No Explosives Here?

[paulheinze]

Super-duper-nanothermite is possibly the worst tool imaginable for taking down a building. NIST might as well have tested for nuclear fallout.

Worse than paper?

 

[Justin39640]

Worse than paper?

paper burns pretty good
and in the WTC there was plenty of it

 

[triforcharity]

Paper and.......and........and......

Carpet
desks
petitions
chairs
tvs
computers
plastics
more wood
stuff on desks
curtains
cleaning supplies

should I continue?? And yes, Paper. Thousands of pounds of paper.

couches
clothes
people
trash

and yet, should I continue???

Ok,

Electrical componets
HVAC equipment
ceiling tile
wire insulation

oh, wait....is there more???

 

[tsig]

This thread just goes to show how insulated the hardcore truthers are from the outside world.

Here we have atavisms wandering onto this forum with talking points from 2006 which he honestly thinks are rock solid.



Super-duper-nanothermite is possibly the worst tool imaginable for taking down a building. NIST might as well have tested for nuclear fallout.

Could his username be a hint that he knows his arguments are dated?

 

[Macgyver1968]

Another drive by truthing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

Yes, we are. But still pictures are rather poor for identifying explosions, don't you think? And the videos don't show any flash, and the soundtracks don't record any bangs. Explosions without bangs are a logical impossibility.

The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

As has been pointed out to you, this is simply not true. Therefore, there's no need to comment on it.

Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum,

Dr. Harrit's paper has been examined by experts in engineering, physics and materials science on this forum. This is not ignorant malignance, but informed criticism.

The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on,

The chief editor of the journal in which it was published admitted that the paper had not been subject to the normal peer review process.

involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie.

What exactly is the basis for this claim?

And, please note, even if the paper's conclusions followed from its data (which they do not), they would not be evidence for explosives capable of producing the effects you began the post by claiming to have seen.

-Missing Bodies/DNA

Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately
2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people?

Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)

In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand.

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!

Please explain your reasoning why an explosion would be particularly effective at destroying any identifiable DNA from human remains. A more likely cause would be extended incineration by slow-burning underground fires, as was known to have happened at the WTC.

Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete.

Source, please. I think you've just made this up.

There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower.

Untrue, as previously stated.

-WTC 7's textbook implosion

Textbook implosions include extremely loud explosive reports, which were not observed immediately before the collapse of WTC7, and do not produce substantial toppling of the building during collapse, as can be seen in the few videos of WTC7 which show more than the first third of the collapse (at which point the toppling was not great enough to be clearly discernible from the angle of the most commonly referenced video).

-The residual heat

The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out.
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?)

Thermite does indeed burn rather quickly. It also isn't an explosive. If you're claiming that explosions took place, thermite doesn't explain them. Of course, explosives burn even more quickly than thermite. So what was it exactly that was burning at GZ for 99 days? By your own argument, it was neither thermite nor explosives. Debris from the collapsed buildings seems a more rational possibility.

Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

“A one-inch column has been reduced to Half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes --some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.” -WPI

None of this is evidence of explosives. And, of course, it's already been explained; eutectic melting can take place at temperatures below 1000ºC, easily accessible in a normal fire.

-Witness testimony to molten metal:

Ignored, because demolition explosives do not produce molten metal. This therefore doesn't support your argument.

just for a start.

I suspect not; I suspect this will be another drive-by truthing. However, if it is "just for a start", could you perhaps continue by deciding which of two mutually contradictory theories you're supporting, then stop presenting evidence that contradicts the one you favour and pretending it supports it? After that, you could try evaluating the evidence in totality and forming a fully realised hypothesis that explains all of it better than the generally accepted explanation that the devastation at Ground Zero was the result of a terrorist attack.

Just a suggestion, of course. If you prefer spouting long-debunked idiocy that you've copied from somebody else's website, please feel free to do so. It isn't a very effective technique for convincing skeptics that your views have merit, but chacun a son gout.

Dave

 

[johnny karate]

Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.

 

[WildCat]

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/site1085c.jpg

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

shorts vids u'v seen im sure. (just wanna be sure)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toUdpeI04pM
**This bottom one was shot while the cameraman was running.. It has been stabilized by holding the building steady and moving the frame.




The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

The debris field:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial4.html


Read through the work of dozens of serious scientists who have investigated and are currently investigating 9/11 without prejudice. Look at the images and facts of these events without prejudice or personal incredulity.

Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years. The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones.

Scientific papers, and scientific bullying


aside, I don't need any authority to explain the obvious to me!

Take a few FACTS:

-Missing Bodies/DNA

Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately
2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people?

Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)

In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand.

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!

The fact is that many people were identified by test tube size pieces (from tens of thousands of body parts recovered) In the case of one family all they got the man's femur which had been located '2.5 blocks away'
200 of the DNA tests matched a single individual. 70 of 343 NYFD personnel located.
Gravity did that?

Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete. There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower. We have to imagine, whatever so systematically pulveruized all that concrete will do much worse to people

-The concrete of WTC 1&2 :


-WTC 7's textbook implosion

-The residual heat

The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out.
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?)

-May 2002 FEMA Reports Evaporated Construction Grade Steel (?huh?)
(through intense high heat corrosion) (?huh?)


*images from FEMA BPAT (may 2002)
Appendix C: A limited Metallurgical Examination[/i]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

“A one-inch column has been reduced to Half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes --some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.” -WPI


-Witness testimony to molten metal:

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the Twin Towers, said: “You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." [31]

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel.” [32]

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers. [34]

Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health. [35]

Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [36]

Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37] *references please see: DR Griffin's article posted at: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13528.html


NIST:

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?" . . ."NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
-- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

In follow-up to this response NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….and the taxpayers money."

This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.

NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.


*last bit from, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.co...ts-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust

just for a start.

Wow, I never heard that before! Can you tell us more?

 

[Fjolle]

From this link

So why are your citing this? This is a deceitful attempt to connect his resignation to the scientific article.

No. What I said was true.

He resigned after the article was published, and what he says about why he resigned has nothing to do with that.

Also he cant say in public that he resigns because of an article one of his employees wrote.

Also the nano-article is not in KU's list of articles published by Harrit...

Edit: I just posted because it was relevant to Harrit and the article. UNLIKE the Dean of the Niels Bohr Institute

 

[Scott Sommers]

Wow...I've certainly never been presented with this sort of argument before. It's so convincing it's overwhelming. But wait...there are 911 Truth demonstrations all the time all over the country. Angry Americans get together and protest that serious facts about 911 are being overlooked. Such demonstrations almost never get more than a dozen people. Certainly, none of the scientists and firefighters you cite have ever attended one of these demonstrations. They have never been quoted in the mainstream press that they believe there were explosives present at the WTC collapse. None of the firefighter and scientists you cite are members of any of the various 911 Truth groups for their professions.

I'm confused. Either they believe the idea of - what is it you guys call it? - an 'Inside Job' is just plain retarded or they're part of the conspiracy, too.

Come off it

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited for civility

. How much quote mining did you have to do to make this?

Name calling is generally considered uncivil/unpolite and does nothing to advance your point of view.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Another drive by truthing.

Kinda boring when they bring the time machines back to 2006.....

 

[TruthersLie]

From this link

So why are your citing this? This is a deceitful attempt to connect his resignation to the scientific article.

You are soooooo right. He only signed off on the paper, and is listed and credited with some of the oversight and peer review. I'm sure that he had perfectly valid reasons for resigning from his post. Maybe he was caught with a hooker, or was busted for illegal drugs.

of course it is rather remarkable how people keep resigning from posts based on this horrendous paper. Don'tcha think?

I mean, the head editor of the Open Chemical Physics journal resigned in a huff because as the head editor you'd think they would pass any papers they would publish by her, right? Great peer review process.

And we can't forget that other bastion of Bentham prowess which accepted a completely CRAP paper and told the author it had passed peer review if he'd just send the $800 to get it published. I for one completely believe the spokesperson who said they knew it was bogus and were trying to "catch him" for it... other than the fact that the Head editor of that journal also quit in disgust.

I mean, it is the highest form of academia we are talking about here...

So of course I believe Harrits boss when he resigns RIGHT after his buddy N. Harrit publishes a completely junk journal and states it has NOTHING to do with it.

Maybe he was found with a transgendered prostitute... After all, those are much less damaging than being tied to a POS (piece of stuff) twoof paper, isn't it?

 

[TruthersLie]

Worse than paper?

Ummm yea actually. Paper has a much higher energy density... of course not as high as gasoline, but it is actually HIGHER than thermite.

Can you do even 5 minutes of research? I mean, REAL research sparky?

 

[carlitos]

NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite.

Right. Making thermite smaller makes it an explosive. A super-duper, silent killer of an explosive. A magic explosive. An explosive as versatile and deadly as a banana riding a llama.

 

[CHF]

Right. Making thermite smaller makes it an explosive. A super-duper, silent killer of an explosive. A magic explosive. An explosive as versatile and deadly as a banana riding a llama.

And remember - super-dooper nanothermite also blasts steel beams in all directions. And firefightters heard explosions!!!

 

[TruthersLie]

And remember - super-dooper nanothermite also blasts steel beams in all directions. And firefightters heard explosions!!!

don't forget it will clean your room, walk the dog, get you a date, rent a movie, do the dishes and even make julian fries.

 

[twinstead]

don't forget it will clean your room, walk the dog, get you a date, rent a movie, do the dishes and even make julian fries.

And 4 out of 5 dentists recommend it for their patients who chew gum.

 

[atavisms]

NIST did look for signs of explosives, and found none. Take a look at NCSTAR1-3.

It isn't "scientific bullying." You're just wrong.

really?

Regardless, 'Appeal to authority' is on the list of logical fallacies bc you can find an expert to say anything. (ie. Thomas Eager's embarrassment of a paper!

You can say 'You're just wrong" but you cannot explain observed events with the gravity driven collapse hypothesis; only explosives can do that.

I see a lot of personal incredulity here in this forum, not to mention name calling, intolerance and just plain ignorance -

As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.

When people seek the truth they are on the same side. I wish more than anything you were correct but I have reality to contend with.
And just like I cannot believe in a loving god just because it is reassuring to do so, I cannot pretend the facts of 9/11 are other than what they are.

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." - Winston Churchill

 

[Pardalis]

Any explosives here?

 

[atavisms]

Wow...I'm confused..[/mod]

That much is certain