Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[DGM]

As I understand it Dave some advanced polymers can be added to nanothermite to make it explosive. Ordinary nanothermite only burns ferociously without giving off the gas you would need in an explosive. The polymers are designed to propogate vast amounts of gas very quickly turning the NT into a (high) explosive. Versatile stuff.

Citation please.

Are you denying what I say ? Just for the record.

I'm asking for a citation so I can investigate it myself.

Common courtesy on this forum and should be expected.

Do you have a problem with my request?

Well I must confess that I can't put my hand on the link right now. But I have read it and if I find the link again I may post it. If you find it I would be obliged iof you would do the same.

Please try to find it.

You see, I have the distinct advantage of working at a place where I can easily walk to an adjoining building, go up two floor and talk to dozens of experts on nanomaterials, then go up one more floor and talk to dozens of experts on polymers.

They might be interested in your citation as well.

Really ? You have a golden opportunity to test my statement in the field. Please do ands get back to us.

Just as soon as you provide a citation.

ETA: Or are you talking about your "impregnating concrete with thermite idea" or you "pumping thermite into box columns idea" or your "painting thermite onto beams" idea?

You could check that lot out too while you are at it. You don't need any citation if you have a good relationship with those scientists.

What I'm asking is: What exactly do you want me to check out? You haven't given me anything to check out!

I'm not going to go take up the time of serious scientists spouting a bunch of half-baked crap that you make up in your vivid imagination.

Provide a citation and quit spouting nonsense.

Since no citation is forthcoming, I think those reading this forum can easily dismiss this claim.

Bill, you should retract this claim until such time as you can provide the citation.

 

[laca]

I have firefighters saying that the top 'exploded' I have steel beams stuck in buildings all around. I know that the collapse itself did not cause that to happen.

No, you most definitely do not know that.

I have enough.

Yeah, you got enough crazy for a small town.

 

[laca]

I have firemen telling me they saw the top explode and I have visuals of beams flying far and fast. I have the same beams stuck in buildings and I even have video iof the top exploding.

It's enough. I don't need more.

Of course you don't. Thing is that stuff is just not enough for anyone with half a brain. Sad, but true. Deal with it.

 

[Oystein]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/17074468acbb1c16fc.jpg[/qimg]



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/17074468acbb1c16fc.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/17074468acbb1c16fc.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/17074468acbb1c16fc.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/17074468acbb1c16fc.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks for the summary - I LOL'd

 

[laca]

Ir's a killer isn't it. And to think that the poor unfortunate kids in school are being lied to from the ground up.

Yeah, to think that would indeed be sad. Fortunately, we got no reasons to believe that. Got any?

 

[bill smith]

You ignore the point again. All you are trying to do is tell me that the damage to some building is great therefore explosives had to have gone off.

But we see the collapse of the WTC and we see no characteristics that we can see in a high explosive detonation. No visible blast wave, no air condensing, no rapid and violent ejection of matter, no sounds of gigantic detonations from explosives that are powerful enough to hurl heavy steel around. Why not? There is a reason this is present in a high explosive blast. All of these have to be present on 911 if explosives were used yet we see none of them, its all slow and gradual. You believe in IMPOSSIBLE EXPLOSIVES.

I believe that explosives were used to destroy the top section as seen in the video. That nanothermite incendiary was used to melt a number of selected core columns and that regular explosives were used at intervals to break the corner perimeter columns in a sequence just ahead of the wave of rubble and possibly in a few other selected locations. It's not complicated

And when I put the visuals of the exploding top together with the firemen's description of the top 'exploding' it really is over EDX. I don't need to consider why I didn't see a blast wave. I already KNOW that the columns were blasted out because I can SEE them fly in the videos.

 

[Edx]

I believe that explosives were used to destroy the top section as seen in the video. That nanothermite incendiary was used to melt a number of selected core columns and that regular explosives were used at intervals to break the corner perimeter columns in a sequence just ahead of the wave of rubble and possibly in a few other selected locations. It's not complicated

And when I put the visuals of the exploding top together with the firemen's description of the top 'exploding' it really is over EDX. I don't need to consider why I didn't see a blast wave. I already KNOW that the columns were blasted out because I can SEE them fly in the videos.

Sorry, you believe in impossible explosives that look nothing like an actual explosive going off.

I don't need to consider why I didn't see a blast wave.

if theres no blast wave theres no detonation worth a damn. You dont know the first thing about explosives.

 

[A W Smith]

Troll from the 911 troll movement trolls sucessfully

I think it would slump and deform unlike wTC7 which fell like a classic controlled demolition.

Well maybe you had better show the Readers where I said that eight floors vanished into thin air. You don't want to come over as a liar in your old age do you ?

[sigh] I think I explained it clearly enough in the last post.

As regards the explosive ejection of columns and the 4-ton chunk going the 600 feet....post a big picture of the Winter Garden building that was destroyed on 9/11 and I'll tell you my view. I need the picture for reference.

Well we know that columns were ejected at high power anyway because they are stuck in buildings all around ground zero. THere are planty of pictures I believe. So for those columns I think explosives were probably used. The collapse of the building certainly did not eject them so far and so fast.

I think that the 4-ton chunk going 600 feet is just a planted story.

Many people described the top 13-sloor assembly as 'exploding' including firefighters. So there is no problem with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVRPBPz-Gz8&NR=1

Post that picture and I will open your eyes EDX

I have firefighters saying that the top 'exploded' I have steel beams stuck in buildings all around. I know that the collapse itself did not cause that to happen.

I have enough.

I have firemen telling me they saw the top explode and I have visuals of beams flying far and fast. I have the same beams stuck in buildings and I even have video iof the top exploding.

It's enough. I don't need more.

I believe that explosives were used to destroy the top section as seen in the video. That nanothermite incendiary was used to melt a number of selected core columns and that regular explosives were used at intervals to break the corner perimeter columns in a sequence just ahead of the wave of rubble and possibly in a few other selected locations. It's not complicated

And when I put the visuals of the exploding top together with the firemen's description of the top 'exploding' it really is over EDX. I don't need to consider why I didn't see a blast wave. I already KNOW that the columns were blasted out because I can SEE them fly in the videos.

we don t care what you believe BS, You are just another troll in the troll movement. As for the firemen they are using metaphors.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/list-of-similes-and-metaphors.html

• He has the heart of a lion
• You are the light in my life
• Life is a mere dream, a fleeting shadow on a cloudy day
• His belt was a snake curling around his waist
• He swam in the sea of diamonds
• He has a voice of a wolf
• A laugh in a sea of sadness
• Her lips were butterflies
• Ideas are wings
• Light of their life
• Her hair was bone white
• Spiritual seeking is treasure hunting
• Truth is food for him
• Love is fire
• Her positive attitude is a lighthouse for the hopeful
• His plans were rock solid and so were his aims
• He tried to help but his legs were rubber
• He has a voice of a crow
• She is a dog when she eats
• It’s raining men
• He is the sun of my sky
• Life is a mere dream, a fleeting shadow on a cloudy day
• Thoughts are a storm, unexpected

 

[Venom]

And when I put the visuals of the exploding top together with the firemen's description of the top 'exploding' it really is over EDX. I don't need to consider why I didn't see a blast wave. I already KNOW that the columns were blasted out because I can SEE them fly in the videos.

The Scientific Method-

Question/Problem
Hypothesis
Prediction
Testing
Data
Conclusion

Notice how "Observation" cannot solely replace these steps.

 

[newton3376]

I believe that explosives were used to destroy the top section as seen in the video. That nanothermite incendiary was used to melt a number of selected core columns and that regular explosives were used at intervals to break the corner perimeter columns in a sequence just ahead of the wave of rubble and possibly in a few other selected locations. It's not complicated

And when I put the visuals of the exploding top together with the firemen's description of the top 'exploding' it really is over EDX. I don't need to consider why I didn't see a blast wave. I already KNOW that the columns were blasted out because I can SEE them fly in the videos.

Please explain how the towers fell at approximately 64% of freefall if the remaining structure was destroyed "just ahead of the wave of rubble"...

How do you precisely time these "explosions" so that you end up with 64% of free fall? Think about it for a minute....if your scenerio is what actually happened....then what would you expect to see in the collapse?

Do you think it would look like what was actually observed?

 

[Dave Rogers]

As I understand it Dave some advanced polymers can be added to nanothermite to make it explosive. Ordinary nanothermite only burns ferociously without giving off the gas you would need in an explosive. The polymers are designed to propogate vast amounts of gas very quickly turning the NT into a (high) explosive. Versatile stuff.

As usual, bill smith hasn't understood the question. As I already said, it's clearly possible to add violatile materials to nanothermite, which will vapourise and yield the large volumes of gas needed to produce an explosion. However, that's not going to make it any better at cutting steel than simple thermite, because a subsonic deflagration won't produce a significant shockwave and won't generate a Munroe effect. In fact, making thermite into a subsonic explosive will make it less able to cut metal, because the explosion will scatter the molten iron it produces away from the structure it's intended to cut. What is yet to be demonstrated is that it's possible to make nanothermite into a high explosive, a distinction I suspect most truthers aren't even aware of.

If it were possible to make nanothermite work as a high explosive, defined as one in which the explosive shock front moves at supersonic speed, then it could conceivably be used as a cutter charge in a controlled demolition. It would be an exceptionally poor one, because the already low energy density available from nanothermite (due to the inevitable surface oxidation of the aluminium reducing the amount of free aluminium metal available to react) would be reduced still further by the presence of the volatile material. The whole nanothermite argument, therefore, reduces to the assertion that the conspirators chose a material which has been hypothesised as a poorer yield explosive than many well-known alternatives, without any actual data to back up this hypothesis. And, of course, this argument still fails to explain the absence of any sufficiently loud explosions at the right time to have caused the collapses, the one thing that isn't a major problem for the invocation of conventional thermite.

So, in summary: Until someone produces a reference demonstrating a supersonic shock front in modified nanothermite, we have no reason to accept the claim that nanothermite can be modified to form a high explosive; and even if such a reference is produced, it makes no sense to use nanothermite for a demolition explosive.

Dave

ETA: Interestingly, some time in June the Wikipedia article on energy density was edited to remove the energy densities of thermite and of typical high explosives. Not being a conspiracy theorist myself, I won't claim for certain that this was done by a 9/11 truther, but simply confine myself to pointing out how convenient it is for them that this information is not now as easily found as it used to be.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Pay attention to the trajectory of the "ejected" debris in these various examples, some show it better than others. Its the same as in the WTC and something Gage claims can only be caused by explosives.

One also has to bear in mind that in a CD all the windows, doors etc are removed as are all the contents. If the windows are still there there will be a much higher pressure build up and if the contents are there there will be much more lightweight debris to eject.

 

[atavisms]

So atavisms: why are you linking us to something that has no relevance to thermite being an explosive?

We dont know that these thermtic materials (red/gray chips) were used for explosive purposes. Only that they are a form of hi-tech, advance engineered nanocomposite thermitic material that clearly have no business being in the WTC dust. In no way shape or form could they possibly be paint or primer of any sort. They have virtually the same chemical signatures as commercial thermite. Paint is not going to leave elemental iron spheres as a by-product or have such powerful energetic reactions.

On this page you find a side by side comparison of the two. (analyses of the by products of both commercial thermite and the red-gray chips) http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

The Harrit paper conclusively refutes any notion of their being paint. Even just by looking at the SEM images we can see they cannot be paint.. but that is still what deniers are calling them. So you can see this 'debunking' is not very compelling.

-Its like calling these squibs 'compressed air from the pancaking floors above' and finding that to be a satisfactory explanation. It isn't !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8 when aside from the squibs (20 or 30 floors below where the building is being blown up above) we can clearly see how unnaturally explosive, how violently those perimter walls are being blasted outward in all directions.
here too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3g-gzVvxRo
*this clip gets zoomed in half way through and you can see explosions and flashes clearly.

This is a troubling issue for many. Me among them. No one is trying to intentionally deceive anyone. There should be no sides in a quest for truth. The evidence for this comes from a broad range of sources and they all point to the same terrible conclusion: explosives.

Regarding explosive thermtic materials which you deny the existence of this may be this reference will help?

The page is called: Explosive Aerogels. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

 

[Sabretooth]

We dont know that these thermtic materials (red/gray chips) were used for explosive purposes. Only that they are a form of hi-tech, advance engineered nonocomposite thermitic material that clearly have no business being in the WTC dust. In no way shape or form could they possibly be paint or primer of any sort. They have virtually the same chemical signatures as commercial thermite. Paint is not going to leave elemental iron spheres as a by-product or have such powerful energetic reactions.

On this page you find a side by side comparison of the two. (analyses of the by products of both commercial thermite and the red-gray chips) http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

The Harrit paper conclusively refutes any notion of their being paint. Even just by looking at the SEM images we can see they cannot be paint.. but that is still what deniers are calling them. So you can see this 'debunking' is not very compelling.

-Its like calling these squibs 'compressed air from the pancaking floors above' and finding that to be a satisfactory explanation. It isn't !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8 when aside from the squibs (20 or 30 floors below where the building is being blown up above) we can clearly see how unnaturally explosive, how violently those perimter walls are being blasted outward in all directions.
here too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3g-gzVvxRo
*this clip gets zoomed in half way through and you can see explosions and flashes clearly.

This is a troubling issue for many. Me among them. No one is trying to intentionally deceive anyone. There should be no sides in a quest for truth. The evidence for this comes from a broad range of sources and they all point to the same terrible conclusion: explosives.

Regarding explosive thermtic materials which you deny the existence of this may be this reference will help?

The page is called: Explosive Aerogels. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

So which is it then? Was it explosives or thermite?

 

[Animal]

We dont know that these thermtic materials (red/gray chips) were used for explosive purposes. Only that they are a form of hi-tech, advance engineered nonocomposite thermitic material that clearly have no business being in the WTC dust. In no way shape or form could they possibly be paint or primer of any sort. They have virtually the same chemical signatures as commercial thermite. Paint is not going to leave elemental iron spheres as a by-product or have such powerful energetic reactions.

On this page you find a side by side comparison of the two. (analyses of the by products of both commercial thermite and the red-gray chips) http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

The Harrit paper conclusively refutes any notion of their being paint. Even just by looking at the SEM images we can see they cannot be paint.. but that is still what deniers are calling them. So you can see this 'debunking' is not very compelling.

-Its like calling these squibs 'compressed air from the pancaking floors above' and finding that to be a satisfactory explanation. It isn't !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8 when aside from the squibs (20 or 30 floors below where the building is being blown up above) we can clearly see how unnaturally explosive, how violently those perimter walls are being blasted outward in all directions.
here too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3g-gzVvxRo
*this clip gets zoomed in half way through and you can see explosions and flashes clearly.

This is a troubling issue for many. Me among them. No one is trying to intentionally deceive anyone. There should be no sides in a quest for truth. The evidence for this comes from a broad range of sources and they all point to the same terrible conclusion: explosives.

Regarding explosive thermtic materials which you deny the existence of this may be this reference will help?

The page is called: Explosive Aerogels. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

99,999 doctors say take an asprin for your headache. One doctor says get a lobotomy. Troofers choose the lobotomy EVERY time

 

[Dave Rogers]

The Harrit paper conclusively refutes any notion of their being paint. Even just by looking at the SEM images we can see they cannot be paint.. but that is still what deniers are calling them.

In reality, unfortunately, the Harrit paper conclusively refutes any notion of their being thermite. Even just by looking at the energy yields from the single exotherm observed in the DSC measurements we can see they cannot be thermite... but that is still what conspiracy theorists are calling them.

Dave

 

[atavisms]

we don t care what you believe BS, You are just another troll in the troll movement. As for the firemen they are using metaphors.

Metaphors, really? Oh yeah..maybe they were thinking about their creative writing class after just nearly dying in a catastrophic event which killed 343 of their fellow firefighters You think? (You know how many firefighters bodies were recovered? 70

'trolls' is the best you can do.

I guess that applies to the over 1500 building professionals who which have signed the petition at ae911truth.org. Fact is, there are 911truth groups founded by almost every professional walk of life and involving all kinds of people. from world class academics:http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf
to military personal, veterans, actors, religious leaders, Christians, Muslims, Jews, doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, firefighters, family members, scientists, almost every US state and county, every country has them.. (to mention just a few of the more prominent) and MILLIONS of people from all walks of life the world over, that have looked at the evidence, at the FACTS, and come to the same terrible conclusion.

But you dismiss them all as "trolls." (That says a lot about you and nothing about 911 Truth).

here's a small sampling of this 'troll' movement.
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.911speakout.org./
http://mp911truth.org/
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
http://stj911.org/
http://journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ic911studies.org/
http://www.911truth.org/


We should all be troubled by the fact that there is no mention of the Harrit study in the NY Times. That most American have not seen the video of WTC7 coming down. That WTC 7 was not even mentioned in then 911 Commission Report -(aka The Omission Commission)

Whatever our position here.. we should all be disturbed by this obvious cover-up. There's a very important reason why the press is the only profession mentioned in and given constitutional protections. Even with all of this, the numbers of people who realize that the official account cannot possibly be true are staggering. Look up 911 polls.

You can keep your head buried in the sand. Call people names. Avoid and dismiss all you want. But the facts remain the same and they all point the same way: explosives used to destroy wtc 1,2&7. And are the reason why the 911Truth is such a massive continually expanding grassroots movement.

You do not need to be a structural engineer or explosives expert to realize with complete certainty that those buildings were blown up. Just look at the facts and for most people who approach it with an open mind, the conclusion is definitive and inescapable.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I guess that applies to the over 1500 building professionals who which have signed the petition at ae911truth.org.

Is that the one where they all signed up to having agreed with the blatant lie that WTC7 collapsed in seven seconds?

Dave

 

[atavisms]

Originally Posted by atavisms:
We dont know that these thermtic materials (red/gray chips) were used for explosive purposes. Only that they are a form of hi-tech, advance engineered nonocomposite thermitic material that clearly have no business being in the WTC dust. In no way shape or form could they possibly be paint or primer of any sort. They have virtually the same chemical signatures as commercial thermite. Paint is not going to leave elemental iron spheres as a by-product or have such powerful energetic reactions.

On this page you find a side by side comparison of the two. (analyses of the by products of both commercial thermite and the red-gray chips) http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._residues.html

The Harrit paper conclusively refutes any notion of their being paint. Even just by looking at the SEM images we can see they cannot be paint.. but that is still what deniers are calling them. So you can see this 'debunking' is not very compelling.

-Its like calling these squibs 'compressed air from the pancaking floors above' and finding that to be a satisfactory explanation. It isn't !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8 when aside from the squibs (20 or 30 floors below where the building is being blown up above) we can clearly see how unnaturally explosive, how violently those perimter walls are being blasted outward in all directions.
here too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3g-gzVvxRo
*this clip gets zoomed in half way through and you can see explosions and flashes clearly.

This is a troubling issue for many. Me among them. No one is trying to intentionally deceive anyone. There should be no sides in a quest for truth. The evidence for this comes from a broad range of sources and they all point to the same terrible conclusion: explosives.

Regarding explosive thermtic materials which you deny the existence of this may be this reference will help?

The page is called: Explosive Aerogels. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

99,999 doctors say take an asprin for your headache. One doctor says get a lobotomy. Troofers choose the lobotomy EVERY time

Typical denier response. Clearly reveals your thorough knowledge of the subject as well as your impressive mental abilities

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You do realize verinage requires a great deal of precise preparation?

Source? And why would that be relevant to the discussion?