You have only seen rudimentary devices and you don't know how nano-thermite could be used at all.
Neither do you. You're speculating. You're appealing to magic.
We know that nano-thermite can be made explosive [but not a high explosive].
No, it can be used as part of an explosive. But then you have something that would leave evidence of an explosive.
This would reduce the amount needed to do the job.
And cause other problems.
The facade was clad in red granite and a bright light would not necessarily be great from the outside if reflected of walls.
Except that it would also shine straight out through the windows. Given that most ceilings are white or light grey tiles, and 7 had such ceilings, they become more visible, not less.
You are just supposing there would be a blinding light that could be seen thru the smoke. You really don't know that.
It would be consistent with every known use of the smoke. I like how you're trying to conflate thermite and explosives so you can switch from one to the other whenever needed, much like you switch from NIST Is Lying to NIST Is Gospel.
The molten iron from the nano(?)thermite was immediately buried by the upper part of the building. Molten iron was discovered in the debris pile, your denial notwithstanding. The reports of molten steel cannot be hand waved as "It must have been something else", that's denial, not science. A real investigation would definitely consider the possibility that all those witnesses saw molten steel.
Straw man. The argument is that it might have been something else, and given other fires where witnesses incorrectly claimed to see "molten steel", probably was.
It is impossible for anyone to determine whether it was molten steel by eye.
The building did NOT fall backwards, it fell a little to the SW but it landed mostly in its own footprint i.e. it fell mostly straight down.
Wrong.
Very wrong. It crossed the street to the North (Fiterman) and West (Verizon), but most of it fell south. It was an asymmetric collapse outside of its footprint.
Assert what? You are the one asserting that there would be a blinding light.
And you're the one asserting that his assertion is wrong, and providing no evidence, just unbacked claims about granite and reflections.
That is not what NIST did. They did not consider explosives and did not test for explosive residue using the reasoning that they might not find any. That is making an assumption rather than investigating. They ignored all the reports of molten steel and explosions by simply hand waving them.
Actually, I seem to recall that NIST tested/collected data on the audio signatures of explosives. They explicitly said so. Which means they considered the possibility, and found it wanting. You are either poorly informed or lying.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
[...]
Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
[...]
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
[...]
An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.
And I'm just quoting a small portion of the relevant bits. Chris, you are wrong. Flat-out wrong. Oh, and about that diesel fuel hypothesis you like to beat your breast about;
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.
There you are. NIST considered and dismissed that theory too, Sarns.
Chris7 said:
That is NOT how real investigations are done. All possibilities are investigated and no conclusions are made until near the end of the investigation.
False. An investigation is mostly following the most likely possibilities. To determine those, you have to come to conclusions about which are least likely. And, of course, there are some things that are
impossible, or discovered to be so over the course of the investigation, such as the prime suspect's alibi checking out.
