn't even read anything.

page number and enough literal text so I don't have to guess what you are citing, please.

Yes, I know what "impulse" and "impulse management" mean in relation to explosives. Until I see the words used in sentences and paragraphs that support your claims, they are just words.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I've always wondered why some Truthers seem to think Steven Jones' super duper nanothermite stuff is less crazy than Judy Wood's space-based energy beams. Perhaps Tony can tell us why because evidently most of the rest of the world agrees with me. Strange thing I've never heard anyone who knows anything about thermite talk about it. The thermite research community has been strangely quite on this one. Tony, is that because they're really all reptilian shape-shifters?

Seriously, why is it that aboslutley no one in thermite research community seems in the slightest bit interested in this? There are millions of Americans calling for justice for 911. They want the scientists who made the tons of thermite used at the 911 brought to justice. Right Tony? Don't you?

And you wonder why no one talking about 911 Truth anywhere except the JREF? It's because it's crazy.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Tailorability and Impulse Management are mentioned in the article and with an explosive that means it is controllable to get just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise.

So what's the minimum noise level achievable for an explosive charge capable of severing column 79? If you can provide evidence that it's about a million times quieter than NIST's estimate, then you might have the beginnings of an argument. I suspect you're more likely to find it's less than a factor of ten, in which case you don't.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So what's the minimum noise level achievable for an explosive charge capable of severing column 79? If you can provide evidence that it's about a million times quieter than NIST's estimate, then you might have the beginnings of an argument. I suspect you're more likely to find it's less than a factor of ten, in which case you don't.

Dave

If the steel had been saved we would be able to see just how column 79 and all the other columns actually failed. Without that NIST is just guessing as to what happened and their model sure doesn't replicate the observed failure of the perimeter of the building.

It is a serious issue that the steel wasn't saved for analysis and it smells of a cover-up.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the steel had been saved we would be able to see just how column 79 and all the other columns actually failed. Without that NIST is just guessing as to what happened and their model sure doesn't replicate the observed failure of the perimeter of the building.

It is a serious issue that the steel wasn't saved for analysis and it smells of a cover-up.

Nice non-answer. I'll take that as meaning "I have no idea how much quieter a charge can be made using nanotechnology, and therefore there wasn't much point in me even mentioning it", then.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

It sounds like those like you who either can't imagine 911 was an inside job...[/B]

To imagine things is apparently something that truthers share a common superiority about.

Us earthly folks in the gutter must be given such unsplendid things like facts, relevance, evidence... or sometimes literal quotes and page numbers from real scientific papers.

 

[BigAl]

If the steel had been saved we would be able to see just how column 79 and all the other columns actually failed. Without that NIST is just guessing as to what happened and their model sure doesn't replicate the observed failure of the perimeter of the building.

It is a serious issue that the steel wasn't saved for analysis and it smells of a cover-up.

I guess you missed the bit in the Barnett video about the debris from WTC7 being mixed up with that of the towers. Also, WTC7 went through two extensive structural redesigns. Blueprints were unavailable and steel wasn't marked by location.

In any case, Barnett says that fire and fire alone caused WTC7 to collapse.

 

[NutCracker]

It sounds like those like you who either can't imagine 911 was an inside job or are defending something are going to try and lean on specific words here as they can't deny it any other way.

Nope. That may be an accurate description of the level you accept or rejects theories, but it not the reason I reject 9/11 theories. I reject 9/11 theories because they have not a shred of evidence in favour of them. Not one itoa. zilch, nada, nothing.

And do we need more evidence that Tony Szamboti is a delusional fruitloop? Despite there being not a shred of evidence favour of 9/11 theories, we critical thinkers have no other means of denying these 9/11 theories but leaning on specific words. Let me be redundant: we don't need semantics to "deny" 9/11 theories, we have a rather powerful and legitimate way of denying 9/11 theories. That being the absence of even a single piece of evidence and the utter absence of a coherent case in favour of 9/11 theories

 

[triforcharity]

If the steel had been saved we would be able to see just how column 79 and all the other columns actually failed. Without that NIST is just guessing as to what happened and their model sure doesn't replicate the observed failure of the perimeter of the building.

It is a serious issue that the steel wasn't saved for analysis and it smells of a cover-up.

Do you know why none of the steel was saved from 7WTC?

 

[TruthersLie]

There are millions of people, including many professional technical people who don't believe WTC 7 came down due to fire and they aren't no planers. Your logic here is ridiculous.

As for thermite, it was nano-thermite found in the dust. I believe I have told you before that the American Chemical Society is quoted as saying nano-energetics are tailorable to produce just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise.

There is very sound logic for suspecting a covert controlled demolition of WTC 7, while yours seems to be what you want to think as opposed to a lucid explanation of the actual observations and discoveries. It would seem that puts your thinking more in line with the surreal no planers.

<facepalm>

Tony, did you even read the article you linked to? The same source that states in 2001 that making the required components is extremely difficult? Did you get that? Probably missed it.

Did you even see sunstealers excellent analysis of that 'nanothermtie" found at the cite? Because no nanothermite was ever found. When you do that test in an intert envrionment, feel free to call me.

what is thermite? Oh... aluminum and iron oxide. Nanothermite? aluminum and iron oxide..

wowsers... you mean like RUST? Or aluminum like the entire building was cladded in? Golly gee willikers... and they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you pesky kids.

 

[Seymour Butz]

.......including many professional technical people who don't believe WTC 7 came down due to fire.....

And not one of them, not even the retired ones with nothing to lose, have the ability to write a paper that could pass muster to get published in a respectable, peer reviewed journal that supports their points.

This alone tells the rational that these claims of "professionals support CD" is utter hogwash.

 

[Seymour Butz]

I believe I have told you before that the American Chemical Society is quoted as saying nano-energetics are tailorable to produce just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise.

Minimizing it to what level?

Instead of 140 Db, they can tailor it to 138 Db?

Can it work on large columns? To date, I believe that this material is only used to solder mini connections, IIRC. It's never been demonstrated to work large scale.

This is where twoofs think they've made a point in their arguments. Using vague language is a weak argument. Now, if you could source it to say that they can be tailored to reduce it by 40-50 Db, and still be able to blow columns, you might have something. You don't.

Fail.