• 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:
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
Click to expand...

He has more spoken about the capabilities he speculates some unknown compositions of nano-thermite could have. His infamous bad Bentham paper contains no actual knowledge that would confirm your bare-ass assertions.
 
Miragememories said:
"Nano-thermite is what I said, and it is an explosive."
Click to expand...
Oystein said:
"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."
Click to expand...

Oh really?

Physicist said:
"Let us not forget that the red material also contains a significant amount of carbon and the formulation of nano-thermite as described by National Laboratory publications also implies the presence of carbon, very typically. The organic is used with nano-thermite in order to produce gas, that is a very high pressure gas that makes the nano-thermite an explosive. So all these results are consistent with the presence of a pyrotechnic or explosive in the WTC dust, in large quantities that really should not be present in an office building in downtown New York City."
Click to expand...

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Oh really?


Originally Posted by Physicist, Dr. Steven Jones
"Let us not forget that the red material also contains a significant amount of carbon and the formulation of nano-thermite as described by National Laboratory publications also implies the presence of carbon, very typically. The organic is used with nano-thermite in order to produce gas, that is a very high pressure gas that makes the nano-thermite an explosive.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No that wouldn't make nano-thermite an explosive, although it could theoretically make the mixture an explosive. Whether the compounds actually involved could qualify as explosives is another matter.

However, as has been pointed out already, then it would flash and bang like any other explosive. That's what explosives do. In which case The Man might just as well have used conventional explosives that are much more reliable and tested.

Plus, of course, this nano-thermite-organic thing would be non-directional, making it inefficient.

Bottom line - stop repeating Jones' codswallop as though his very words are a gift from the gods.
 
And this is what happens when you investigoogle and latch onto buzz words instead of actually researching and understanding something.
 
Miragememories said:
"Oh really?"
Click to expand...
Physicist said:
"Let us not forget that the red material also contains a significant amount of carbon and the formulation of nano-thermite as described by National Laboratory publications also implies the presence of carbon, very typically. The organic is used with nano-thermite in order to produce gas, that is a very high pressure gas that makes the nano-thermite an explosive. So all these results are consistent with the presence of a pyrotechnic or explosive in the WTC dust, in large quantities that really should not be present in an office building in downtown New York City."
Click to expand...
GlennB said:
"No that wouldn't make nano-thermite an explosive, although it could theoretically make the mixture an explosive. Whether the compounds actually involved could qualify as explosives is another matter.

However, as has been pointed out already, then it would flash and bang like any other explosive. That's what explosives do. In which case The Man might just as well have used conventional explosives that are much more reliable and tested.

Plus, of course, this nano-thermite-organic thing would be non-directional, making it inefficient.

Bottom line - stop repeating Jones' codswallop as though his very words are a gift from the gods."
Click to expand...
Okay, so you want to quibble over nano-thermite formulations now.

I thought my quote provided sufficient context as to how the formulation found in the WTC dust; "...makes the nano-thermite an explosive..".

How loud the explosion would be is unknown, and clearly dependent on the actual formulation, and how and where it was applied.

Without that information, you have no way of knowing that it would be non-directional.

Go have another bowl of your own codswallop.

MM
 
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.

MM
Click to expand...
Why did you skip over this?


Originally Posted by Steven Jones
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
http://911blogger.com/node/20094
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Okay, so you want to quibble over nano-thermite formulations now.

I thought my quote provided sufficient context as to how the formulation found in the WTC dust; "...makes the nano-thermite an explosive..".

How loud the explosion would be is unknown, and clearly dependent on the actual formulation, and how and where it was applied.

Without that information, you have no way of knowing that it would be non-directional.

Go have another bowl of your own codswallop.

MM
Click to expand...

Here is what NFPA says about explosions/explosives.

"1.3.36 Explosion. The sudden conversion of potential energy (chemical or mechanical) into kinetic energy with the production and release of gases under pressure, or the release of gas under pressure. These high-pressure gases then do mechanical work such as moving, changing, or shattering
nearby materials."

Show me thermite of ANY flavor doing any kind of work, other than making heat.

We'll wait......
 
Miragememories said:
Okay, so you want to quibble over nano-thermite formulations now.
Click to expand...

I'm not quibbling over formulations. I'm pointing out that using any form of thermite in this way reduces to simply using it as a detonation system for something (Jones' organic material) that is explosive enough to project a wedge of (say) copper at a steel column in order to cut it. But then all you have created is a conventional shaped charge with an unconventional detonator. Why? Shaped-charge technology is already well established.

And it goes 'boom' very loudly. Without the boom that wedge of copper doesn't travel fast enough or far enough to do its job, and that's an unavoidable fact. Explosive demolition must be loud.
 
Miragememories said:
How loud the explosion would be is unknown, and clearly dependent on the actual formulation, and how and where it was applied.
Click to expand...



Wrong, you guys have already told us how intense the explosives used were.

According to guys like Richard Gage they were powerful enough to propel heavy steel around.

Not even real demolition's are powerful enough to do that, they are only trying to cut critical columns and listen to how loud they are. If they are not loud they are not intense. If they were not loud enough to deafen half of Manhattan then they were not intense enough to propel heavy steel. Got it?

If they used thermite because its quiet why would they also use explosives that would give away their project? As Gage says.
 
DGM said:
Why did you skip over this?
Click to expand...

Jones also said in the Jesse Ventura show that when you paint nano thermite onto steel and it dries it becomes "a high explosive"

So they painted highly explosive paint onto steel and also used it to ignite traditional explosives like C4 or HMX. Thats what Jones has said.

Do ya agree with that too Red?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Jones also said in the Jesse Ventura show that when you paint nano thermite onto steel and it dries it becomes "a high explosive"

So they painted highly explosive paint onto steel and also used it to ignite traditional explosives like C4 or HMX. Thats what Jones has said.

Do ya agree with that too Red?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that this is technically not possible?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Why am I not surprised at that unthoughtful response.
Click to expand...


I disagree. The scenario that excaza touched upon is not an obvious one, so a certain amount of thought must have been required to discover it.

And, strictly speaking, it is possible. Unless, of course, you have some information about midgets that we don't...
 
Miragememories said:
Jones also said in the Jesse Ventura show that when you paint nano thermite onto steel and it dries it becomes "a high explosive"

So they painted highly explosive paint onto steel and also used it to ignite traditional explosives like C4 or HMX. Thats what Jones has said.

Do ya agree with that too Red?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that this is technically not possible?
Click to expand...

I am saying it is technically not possible...

... for nano thermite to be painted on steel and become a high explosive when dry. (didnt even happen in the Jesse Ventura experiment, so Jones was rather amusingly unintentionally disproved right after he said it. )

... for nano thermite to be painted on steel and become a high explosive when dry AND ALSO quietly intensely propel heavy steel around.

... for ANY explosive to be so intense it can propel steel hundreds of feet and yet be quiet so it isnt picked up on video or cause blast injuries.

According to Richard Gage, the explosives were both quiet + intense at the same time. I think I mentioned that before.

I had asked a question though, do you agree with Jones? I might as well add to that now, do you also agree with Gage? Cuz last time I checked C4 and HMX are rather loud. If you do think they used these traditional explosives as Jones says, you might want to explain why they even bothered with thermite too while you're at it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom