Burning Painted Steel Beams, Making Iron-Rich Microspheres!

Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...

You tell me? How could it have been used?

My feeling is the data they presented is not wrong and they miss-identified what they had. I believe the data, so do every chemist I've shown it to. *

Nanothermite is no more destructive than run of the mill stuff. in fact in some ways it's less effective. If I was going to use it, I'd use the standard blend. It's far more efficient. You only like trumpeting "Nanothermite" because it sounds more mysterious and you can claim no one really knows how powerful it can be. Problem is, people really do know. That's why the idea has not gained any traction (except with those that don't know any better). :rolleyes:

* You do know for the stuff they found to be "Nanothermite" some of their data has to be wrong?
 
Last edited:
Carlitos, here's the kind of theory MM or Gage would propose I think (MM correct me if I'm mistaken): a new kind of military-grade nanothermite with both explosive and heating capability was used to cut through the steel beams like a hot knife through butter. It was found everywhere because it was used to cut through thousands of beams. And the Jones/Harrit study proves that this unignited thermitic material was everywhere in the dust.

My answers in a nutshell: 1) No elemental aluminum to speak of in the chips 2) no vast piles of aluaminum oxide in the debris 3) no massive bright lights during the collapse 4) most of the unignited thermite would have ignited from the heat of the already-ignited thermite that was supposedly melting through the steel beams 5) the Jones/Harrit article did NOT prove thermite of any kind, and Millette very likely disproved it.

The destruction of the Skyride Tower (see Dave Thomas's post 85 above) proves thermite CAN be used to knock stuff down, and there are articles about how thermite can be made to be explosive. And I disagree with many here, but to partially agree with MM, I could not think of a peaceful purpose for tons of thermitic material in the dust IF it were proven. But these don't change the fact that Gage's theory does not explain all the known facts, and that thermitioc material has NOT been proven.
 
Last edited:
a new kind of military-grade nanothermite with both explosive and heating capability was used to cut through the steel beams like a hot knife through butter.
Click to expand...

...but not used in any military or civilian capacity in the 12 years since the event.

Okee doke. :boggled:
 
chrismohr said:
Carlitos, here's the kind of theory MM or Gage would propose I think (MM correct me if I'm mistaken): a new kind of military-grade nanothermite with both explosive and heating capability was used to cut through the steel beams like a hot knife through butter. It was found everywhere because it was used to cut through thousands of beams. And the Jones/Harrit study proves that this unignited thermitic material was everywhere in the dust.
Click to expand...

This fails because nothing in the data of chips a-d would support these properties.

Now if they were to say they posted data for no reason on chips that were not the ones the claim are this material, that would be another story.

Explosives blow up for a reason. They have got nothing that would do this.

MM (and others), think explosives are magic.
 
chrismohr said:
"I could not think of a peaceful purpose for tons of thermitic material in the dust IF it were proven.
Click to expand...

Do you not feel a bit uneasy about how weak the arguments against the 2009 Bentham paper findings have been?

Even though he did not share authorship in the 2009 Bentham paper, Mark Basile is on record as having visually
identified hundreds of 9/11 WTC dust red/gray chips that support those Bentham findings.

And he is so convinced in the legitimacy of those studies that he is undertaking a further study which will address any remaining questions about the identity of this 9/11 WTC dust red chip material.

The amount of nanothermite that existed in the WTC on 9/11 cannot be accurately determined because the thermitic dust chips were formed from the thermitic material which was crushed in the collapses before heat ignition occurred.

Based on the levels found, and given the total amount of 9/11 WTC dust that was produced, this un-ignited nanothermitic material existed in the tons.

Which means that a much larger volume was successfully ignited.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Based on the levels found, and given the total amount of 9/11 WTC dust that was produced, this un-ignited nanothermitic material existed in the tons.

Which means that a much larger volume was successfully ignited.

MM
Click to expand...


So why didn't this "thermite" ignite ?

There was plenty of sources that could ignite it.
 
chrismohr said:
Robrob, Unless I am drastically mistaken, thermite was once used to bring down a building in the 1930s I believe.
Click to expand...
Yes, 1,500 pounds encased in a cement "collar" cut the legs of a radio tower.

That's a far way from "magic thermite paint" horizontally cutting hundreds of girders.

Miragememories said:
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.
Click to expand...
No "nanothermite" or any thermite at all was discovered in the WTC dust.

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?
Click to expand...
What was "so common in all of the 9/11 WTC dust" was common elements, found everywhere in nature. Your continued claims otherwise are contrary to reality.

Spanx said:
So why didn't this "thermite" ignite ?

There was plenty of sources that could ignite it.
Click to expand...
Good question.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
.................................

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

First we have only thermite can do it, now only Harrit knows it was thermite. Using the logic method of Fetzer, "it is true because I say so", Harrit has fooled a few.
................................
Harrit/Jones fantasy conclusion paper shows the dust is not thermite, the paper does not prove they found thermite. Show the paper to a real scientist in the field, and learn how to laugh at sloppy silly science. Ask them how carefully they had to aim to hit the elements they wanted to present to the world to make their claim of thermite look good? They had to selectively pick what photos of spectrum they presented, and they fooled a few who can't do chemistry. .......................

Anyone can build a fire and get iron rich spheres from iron bearing substances. This is not news. Dave did a demo of the same. Why do Jones and Harrit spread the lie of thermite? Why do they lie about an event that was done by 19 terrorists? When you study why, you find out these guys believe the ends justify the means, they don't care if they mislead you or the entire world. Jones was willing to lose his job to spread lies. What makes old men so darn stubborn, and willing to lie? Why are they able to fool you?

........................................
Click to expand...



" It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." - Twain
 
Last edited:
Robrob said:
Yes, 1,500 pounds encased in a cement "collar" cut the legs of a radio tower.

That's a far way from "magic thermite paint" horizontally cutting hundreds of girders.
Click to expand...

This, (although now we are off topic), is the problem. What mechanism, employing thermite, would be able to act like 1,500 pounds of thermite encased in a cement "collar", and cut the columns needed at the point where the collapse initiated, unobserved.
 
Miragememories said:
"...Even though he did not share authorship in the 2009 Bentham paper, Mark Basile is on record as having visually identified hundreds of 9/11 WTC dust red/gray chips that support those Bentham findings.

And he is so convinced in the legitimacy of those studies that he is undertaking a further study which will address any remaining questions about the identity of this 9/11 WTC dust red chip material..."
Click to expand...

DGM said:
"No he has not.

Why do you need to lie?"
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=AJ7hXrmMRPc#!

Mark Basile said:
"If you take these chips,

and I've done it,

where I said I exposed a fresh section.

I've cut into these chips dozens

if not hundreds of times

and I have never found an iron microsphere inside.

I have never found a film of iron inside.

There is no iron, free iron.

It is not there

until the chip reacts.

When the chip reacts, it produces molten iron.

There is iron oxide before you ignite it,

but there is no free iron inside these chips."
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like Mark is talking about hundreds of thermitic chips.

MM
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's a problem with that.

AE911T's objective is NOT technical at all. It's to demand a New Investigation™.

They pretend to have a technical background backing them, just to create an illusion of technical authority where there's none. But it's all about propaganda, not engineering.

Well, for the bulk of them, anyway, Among the 1500? architects and engineers associated, only a few like Szamboti and (who else?) actually do any engineering (and he does it wrong according to the JREF engineers), but those few are not really developing an alternative hypothesis that decently matches what was observed. I guess because that would be a no-go.
 
chrismohr said:
Carlitos, here's the kind of theory MM or Gage would propose I think (MM correct me if I'm mistaken): a new kind of military-grade nanothermite with both explosive and heating capability was used to cut through the steel beams like a hot knife through butter. It was found everywhere because it was used to cut through thousands of beams. And the Jones/Harrit study proves that this unignited thermitic material was everywhere in the dust.

My answers in a nutshell: 1) No elemental aluminum to speak of in the chips 2) no vast piles of aluaminum oxide in the debris 3) no massive bright lights during the collapse 4) most of the unignited thermite would have ignited from the heat of the already-ignited thermite that was supposedly melting through the steel beams 5) the Jones/Harrit article did NOT prove thermite of any kind, and Millette very likely disproved it.

The destruction of the Skyride Tower (see Dave Thomas's post 85 above) proves thermite CAN be used to knock stuff down, and there are articles about how thermite can be made to be explosive. And I disagree with many here, but to partially agree with MM, I could not think of a peaceful purpose for tons of thermitic material in the dust IF it were proven. But these don't change the fact that Gage's theory does not explain all the known facts, and that thermitioc material has NOT been proven.
Click to expand...
Where's the result? Where are the bent and irregularly cut edges due to the explosives? Why didn't anyone report them? Where are the booms of the explosions, for the matter? Why didn't anyone report any during the collapse, and why can't they be heard in any recording?

IF it were proven, there are numerous indications that tell us that it would NOT have been used, no matter the peacefulness of its purpose or lack thereof.
 
Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...

It wasn't found. I'm sorry you've been hoodwinked for the last 13 years by a couple charlatans, but it's time you realized that they HAD to "find" it in their study. It was the only way to justify asking for all your money. Do you not see the problem with creating a "study" with predetermined bias? The whole thermite nonsense started because Steven Jones misrepresented a doctored photo and a beam cut by an oxyacetylene torch. They had NO CHOICE but to "find nanothermite" in there study. And you continue to buy into it. That or you're trolling.
 
pgimeno said:
There's a problem with that.

AE911T's objective is NOT technical at all. It's to demand a New Investigation™....
Click to expand...
...and make darned sure they don't get one - it would be the last thing Gage would want.
pgimeno said:
...They pretend to have a technical background backing them, just to create an illusion of technical authority where there's none. But it's all about propaganda, not engineering...
Click to expand...
from the engineering perspective none of their technical claims warrants any response other than laughter. And most engineers are too polite to laugh so they choose to simply ignore.

pgimeno said:
...only a few like Szamboti and (who else?) actually do any engineering (and he does it wrong according to the JREF engineers)..
Click to expand...
All of T Sz's claims or papers that I have seen with the exception of this latest paper are wrong at two levels:
1) At the level of detail and numbers where most of the debunker effort has been spent. The outstanding example probably femr2's recent annihilation of Tony's claims over dozens of separate aspects.
2) At the base premise level where I have shown all of his posted clams to be wrong. My perspective is that it is not worth the effort of rebutting the details when the foundations are fatally flawed. Few members are as comfortable with that approach as I am. So horses for courses. I have no criticism of the detail level counter attacks BUT at least half the rebutted bits of detail are redundant or impossible anyway - they do not come into play because of the false foundation premises that Tony builds on.

Put very simply Tony's main fault in understanding the engineering of WTC collapse is that he has a 1D perspective when the critical stage of "initiation" was emphatically a 4D event. (3D plus time/dynamics) IMNSHO most if not al of his errors flow from or involve that 1D false perspective.

The latest paper is so narrowly focussed as to be pointless. Note that Tony consistently avoided defending the paper in the dedicated thread.
pgimeno said:
but those few are not really developing an alternative hypothesis that decently matches what was observed. I guess because that would be a no-go.
Click to expand...
Gage must be shrewd enough to recognise that any attempt to build a rational pro CD claim is doomed from the outset AND would be counter productive. Any attempt to build a rational pro CD hypothesis would inevitably lay bare the fact that it is not plausible. So he would avoid it as top priority given his tactics of self aggrandisement and revenue raising.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom