NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No, it's a highly exothermic compound which can be used for many purposes, including as a base for explosives in which various organics are added to manipulate characteristics of the resulting explosion, like the stuff found in the WTC dust.


Except nobody could see the cores, at least not until the rest of the towers had come down around them, and by that time they were smoldering ghosts of their former selves. And of course there are many witness reports and some recordings of explosions, both before the buildings came down and while they did.

You mean the dust that was contaminated by a Truther who had it on them for the past 8 yrs.?

Actually if they heard explosions, wouldn't that mean that the people across the Hudson River would've heard the same explosions too, but why didn't they?

Since a CD can be heard 1/2 mile away.

 

[Edx]

Rather, his saying thermite can be used in both incendiaries and explosives, and the evidence suggests both were used to accomplish the demolitions as quietly as possible.

Good LORD Nelly Furtado help us... why can you guys not understand this??

Once again Kyle, this is like if you are a thief and you made special shoes that would enable you to creep round peoples houses virtually silently. But then you also want to blow a vuvuzela the entire time. Your teammates tell you that this would be extremely loud, but you tell them no no no, thats why you're using the special shoes, because they are quiet!

This is practically exactly like the stupidity Gage is expressing.

If they used thermite cuz its quieter than explosives, then why would they they then stick tons of explosives in there as well to pulverise heavy building material and propel steel hundreds of feet?

In other words, it negates the entire point of using thermite because its quiet if you're going to also set off a high explosive like C4. You finally get it yet?

You can try and tell me they used nano thermite to melt all kinds of things, but if you're saying heavy steel was propelled through the air with the greatest of ease by a blast wave from an explosive thats gonna be loud whatever kind of explosive you use and there's no getting around it.

 

[kylebisme]

You mean the dust that was contaminated by a Truther who had it on them for the past 8 yrs.?

The dust examined in the nano-thermite paper came from four different people, and were do you suspect the nano-thermite came from to contaminate the samples? It seems like you have yourself a conspiracy theory here.

Actually if they heard explosions, wouldn't that mean that the people across the Hudson River would've heard the same explosions too, but why didn't they?

Since a CD can be heard 1/2 mile away.

I'll give you a hint as to the most obvious flaw in your argument:

If they used thermite cuz its quieter than explosives, then why would they they then stick tons of explosives in there as well to pulverise heavy building material and propel steel hundreds of feet?

Because it takes a lot of explosives to bring such buildings down, even when using incendiaries do much of the work quietly.

 

[triforcharity]

I'll give you a hint as to the most obvious flaw in your argument:
[qimg]http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9420/wtcmilerad.jpg[/qimg]

And the obvious flaw in your argument is that sound travels VERY well over open spaces. Especially water.

 

[kylebisme]

It's still pretty much twice the distance across the Hudson compared to how far Chewy was arguing a typical CD can be heard from, and of course not all explosives are as loud as those typically used in CD.

 

[triforcharity]

It's still pretty much twice the distance across the Hudson compared to how far Chewy was arguing a typical CD can be heard from, and of course not all explosives are as loud as those typically used in CD.

Agreed that Chewy was wrong. Happens to everyone. Some more than others.

What explosives are used in typical CD's? Do you know how many dbs they produces?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[...] and of course not all explosives are as loud as those typically used in CD.

If you're suggesting that WTC7 was an atypical implosion, then how do you know it was an implosion? What are you comparing it to?

 

[dc1971]

I didn't claim thermite in itself is explosive, but rather simply mentioned the fact can be used in explosives. For more information on the matter, see here.

So basically, if thermite would have been used, we would have seen a fireworks display?

 

[Edx]

Because it takes a lot of explosives to bring such buildings down, even when using incendiaries do much of the work quietly.

Then we are with the same issue.

WHY DONT WE HAVE ANY AUDIO EVIDENCE OF THAT?

Around we go...

 

[dc1971]

It's still pretty much twice the distance across the Hudson compared to how far Chewy was arguing a typical CD can be heard from, and of course not all explosives are as loud as those typically used in CD.

Any chance we will ever see an experiment showing a building being brought down with "quiet" explosives?

 

[Edx]

of course not all explosives are as loud as those typically used in CD.

No, they are louder ... if you want to say they are so powerful they propelled heavy steel around

 

[kylebisme]

If you're suggesting that WTC7 was an atypical implosion, then how do you know it was an implosion? What are you comparing it to?

The way it comes down compares better to a typical implosion than anything else. What are you comparing it to, NIST's model which they don't even show actually come down?

So basically, if thermite would have been used, we would have seen a fireworks display?

No, basically; if it wasn't for some forms of incendiaries and explosives being used, you wouldn't have seen the building come down anything like it did, and the evidence suggests thermite based incendiaries and explosives were used.

WHY DONT WE HAVE ANY AUDIO EVIDENCE OF THAT?

Audio evidendce:

 

[triforcharity]

The way it comes down compares better to a typical implosion than anything else. What are you comparing it to, NIST's model which they don't even show actually come down?


No, basically; if it wasn't for some forms of incendiaries and explosives being used, you wouldn't have seen the building come down anything like it did, and the evidence suggests thermite based incendiaries and explosives were used.


Audio evidendce:

Maybe you'll be able to explain why not ONE of the many dogs that were there, that was trained to detect explosives and other incendiaries, not ONE reported finding any.

Care to take a stab at that?

BTW, explosions =/= explosives. I know from personal experience that many things go boom in office fires.

I can name some if you would like.

 

[dc1971]

No, basically; if it wasn't for some forms of incendiaries and explosives being used, you wouldn't have seen the building come down anything like it did, and the evidence suggests thermite based incendiaries and explosives were used.

And what evidence would that be? You still need to explain that!

 

[kylebisme]

Maybe you'll be able to explain why not ONE of the many dogs that were there, that was trained to detect explosives and other incendiaries, not ONE reported finding any.

Because dogs can only detect what they are trained for, which is common pyrotechnic materials and tangents required by law to be added to such matrials. Hence one obvious reason for using fancy nano-thermite based explosives for covert demolitions instead of more common stuff.

And what evidence would that be? You still need to explain that!

I've mentioned it elsewhere before, as have many others, but notably:

The swiss cheese steel reported by FEMA, the iron rich microspheres in the USGS particle atlas, and the thematic nanocomposite found by Harrit et al....

 

[excaza]

ignoring Harrit's nonselse, the rest of which can occur just fine without thermite/ate

thermite/ate melts steel, where's the melted steel?

 

[triforcharity]

Because dogs can only detect what they are trained for, which is common pyrotechnic materials and tangents required by law to be added to such matrials. Hence one obvious reason for using fancy nano-thermite based explosives for covert demolitions instead of more common stuff.

Oh, you mean like thermite? You mean the dogs that were there that were trained to detect it?

I can't find the link, but there is a PDF from the guys who trained many of the dogs that were used in the aftermath of 9/11 to search the rubble. He states very clearly that they can detect termite.

I've mentioned it elsewhere before, as have many others, but notably:
The swiss cheese steel reported by FEMA, the iron rich microspheres in the USGS particle atlas, and the thematic nanocomposite found by Harrit et al....

Show me thermite producing intergranular melting. I'll wait......

 

[kylebisme]

ignoring Harrit's nonselse, the rest of which can occur just fine without thermite/ate

thermite/ate melts steel, where's the melted steel?

Molten steel:



And no, the swiss cheese steel and iron rich microspheres have no reasonable explanation outside of thermite based incendiaries and explosives either.

 

[triforcharity]

BTW, here is some info on Capt. Jim McGee of Haiku Kennels.

He is one of the top dog trainers in the US. Arguably, the world.

Check out his list of clients. Quite impressive.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id...TAtMjFlYi00YWQwLTk0NDgtYTFhMjhkMTU2ZGNh&hl=en

Have fun!

 

[beachnut]

Molten steel:



And no, the swiss cheese steel and iron rich microspheres have no reasonable explanation outside of thermite based incendiaries and explosives either.

You failed again. A study was done, the swiss cheese steel was corroded, not melted. Double failure. You are presenting evidence it was not thermite, and you failed to look up the study done on the swiss cheese steel.

does thermite have copper?

A digital x-ray map of the distribution of major elements through the scale and into the steel is shown in Fig. 11. Sulfur penetration into the oxide scale reacts to form iron sulfide and copper sulfide and a fluxing reaction occurs resulting in sulfur penetration into the steel forming predominantly manganese sulfides in many of the prior ferritic grain boundaries on cooling. It is much more difficult to detect liquid formation in these boundaries prior to cooling and the additions of copper and silicon complicate the formation of a simple eutectic product.

does thermite have silicon? Why did Jones fake dust not have sulfur?