• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How WTC 7 was pulled down

Miragememories said:
No, 105 feet, 8 storeys, was in free fall.

But then, you already knew it was a lie when you stated it.
Click to expand...

Says the LIAR.

NIST and your cheerleader Chandler have already said that a PORTION of the NORTH FACE fell at FFA for 2.25 seconds.

Why do you insist on lying MM?
 
excaza said:
Please show, specifically, where it is stated, by anyone, that the entire building was in free fall.

But then, you already knew it was a lie when you stated it...
Click to expand...

I've said it. So has NIST.

Wut?
 
Miragememories said:
Same sentence only change truther to Official Conspiracy Theory salesman.
Click to expand...


And yet strangely you're the one who, when called to justify claims of techno-babble, were unable to do so. Which tells us all we need tol know about how much weight to attach to your "hypotheses".
 
Architect said:
And yet strangely you're the one who, when called to justify claims of techno-babble, were unable to do so. Which tells us all we need tol know about how much weight to attach to your "hypotheses".
Click to expand...
Oh you prefer the "techno-quibble" which your distortion of the WTC 7 free fall issue amounts to?

That is truly pathetic if it is the best kind of argument you can mount.

MM
 
triforcharity said:
Yes, EXPLOSIONS do NOT mean EXPLOSIVES.

Do you know how many things go "boom" in a fire?

I can name some.

CRT type monitors
HVAC equipment, including compressors and condensors.
Large electric motors
Electrical Transformers
Lead-acid batteries
Cleaning supplies
Hydraulics of office chairs

Those are just a FEW of the things that go boom in a fire.

Can you rule those out as sources of a loud boom?

No.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

You left out the explosive that was most likely used, nano-thermite.

Carry on.

MM
 
I had a good ol' bonfire of tree prunings today. It's that time of year here.

A couple of dried-out lemons exploded. Was the NWO involved? I saw no Men in Black, but they can be very stealthy. And they have light pen thingies.....
 
DGM said:
What did Dr Jones say the role of "nano-thermite" was? (I think it was in a response to Dr Greening)
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware that Dr. Jones posed a particular theory as to the "role" that nano-thermite played.

As far as I know, he has only spoken about what he knows are its capabilities.

MM
 
triforcharity said:
Show me the energetic values of nanothermite versus an ACTUAL explosive like C-4.

Show me Nanothermite acting like an explosive.


I'll wait......
Click to expand...

Problem is, it just isn't... the base ingredients aren't explosive. The thermite reaction between aluminum and iron-oxide is simply exothermic. Doesn't matter if the particle sizes are smaller. I don't know where they get the idea that "nano" thermite is going to act like C-4, or some other explosive charge, truthers use it anyway to describe a mechanism of demolition that is silent when the issue of no loud bangs is brought up. It's self-defeating :\
 
Miragememories said:
I wasn't aware that Dr. Jones posed a particular theory as to the "role" that nano-thermite played.

As far as I know, he has only spoken about what he knows are its capabilities.
Click to expand...


Ah. You haven't been paying attention. That explains a lot, actually.

Steven Jones said:
During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the “super-thermite matches” described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX, in the destruction of the WTC buildings.

[...]

Reliable and robust super- or nano-thermite ignitors would each be ignited by an electrical pulse generated by a radio-receiver, in turn igniting shaped charges to cut steel [...]

Steven Jones and Frank Greening (and others) correspond - April-May, 2009
Click to expand...


Which brings everything right back to square one, and the reason /(nano-)?therm[ai]te/ was proposed in first place: where is the sound of these precisely-timed detonations?
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Problem is, it just isn't... the base ingredients aren't explosive. The thermite reaction between aluminum and iron-oxide is simply exothermic. Doesn't matter if the particle sizes are smaller. I don't know where they get the idea that "nano" thermite is going to act like C-4, or some other explosive charge, truthers use it anyway to describe a mechanism of demolition that is silent when the issue of no loud bangs is brought up. It's self-defeating :\
Click to expand...

Oh, I know. I have done a couple of investigations where I believed an exotic accelerant was used to commit arson.

Thermite is one of them.

The lab that the FD uses confirmed it was thermite. I had to do a little research on thermite, and found it is an incendiary.

Cool stuff, but not explosive at all.
 
Miragememories said:
...
Nano-thermite is what I said, and it is an explosive.

MM
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Nanothermite releases no gasses. There is no rapid (supersonic) expansion of volume.
This absence of gas release is the very reason why thermite serves any particular purpose at all: it allows it to reach very high temperatures.

Otherwise, it contains less energy per mass unit than conventional high explosives and doesn't get near their brisance.

Nanothermite is a delusion planted in your uncritical head by bad scientist outside their respective fields of expertise who needed to lie up a magic potion to account for the obvious lack of any destructive expolosions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom