Questions about nano-thermite

[metamars]

Wow. I can't even figure out what you're trying to argue here.

Jet plane crashes do not require an additional incendiary to ignite the jet fuel. Simple statement of fact. Deal with it.

(emphasis mine)

Straw man. Can you guess what it is? I gave you a hint.

BTW, there's no law of nature that says airliners have to be insured. I'll bet that every airline in the world would insure their jets, anyway, whether or not there was any legal requirement to do so. If airlines would insure against losses, does that not suggest that evil geniuses, intent on a psyop to go along with a jet impact, would 'insure' against 'losing' a fireball?

If you can prove that any and all airline impacts into office buildings must create a fireball within 1/3 second or so, feel free to show us this proof. Of course, you cannot do so - the problem is too complex. So, instead, feel free to offer a reasonable argument.

I doubt that you can do more than wave your hands.

 

[Arus808]

what is a straw man about "jet planes do not require additional incendiary to ignite the jet fuel"

are you saying that when cars crash into a wall and they burst into flames that there was an additional incendiary device to cause it to burst into flames? or isn't it enough that the crash into a wall, rupturing the gas tank not enough to do this, and the gasoline hitting a heat source (ie a running engine) is not enough?

 

[BigAl]

(emphasis mine)

Straw man. Can you guess what it is? I gave you a hint.

BTW, there's no law of nature that says airliners have to be insured. I'll bet that every airline in the world would insure their jets, anyway, whether or not there was any legal requirement to do so. If airlines would insure against losses, does that not suggest that evil geniuses, intent on a psyop to go along with a jet impact, would 'insure' against 'losing' a fireball?

If you can prove that any and all airline impacts into office buildings must create a fireball within 1/3 second or so, feel free to show us this proof. Of course, you cannot do so - the problem is too complex. So, instead, feel free to offer a reasonable argument.

I doubt that you can do more than wave your hands.

What pointless drivel.

 

[R.Mackey]

Straw man. Can you guess what it is? I gave you a hint.

No, that's not a strawman. Your "best" theory, I remind you, is that the nanogobbledygook was there to ignite the fuel on impact. I'm telling you, that's just not necessary.

If you can prove that any and all airline impacts into office buildings must create a fireball within 1/3 second or so, feel free to show us this proof. Of course, you cannot do so - the problem is too complex.

That, on the other hand, is a strawman. And the reason I can't do so is not because it's complex, but because you're demanding proof of a negative. Very, very poor debating form on your part. What I'm arguing instead is that fires after impact are easily possible, as in we do not need your "igniters" to explain why there were fireballs. They are expected.

It is true that fires following a high-speed impact between a fueled jetliner and a static structure are merely extremely likely, not 100% guaranteed. If you were to crash enough planes into enough buildings, I'm sure you'd eventually run a lucky trial that didn't, but it would take a while.

But ignition isn't 100% guaranteed with nanothermite all over the place, either. Seriously, this line of reasoning leaves me dumbfounded. If I hadn't seen it before, I'd swear you were just trying to punk me.

So, instead, feel free to offer a reasonable argument.

I doubt that you can do more than wave your hands.

You want a reasonable argument? No problem.

The aircraft were flown into the structures by terrorists. There was no nanonanothermite, or any other treatment of the structure at all, before the impacts. To do so would be an enormous security risk and provide virtually no benefit.

Instead, the terrorists really weren't concerned about the miniscule possibility that the planes wouldn't start fires. Nor were they terribly bothered that structures might conceivably remain standing, or that the fire department might somehow gain the upper hand. Not important for their mission. Compared to other risks, like being spotted and caught, defeated by passengers, or simply getting stuck on the runway due to unforseen delays, these kinds of risks are totally insignificant.

See? Reasonable, no hand waving whatsoever.

If you wanted me to come up with a reasonable scenario that does involve this purely speculative substance, then I confess that I cannot. However, since nobody else has been able to either, I'm not bothered in the least. I don't need to. But you do.

 

[metamars]

No, that's not a strawman. Your "best" theory, I remind you, is that the nanogobbledygook was there to ignite the fuel on impact. I'm telling you, that's just not necessary.

Let's try this again, with the hint more emphatically displayed.

Jet plane crashes do not require an additional incendiary to ignite the jet fuel.

Can you show me where I have stated my opinion that the most plausible use of nanothermite in the WTC buildings on 911 was as a required additional incendiary to ignite the jet fuel?

Let's not forget, either, that what we observe is, apparently, the volume of fuel exiting the building is entirely ignited, something which occurred in less than 1/3 second. Rates of reaction are important in discussing more than DSC tests....

So, your strawman is whacked in other ways, also. It should at least read something like "jet planes crashing into building do not require an additional incendiary to ignite the portion of the fuel exiting the building in 1/3 second, into a tremendous fireball".

That would still be a strawman, since I nowhere say that that is impossible, and thus I really don't know (or claim) that an incendiary would be required.

Likewise, I wouldn't say that all race car accidents never result in a fireball, because if they all did, I think I would have heard about it by now. However, if I saw a race where two accidents occurred, and both resulted in immediate fireballs which burned the drivers to a crisp, I would also be suspicious.

Say, do you think that if race car accidents characteristically burned drivers to a crisp, that they would still participate in the sport?

 

[R.Mackey]

Ain't my strawman. Whack him all you like.

Any time you want to start making sense, go right ahead.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Wow..metamars...your woo never ceases to amaze me. We have all seen videos of plane crashes of varies types...has any of them not ended in fireball? (save those that crashed in the ocean)

Why in the world would you need an incendary device to set of the fuel when 1000's of bit of metal traveling at 500mph are going to make a spark of some kind...geez.

 

[Mr.D]

That would still be a strawman, since I nowhere say that that is impossible, and thus I really don't know (or claim) that an incendiary would be required.

Hang on a second.

This is your MOST PLAUSIBLE scenario?

Secretly planted nanothermite as a fail safe jet fuel ignition source?

Really? MOST PLAUSIBLE?

 

[metamars]

Wow..metamars...your woo never ceases to amaze me. We have all seen videos of plane crashes of varies types...has any of them not ended in fireball? (save those that crashed in the ocean)

You tell me. Outside of the movies, how many plane crashes do you hear of where all bodies were burned over their entire surface? I can't think of any.

Or, should we assume that they almost all end up in fireballs, but like Mohammed Atta's passport, the bodies are unscathed, anyway?

Tell me, do race car driver accidents end up in fireballs, too, or not? AFAIK, they never end up in the ocean.

 

[Reheat]

Metamars, I have witnessed with my own eyes several aircraft crashes into Mother Earth, REAL TIME. They were all massive fireballs. Comparing a race car crash to a significantly higher velocity aircraft crash is comparing apples to oranges. An aircraft crash into a steel building at over 500 mph and you think there needed to be an additional source of ignition? That thought is incredibly ignorant!

 

[R.Mackey]

I think he's trying to derail the thread. Let's return to topic. There are plenty of other places for him to carp about automobile crashes. [/schoolmarm]

 

[beachnut]

(emphasis mine)

...If you can prove that any and all airline impacts into office buildings must create a fireball within 1/3 second or so, feel free to show us this proof. Of course, you cannot do so - the problem is too complex. So, instead, feel free to offer a reasonable argument.

I doubt that you can do more than wave your hands.

It is a fact when you have the initial conditions of 911 -You failed.

If you were out of gas, engines off, and gliding you may not have a big fire ball; even at 590 mph. But 66,000 pounds of fuel in the wings all around hot engines! Why do you post nut case ideas?

All aircraft impacts like those on 911 with the engines running will ignite the fuel exactly like you see on 911. You lack knowledge and make up stupid ideas on this issue.

With Flight 175 going 865.33 feet per second the fireball is exactly that for 66,000 pounds of fuel. I can't image why you can't figure out simple aircraft accident investigation facts; what is your failure?

It is not complex; engines on 911 hit the building and immedialy spit fire all over the place due to airflow interruption; the fire will spew out all over as the engine is desotryed parts hotter than 600 degrees C will be spewed all over at high velocities and ignite the fuel atomized by impact all the way to the core and beyond! And the reason the fireball ignited so quick is hot engines igniting the fuel quickly as the plane only took less than 1/3 of a seocnd to become parts including atomized fuel auto igniting due to the hot engine parts flying all over the place.

The thermite used to start the jet fuel on fire is super stupid since the fuel was on fire all ready

Pilots are trained to shut off the enginer prior to impact to lessen the chance of fire. On 911 the terrorists you apologize for with thermite nonsense pushed up the throttles making it worse!

Watch the slowest impact possible from flight with engines running impacting the ground; Fire; I have never seen in my 36 years of flying a plane not catch on fire with engines running in an impact causing major damage as seen on 911 and in the B-52 accident. As an aircraft accident investigator I declare you wrong, the impacts on 911 would create a fireball as seen on 911 every time, it is not complex it is a fact.



Slow B-52 going under 200 mph in a full stall; fuel catches fire.

Fast 767 going 590 mph; the only difference is the KE is about 11 times greater for the 767.


Your thermite idea is nuts. Thermite is a delusions made up by Jones.



This is what planes do when they are not flown properly and the engines are running.

 

[zorro99]

If airlines would insure against losses, does that not suggest that evil geniuses, intent on a psyop to go along with a jet impact, would 'insure' against 'losing' a fireball?

.

This reminds me of the great Charles Babbage quote:

"I am not rightly able to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

 

[beachnut]

...
4) Can I see some pictures of nano-thermite?

I looked and could only find some rust; no nano-thermite or nano-thermite was found on the WTC steel after inspecting it.

Only some rust and bent steel. Doctor Jones was four years too late to plant some nano-thermite at the WTC and had no clue in 2005 he would make some insane claims and emerge the leader of 911Truth delusional thermite scam brigade. Like Jim Jones before him, S. Jones has the cult members drinking the kool-aid every time he makes a new nut case declaration.

No one found evidence of thermite at the WTC. So there are no pictures from the WTC.

 

[BigAl]

This reminds me of the great Charles Babbage quote:

"I am not rightly able to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

"Fantasy-based people can invent new crap faster than fact-based people can debunk it."

- Me​

 

[metamars]

Metamars, I have witnessed with my own eyes several aircraft crashes into Mother Earth, REAL TIME. They were all massive fireballs. Comparing a race car crash to a significantly higher velocity aircraft crash is comparing apples to oranges. An aircraft crash into a steel building at over 500 mph and you think there needed to be an additional source of ignition? That thought is incredibly ignorant!

Please start another thread on the subject of airplane crashes and fireballs, where you can give details. In particular, do tell us what crashes they were, and whether or not all the bodies burned - which is what I would expect if there's a fireball. Maybe you also got curious, having seen "several" times something most of us never see, and thus have researched whether jetliner crashes, in general, produce the burned bodies and burned body parts which you (presumably) witnessed.

I should point out that that I was thinking of modern day fuels and commercial airliners - not military aircraft. Also, piston driven planes basically burning gasoline may not be a good comparison, either. Of course, if you can prove that the fuel of the crashes you observed was no more flammable during a crash than the fuel involved on 911, that is another story.

 

[BigAl]

Please start another thread on the subject of airplane crashes and fireballs, where you can give details. In particular, do tell us what crashes they were, and whether or not all the bodies burned - which is what I would expect if there's a fireball. Maybe you also got curious, having seen "several" times something most of us never see, and thus have researched whether jetliner crashes, in general, produce the burned bodies and burned body parts which you (presumably) witnessed.

I should point out that that I was thinking of modern day fuels and commercial airliners - not military aircraft. Also, piston driven planes basically burning gasoline may not be a good comparison, either. Of course, if you can prove that the fuel of the crashes you observed was no more flammable during a crash than the fuel involved on 911, that is another story.

Fantasy-based people can invent new crap faster than fact-based people can debunk it.

 

[George 152]

It is a fact when you have the initial conditions of 911 -You failed.

If you were out of gas, engines off, and gliding you may not have a big fire ball; even at 590 mph. But 66,000 pounds of fuel in the wings all around hot engines! Why do you post nut case ideas?

Obviously he's never had as much attention paid to him as he's getting in here.

[/QUOTE]

Pilots are trained to shut off the engine prior to impact to lessen the chance of fire.

[/QUOTE]

It always amazes me as to how little these people know about the basics of aviation and yet post their error ridden beliefs in spite of the constant advice they get from pilots

 

[1337m4n]

Lots of good discussion. Thanks everyone.

I looked and could only find some rust; no nano-thermite or nano-thermite was found on the WTC steel after inspecting it.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtclookingforThermitenotfound.jpg[/qimg]
Only some rust and bent steel. Doctor Jones was four years too late to plant some nano-thermite at the WTC and had no clue in 2005 he would make some insane claims and emerge the leader of 911Truth delusional thermite scam brigade. Like Jim Jones before him, S. Jones has the cult members drinking the kool-aid every time he makes a new nut case declaration.

No one found evidence of thermite at the WTC. So there are no pictures from the WTC.

I ran a Google Image Search for "nano-thermite" and could only find 9/11 Truth sites.

Let's try "super-thermite"...nope, same deal.

If Google Image was to be believed, this stuff doesn't exist. You'd think it'd be easier to find information on something like this.

 

[MetalPig]

Tell me, do race car driver accidents end up in fireballs, too, or not?

If the fuel tanks ruptures then yes, most likely a fire will occur. If the fuel meets hot parts of the car, it very likely ignites.

You don't even need a crash; just spray some fuel on a hot car: