WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

[DGM]

Here's a couple of videos on how fast thermite works/burns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kscTVnEcPMk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3ZkoNF2ybg

Now, as I asked you above, how does this play into your possible 60 to 90 possible timeframe?

That's regular stuff. He's talking about the super-secret kind only "they" know about.

 

[Gamolon]

That's regular stuff. He's talking about the super-secrete kind only "they" know about.

Ah!

That's right!

But didn't Harrit find the super-secret thermite, test it, analize it, etc.? Not so super secret anymore?

 

[DGM]

Ah!

That's right!

But didn't Harrit find the super-secret thermite, test it, analize it, etc.? Not so super secret anymore?

He's only been able to identify it. He has not been able to do anything else with it. That's part of the super-secret technology. No one but "them" can show it doing these special things.

 

[GlennB]

The Mythbusters team failed, with their 1000lbs of thermite acting vertically, to cut a car in half. I'm not just talking about the engine block here - even the thin roof wasn't fully severed.

 

[ergo]

Here's a couple of videos on how fast thermite works/burns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kscTVnEcPMk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3ZkoNF2ybg

Now, as I asked you above, how does this play into your possible 60 to 90 possible timeframe?

Lol. Um... the videos show us how conventional thermite can cut through things, and how its release can be controlled. We kinda already knew that.

What is your point with the second video? Does it show thermite cutting through steel at all? Do you notice how long it takes to eat through the monitor?

What exactly is your point with these? These videos support my argument, not yours. But thanks.

So getting back to the question at hand: What kind of time frame do you posit for nanothermitic materials to eat through 260-odd steel box columns? You seem to be having trouble coming up with some numbers here.

 

[ergo]

The Mythbusters team failed, with their 1000lbs of thermite acting vertically, to cut a car in half. I'm not just talking about the engine block here - even the thin roof wasn't fully severed.

Yeah, that is a fail. These guys didn't have any problems:

 

[DGM]

So getting back to the question at hand: What kind of time frame do you posit for nanothermitic materials to eat through 260-odd steel box columns? You seem to be having trouble coming up with some numbers here.

Who knows, do you have some properties for this material we can use to calculate this? It's impossible using any known formula.(in the time frame you suggest)

ETA: You don't actually think anyone isn't going to notice your attempt to reverse the burden of proof?

We're not stupid "truthers" you know.

 

[beachnut]

Yeah, that is a fail. These guys didn't have any problems:

Unable to debunk Millette's paper, 911 truth followers with the moon size debris special physics, Gish Gallop into nonsense. 12 years of failure for 911 truth followers inside job CD claims. 911 truth followers, no clue what the topic is.

No thermite found, unable to debunk Millette; 12 years of solid failure continue for 911 truth followers.

 

[tsig]

Lol. Um... the videos show us how conventional thermite can cut through things, and how its release can be controlled. We kinda already knew that.

What is your point with the second video? Does it show thermite cutting through steel at all? Do you notice how long it takes to eat through the monitor?

What exactly is your point with these? These videos support my argument, not yours. But thanks.

So getting back to the question at hand: What kind of time frame do you posit for nanothermitic materials to eat through 260-odd steel box columns? You seem to be having trouble coming up with some numbers here.

Depends on how hungry the nanos are.

 

[Gamolon]

So getting back to the question at hand: What kind of time frame do you posit for nanothermitic materials to eat through 260-odd steel box columns? You seem to be having trouble coming up with some numbers here.

I asked you a question to clarify and you ignored it. I'll ask again:

Either A:
You think that each individual column on a floor level was cut in succession and that process took 60 to 90 minutes

or B:
You think that ALL columns were cut at the same time on a floor level and THAT process took 60 to 90 minutes

Which is it?

 

[ergo]

I asked you a question to clarify and you ignored it. I'll ask again:

Either A:
You think that each individual column on a floor level was cut in succession and that process took 60 to 90 minutes

or B:
You think that ALL columns were cut at the same time on a floor level and THAT process took 60 to 90 minutes

Which is it?

Please don't waste time with stupid questions that have obvious answers. We are discussing a nanothermite hypothesis here. You scoffed at the idea that a thermitic destructive process through 260-something columns would take 60 to 90 minutes - a time that I noted because that is the observed time to collapse in the towers.

I asked you how much time you think it would take. It's a simple answer - isn't it? Is this stumping you? If you can't answer it, we'll end the discussion here. I'll assume you really have no clue, which is probably the truest answer here.

 

[DGM]

It's a simple answer - isn't it? .

How can there be a simple answer if no one has even been able to define this material?

The make up of the material in the Harrit/Jones paper has no hope of cutting though anything thicker than tin foil.

 

[Gamolon]

Please don't waste time with stupid questions that have obvious answers. We are discussing a nanothermite hypothesis here. You scoffed at the idea that a thermitic destructive process through 260-something columns would not take 60 to 90 minutes - a time that I noted because that is the observed time to collapse in the towers.

I asked you how much time you think it would take. It's a simple answer - isn't it? Is this stumping you? If you can't answer it, we'll end the discussion here. I'll assume you really have no clue, which is probably the truest answer here.

Let me explain in detail because you obviously aren't getting it.

In order for you supposed timeframe to be applicable, you need to explain HOW you think that columns of an individual floor were cut. What was the process? Each process would have an impact on the length of time it would take. Using 260 columns, here is each scenario..

1. All of the 260 columns were cut one by one in succession. That being, the first column was cut, then the second column was cut, then the third column was cut, etc.

2. Groups of columns were cut in succession. Group A (consisting of the north face perimeter columns), followed by Group B (south face perimeter columns), followed by group C (15 core columns), etc.

3. ALL 260 columns were cut at the same time

Do you get it now? Obviously cutting all of your 260 columns at the same time will result in a different timeframe then if you cut one column, then the next, then the next.

If you use scenario 3 and surmise that it took 10 minutes total to cut through the largest column, then that is the LARGEST timeframe you can apply to any column on that floor. So cutting ALL 260 columns at the same time would take no longer then 10 minutes.

So which scenario do you think happened? According to the majority of truthers, the columns were cut SIMULTANEOUSLY. If this is the scenario you choose, then you are suggesting that the thermitic material took 60 to 90 minutes to cut through the largest column.

 

[ergo]

Here's the thing, Gamolon: You don't need any information from me to answer the question I asked back at #4530. You can posit any fantastic scenario you want. It's your claim that a thermitic destructive process would not take 60 - 90 minutes. I assume you mean it would take less time than that. But if you can't answer this simple question, then just admit it: You have no ****** clue.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 10. Do not try to evade the autocensor.

 

[Gamolon]

How can there be a simple answer if no one has even been able to define this material?

The make up of the material in the Harrit/Jones paper has no hope of cutting though anything thicker than tin foil.

This is what ergo fails to see. The stuff Harrit supposedly found was thin as could be, ignited at about 430C, and burned within a few seconds..

How ergo thinks this same thermitic material Harrit supposedly found could have burned for 60 to 90 minutes AND cut columns is ridiculous.

This substance would have to have been ignited not long before the collapse initiation given the fact that it burns quickly as Harrit shows. Since it ignites at 430C, it would have ignited at the time of the explosion and subsequent fires. There would have been none left to ignite and sever columns prior to collapse.

 

[Gamolon]

It's your claim that a thermitic destructive process would not take 60 - 90 minutes.

And that's just it isn't it ergo?

You seem to think that a 60 to 90 minutes timeframe for a destructive thermitic process is possible. Based on what Harrit shows in his paper while testing chips, that's crazy.

How can you even THINK that the process could take 60 -90 minutes? Extremely thin layer, ignites at 430C, and burns rapidly? Harrit's chips flashed in seconds!!! And you want that to translate into taking an hour or more to burn and cut columns?

 

[ergo]

Finally.

So you're assuming you know how a thermitic nanocomposite works, how it was applied, in what thickness, where, and what its effect would be on 260-something steel box columns across the several floors where failure initiated. Those are some hefty assumptions.

If the material Harrit found is indeed engineered thermitic, then how it did its job is a whole other set of questions. But to argue from incredulity based on uneducated assumptions at this point isn't terribly effective.

 

[Gamolon]

It's your claim that a thermitic destructive process would not take 60 - 90 minutes. I assume you mean it would take less time than that.?

Based on Harrit's chip flashing in seconds?

Yeah, it would take quite a bit less. Also, how would such a thin layer be enough to burn through a column? That all Harrit found was thin layers right?

You guys are all over the place, scrambling to make all these pieces fit into one, neat conspiracy puzzle.

Too bad all your pieces are from different puzzles.

No wonder no truther wants to supply a detailed explanation of how thermite/explosives would have done it. Details would be their downfall. Every truther wants to generalize what happened when asked as it gives them an out, with the ultimate response being, "That's why we need a new investigation!"

 

[Spanx]

If the material Harrit found is indeed engineered thermitic, then how it did its job is a whole other set of questions. But to argue from incredulity based on uneducated assumptions at this point isn't terribly effective.

So what is your argument ergo ?

 

[DGM]

If the material Harrit found is indeed engineered thermitic, then how it did its job is a whole other set of questions. But to argue from incredulity based on uneducated assumptions at this point isn't terribly effective.

About as effective as proposing a material and not being able to qualify that it can do what you claim?

Has a "truther" actually tried to do something with this make-up? We do know what's in it.