Burning Painted Steel Beams, Making Iron-Rich Microspheres!

[DGM]

bolding is mine

So walk away and don't forget to close the door behind you.

How can a finding of nanothermite in all the 9/11 WTC dust have "long lost any relevance to 9/11 discussion"?

MM

That's an easy one. No one has actually been able to show how it could have been utilized to achieve what has been claimed.

Painting the steel with this stuff would burn off the paint and give us a cool light show. That about it.

 

[NoahFence]

bolding is mine

So walk away and don't forget to close the door behind you.

How can a finding of nanothermite in all the 9/11 WTC dust have "long lost any relevance to 9/11 discussion"?

MM

Bolding mine.

Because it's a lie.

 

[Robrob]

bolding is mine

So walk away and don't forget to close the door behind you.

How can a finding of nanothermite in all the 9/11 WTC dust have "long lost any relevance to 9/11 discussion"?

MM

1) No "nanothermite" has been found.

2) Chemicals you claim to be components of "nanothermite" have been found; aluminum, iron oxide, etc... All common and ordinary.

3) "Iron rich spheres" have been found, just as they are found in almost any ordinary house fire.

4) Even in a controlled environment, there is no way "nanothermite" paint could do the slightest structural damage to a steel girder.

5) Even in a controlled environment, there is no way "thermite" could be used to sever a single vertical steel girder - much less sever the thousands of them required to collapse the WTC.

 

[chrismohr]

Robrob, Unless I am drastically mistaken, thermite was once used to bring down a building in the 1930s I believe.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Robrob, Unless I am drastically mistaken, thermite was once used to bring down a building in the 1930s I believe.

Indeed it was. I was the one who brought that to light again in July of 2011.

I learned about it from a reader of Skeptical Inquirer who wrote me following publication of my article on 9/11 in the July/August 2011 issue.

Gage and AE911Truth picked up on this months later, and made a big deal about Popular Mechanics confirming a thermitic demolition, but never gave me credit for bringing this info forward.

 

[GlennB]

Robrob, Unless I am drastically mistaken, thermite was once used to bring down a building in the 1930s I believe.

Well, for a certain meaning of "building", as we can see. It also required vast amounts.

Even nanomegathermite wouldn't touch a structure like that if it were painted on, a point often made here.

 

[ozeco41]

That example does more to prove that thermXte could not have been used in CD at WTC than it does to support the truther nonsense.

The real issue of false logic here is that truthers, trolls and debunkers all seem happy to accept the "reversed burden of proof".

There was no CD at WT on 9/11.
No one has ever put forward a plausible hypothesis pro CD.
It is the truthers, or in this case troll's, burden to show CD.
it is not the debunkers burden to disprove CD or any possible component of CD such as thermXte.
THEREFORE thermXte is irrelevant - there is no legitimate claim before us to discuss. It would not matter if there had been a 100tonne stockpile at ground zero. With NO CD there is no relevance for thermXte. Problem is we accept the arse about structure of "truthers logic" if you will forgive the oxymoron. Most truther claims take this form:
"I don't understand why [some anomaly - dust, loud banging noises, whatever....] ...therefore you debunkers have to disprove CD..." Utter nonsense. Note also that it is "disprove CD" not "disprove the anomaly".

The only reason we are down this ever circling side line is that debunkers accept the burden of disproof - otherwise there would be no "debate". The reasons are obvious and include the fun of showing the truther wrong. But in chasing the truthers down their rabbit burrows we perpetuate the back to front logic.

However from the "other side" I recognise that we can allow some reasonable discussion of plausible components of CD. It helps to resolve the unfounded concerns of genuine truthers - but it is a long time since we saw any of those. And, given the limited intelligence and/or honesty of most truthers and all trolls some explanation is appropriate until we are assured that the densest ones have got the point and the dishonest ones can not honestly claim ignorance. But we are way past both those two points with present participants.

So there is no longer the slightest relevance of thermXte discussion to WTC 9/11 legitimate discussion in this setting with present participants.

Unless we see a genuine honest newcomer who needs to be enlightened as to WTC 9/11 technical reality. And, if that happens, it should not take more than a handful of posts.

 

[JSanderO]

Unless we see a genuine honest newcomer who needs to be enlightened as to WTC 9/11 technical reality. And, if that happens, it should not take more than a handful of posts.

Some good points here. What I have found interesting in this entire phenomena of the truth movement is how a lack of technical background couples with a reasonable level of intelligence has created what appears to be a compelling case for CD and CT based on very little if anything factual. The ignorance to understand what happened has given rise to speculation and false certainty that there was a CT and that it was impossible for most aspects of the official account to be even possible.

Impossible for the USG to not know of the plot
Impossible for the USG to not be able to stop it at any time as it was taking place
Impossible for the planes to hit the targets
Impossible for the flames to get hot enough to weaken steel
Impossible for the twin towers to collapse (too strong)
Impossible for the planes to have severed columns in the core and some say penetrate the facade
Impossible to fly the loop and strike the pentagon as it apparently did
Impossible for the pile to be so hot for months
Impossible for extreme heat pockets to exist from a largely cold building collapse
Impossible for the buildings to fall straight down as they did
Impossible for the planes to fly at the speeds alleged
Impossible for multi ton steel panels to impale neighboring buildings
Impossible for black smoke to be produced and have hot fires
Impossible for the slabs to be so extensively pulverized and all the contents on the floors
Impossible for massive electrical gear to explode and cause fires
Impossible for a building which is 95% air to have a debris field which is only a few stories high

and the list goes on.

Admittedly no one has witnessed a huge building collapse which was not intended to. But why would an unintended collapse not resemble an intended one? Why would a collapse of building 20 times (or more) as massive as any building collapse expected to not produce phenomena not seen before? And how many fully occupied and energized buildings have ever collapsed? Why is it presumed that engineers don't make mistakes and some designs are fine until outlier conditions present?

My sense is that the truth movement is entirely driven by the underlying premise that the USG/MIC has repeatedly lied to them... such as the the Vietnam war... that corporations lie to them about things like BP Deep Water Horizon or Fukushima, Bhopal, Exxon Valdez and so forth. Many truthers have turned their distrust and frustration about being deceived into a BELIEF that the "powers that be" engineered every aspect of 9/11 to produce the outcomes... wars, more surveillance at home and promote an agenda of hegemony. Truthers cannot accept the notion that terrorism and insurgency exist, especially when people are repressed and abused... that the very government they claim ENGINEERED 9/11 may have actually caused it by decades of oppressive and exploitative foreign policies and that terrorism has not been the clever creation of the state to cover their excesses. This rather distorted understanding of the world has blinded intelligent people to what apparently happened. And yes there are all manner of criminal conspiracies enacted by people in high places... since they are not exempt from greed and hubris.... perhaps they excel at it.

 

[Miragememories]

"The dust studies have now developed a strong body of support from those who are intrigued by the pure science aspects.

There is nothing wrong with that except it has long lost any relevance to 9/11 discussion..."

"How can a finding of nanothermite in all the 9/11 WTC dust have "long lost any relevance to 9/11 discussion"?

"That's an easy one.

No one has actually been able to show how it could have been utilized to achieve what has been claimed."

So to your way of thinking, even though scientists have discovered an incredibly destructive material (nanothermite) throughout the 9/11 WTC dust, but do not know specifically how it was employed in the massive destruction of WTC, this substance is somehow rendered innocuous.

Since nanothermite, had no peaceful reason for existing in such large quantities at the WTC on 9/11, why is it so common in all of the 9/11 WTC dust?

MM

 

[NoahFence]

So to your way of thinking, even though scientists have discovered an incredibly destructive material (nanothermite) throughout the 9/11 WTC dust, but do not know specifically how it was employed in the massive destruction of WTC, this substance is somehow rendered innocuous.

Since nanothermite, had no peaceful reason for existing in such large quantities at the WTC on 9/11, why is it so common in all of the 9/11 WTC dust?

MM

Nanothermite did not exist in any quantity at the WTC site.

You're either lying, or were lied to and refuse to see the truth. Either way, it's not our problem you can't figure out a problem that doesn't actually exist.

 

[Miragememories]

'Nanothermite did not exist in any quantity at the WTC site.

You're either lying, or were lied to and refuse to see the truth. Either way, it's not our problem you can't figure out a problem that doesn't actually exist."

If nanothermite did not exist in large quantity throughout the WTC on 9/11, it would not have been found in random dust samples from 4 disparate locations in NYC.

MM

 

[tsig]

If nanothermite did not exist in large quantity throughout the WTC on 9/11, it would not have been found in random dust samples from 4 disparate locations in NYC.

MM

How did the building occupants miss those large quantities laying around all over?

 

[NoahFence]

If nanothermite did not exist in large quantity throughout the WTC on 9/11, it would not have been found in random dust samples from 4 disparate locations in NYC.

MM

Bolding mine.

You are (finally) 100% correct. It would not have been found.

And it wasn't.

As I said, you're either lying - or you've been lied to and won't accept reality.

 

[Mark F]

If nanothermite did not exist in large quantity throughout the WTC on 9/11, it would not have been found in random dust samples from 4 disparate locations in NYC.

MM

Nanothermite or any other kind of thermite was NOT found. Iron microspheres were which the Bentham authors allege could only have come from nanothermite (without sufficient support for that claim) but as we can see there are other, more prosaic explanations to can account for that.

Why don't you get that?

 

[pgimeno]

If nanothermite did not exist in large quantity throughout the WTC on 9/11, it would not have been found in random dust samples from 4 disparate locations in NYC.

MM

Amazingly, it definitely wasn't found in a fifth sample analyzed by an experienced forensic investigator, even if numerous chips perfectly matching those found in all four samples you refer to were found.

Given the inexperience and lack of forensic background of the analysts of these four samples and the numerous flaws in their study, I'd go with the conclusion of the forensic analyst who found no such material, and identified them as paint chips.

Which leads us to conclude that there was no thermite of any kind found in large quantity in the WTC dust.

 

[jaydeehess]

If nanothermite did not exist in large quantity throughout the WTC on 9/11, it would not have been found in random dust samples from 4 disparate locations in NYC.

MM

The (disputed) finding of thermite in the WTC dust simply begs more questions than it answers.
First of all if there was a large enough quantity within the towers to have this much 'left over' and scattered in powder form throughout the dust field, then it begs the questions; "what was the original total amount within the towers?; How was this original amount distributed and utilised that can account for both the manner by which the towers were observed to have collapsed, and to have consequentially caused underground hot spots to be maintained at temperatures above the melting piont of steel for weeks, and to have resulted in the (calculated) amount of 'left over' thermitic material in the dust?; and why did none of this left over thermitic material flare up on the surface, why only underground?

I know you have tried to address one aspect above, the continued hot spot generated by 'left over' thermitic material. You posted that in the thread which seeks answers to these questions by assuming the existance of molten steel in the WTC rubble underground fire volume.

Its been close to a dozen years since those towers fell, since 3000 people lost their lives and yet AE911T has produced a woefully inadequate amount of material research or science based and detailed hypothesis.

Remember, AE911T does not have to simply cast doubt on the null hypothesis. They have to have a hypothesis that is as well docuemented with science based research, as the material that backs the null (comonly accepted history of events and sequence of collapses) AND
better matches the docuemented, observed sequence of collapses, than does the material research that backs the null.

Not only do they not have a hypothesis that better matches the observed collapses, they do not have enough research, at the level of detail that exists for the null hypothesis, to even begin to generate their own hypothesis

 

[NoahFence]

They also have to tie it into the entire day's events, as MM and co. don't seem to remember 9/11 encompassed quite a bit more than NYC.

 

[Gamolon]

If nanothermite did not exist in large quantity throughout the WTC on 9/11, it would not have been found in random dust samples from 4 disparate locations in NYC.

MM

What are the definitive tests/criteria within the Bentham paper one would need to apply to chips in a sample of WTC dust that would prove they were thermite?

 

[carlitos]

"The dust studies have now developed a strong body of support from those who are intrigued by the pure science aspects.

There is nothing wrong with that except it has long lost any relevance to 9/11 discussion..."

"How can a finding of nanothermite in all the 9/11 WTC dust have "long lost any relevance to 9/11 discussion"?

"That's an easy one.

No one has actually been able to show how it could have been utilized to achieve what has been claimed."

So to your way of thinking, even though scientists have discovered an incredibly destructive material (nanothermite) throughout the 9/11 WTC dust, but do not know specifically how it was employed in the massive destruction of WTC, this substance is somehow rendered innocuous.

Since nanothermite, had no peaceful reason for existing in such large quantities at the WTC on 9/11, why is it so common in all of the 9/11 WTC dust?

MM

I see that DOC's "rule of so" is not limited to the religious topics. That is not at all what is said in the post you quoted. Here, I'll isolate it and bold the most relevant bit:

No one has actually been able to show how it could have been utilized

Perhaps, MM, you would like to be the first to show how nanothermite could have been utilized to demolish a building? Even if you don't include math and stuff, you could posit a theory of some sort.

 

[NoahFence]

Perhaps, MM, you would like to be the first to show how nanothermite could have been utilized to demolish a building? Even if you don't include math and stuff, you could posit a theory of some sort.

Easy as pie.

Shut down the elevators in one of the buildings for a while, and *poof* 10 buildings destroyed, the pentagon explodes and a field in Pennsylvania gets a missile shot at it!