Questions about nano-thermite

metamars said:
...
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.
Click to expand...
You should have looked up jet fuel and studied more before making up your junk ideas.

The B-52 was just like the 767 crashes, no bombs on board, fuel in the wings crash into hard surface destroying the integrity of the airframe. But I bring more crashes with fireballs to show commercial aircarft and other jets on fire.

I tried to tell you in our checklist for big jets it says in BOLDFACE, for crash landing "Throttles - CUTOFF before IMPACT" This turns off the fire! and you have a better chance for slower fires, or no fires! If we know we are crashing we try to crash slow, low fuel, and engines off after we don't need them. I was trying to convey the fact turbine engines are hot, the exhaust gas temperature is hot enough to light jet fuel. A running engine in a crash is an ignition source for fuel in your crashing jet. The videos all support this FACT, not your implied no fire crap. In the videos some of the pilots failed to realize they were crashing and pushed up the throttles (engines) to try and save it, or failed to cut off the throttles before impacts with hard objects that destroyed the structural integrity of their aircraft, spewed fuel all around the hot engines, and lighting the fuel instantly. Cutting off the engines may not stop the fires from starting, but they may slow the spread of fire and give you a chance to escape.

MODERN DAY FUEL? These are them. All the fuel in the crashes is simliar to the fuel here, if not exactly the same. ---
Jet A-1 has a fairly high flash point of 38 °C (100 °F), with an autoignition temperature of 210 °C (410 °F). Fuel used in Flight 175/11/93/77.

Autoignition Temperature: is the lowest temperature a fuel itself (as opposed to its vapor) will catch fire spontaneously. Some sample autoignition temperatures are: JP-4, 470° to 480° F; JP-8, 440° to 475° F. Low autoignition temperatures present a particular hazard in aviation refueling operations. Fuel used in B-52 before 1995 and after 1995. JP-4, then JP-8.

There is more energy per pound in JP-8 and JetA than JP4. Extra BS.

The fireballs on 911 were as seen and based on fuel load, violence and speed of impact, with engines running; guaranteed. The core of the engines are above 2000 degrees F, the exhaust gas is at 800 degrees C.

Please tell me how engines running full blast with 66,000 pounds of fuel all around the engines will not make a fire ball when impacting the ground at 600 mph, the WTC towers at 470 and 590 mph, and the Pentagon at 530 mph plus! Go ahead provide the science and physics why you can't have the fireballs we saw on 911? Show an impact at similar conditions that did not have a fireball.

Thermite is not needed and was not present on 911. Go over to p4t forum and see how many dolt-pilots (guides) over there agree with you and you can confirm they are useless apologists for terrorists like the rest of 911Truth.

Commercial airliner fireball; slow speed landing/takeoff mishap; albeit the pilot, a computer "who" decided to land on takeoff/go-around; bad idea.
Commercial airliner fireball.
Commercial airliner fireball. Engines running and fuel; not good.
NASA airliner crash test fireball. Engines and fuel again.
Air-show fireball. Engines and fuel; bad.
Another air-show fireball.
If you crash turn off your engines before impact and don't hit stuff to rip up your plane!

Expect a fireball with engines running and fuel on-board your JET! The USAF made me go to school and become an aircraft accident investigator, I forgot it was from USC; I never knew I was a Trojan till reminded by a JREF poster. Is it cheating having read all the reports on accidents for 36 years?

Thermite lighting jet fuel to make the fireball bigger; dumbest idea since beam weapons.

The autoignition temperature for fuel used on 911 was similar to the military jet fuels. But both military and civilian jet crashes with fuel and engines running result in fireballs; 911 impacts of 11, 175, 77, and 93 the fireballs were a guaranteed event. Your logic is faulty and your statements are faulty. You will never prove your thermite scam.

I have tried but can't find any evidence for thermite at the WTC. Where is your evidence and proof.
 
I think Metamars' early posts in this thread was pretty good, even if he was wrong. It is maybe too much to ask that anyone admits defeat when pressed in this manner, but I think his arguments were sincere and falsifiable in principle, which is a rare trait from the average truther. For these reasons I think you should not be too hard on Metamars. Impressed with the knowledge of the posters here, I learned quite a lot. Bravo:)
 
Last edited:
Lies, damned lies, and statistics

From Survivability of Accidents Involving Part 121 U.S. Air Carrier Operations, 1983 Through 2000

Researchers at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) examined, in the mid-1990s, a selected set of survivable accidents that occurred from 1970 to 1995 in the United States. Their report was described in the agency’s employee newsletter, the FAA Intercom.9 The researchers found that 68 percent of occupants involved in aircraft accidents died as a result of injuries sustained during postcrash fires.
Click to expand...

They define survivable in the prior paragraph

survivable (as defined by no passengers are killed) or “technically survivable” (as defined by at least one occupant survives)
Click to expand...

I take this as an indication that at least 1/3 of survivable aircraft crashes do not result in fireballs. (I assume that you can have a fire, without a fireball that encompasses the entire passenger area).

I'm well aware of the fact that the 911 crashes weren't survivable. If anybody can find statistics on non-survivable airline crashes and fireballs, feel free.
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
I take this as an indication that at least 1/3 of survivable aircraft crashes do not result in fireballs. (I assume that you can have a fire, without a fireball that encompasses the entire passenger area).
Click to expand...

Statistics and probabilities in the hands of the ignorant is a very frightening thing.
 
metamars said:
Tell me, do race car driver accidents end up in fireballs, too, or not? AFAIK, they never end up in the ocean.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous comparison, in the past many race car accidents did end up with fireballs and a lot of deaths occurred. It still happens but is far less common now due to safety rules imposed in most motorsports regarding fuel tanks which would be impractical in aviation.
 
Even assuming that the schemers wanted to make extra-triple sure the jet fuel would ignite right away and so planted an additional ignition source in the buildings, therm*te as that ignition source makes no sense.

The reason is that whatever was supposedly used to ignite the therm*te would be sufficient to ignite the jet fuel all by itself. There's no reason to add the therm*te part.

As for the hypothesized (and unsupported by evidence) percussive ignition of nanothermite, percussive ignition has been a working technology since the early 1800's. No need to apply cutting-edge nanotechnology to do something that could easily be done with the contents of a 1950's chemistry set.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
There are all sorts of ignition sources other than the engines. When the electrical wires are cut, they arc. The same goes when the computer monitors were smashed. As the metals were grinding together, there will be sparks. Why would they need therm*te?
 
metamars said:
Tell me, do race car driver accidents end up in fireballs, too, or not? AFAIK, they never end up in the ocean.
Click to expand...

Race cars use "fuel cells", gas tanks filled with foam, precisely to prevent fire in the event of a crash. They have for decades. For example:
Even then, it doesn't always work or cells are not required in this class of car.
So what, anyway?

It's amazing how little general knowledge of the of the real world the Twoofers have and how they will extrapolate and assume based on nothing or false information and argue endlessly that something must have happened or can't have happened when the real world is much too varied and random to extrapolate from one accident to another.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
Even assuming that the schemers wanted to make extra-triple sure the jet fuel would ignite right away and so planted an additional ignition source in the buildings, therm*te as that ignition source makes no sense.

The reason is that whatever was supposedly used to ignite the therm*te would be sufficient to ignite the jet fuel all by itself. There's no reason to add the therm*te part.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. I'm glad somebody else figured this out.

Also, if you intended to provide a fool-proof, jet-fuel igniting fail-safe, you wouldn't put it in the building in the first place. You'd put it in the plane. That way, it wouldn't matter where exactly the plane hit. And you wouldn't ever need access to the structure in the first place. You're already messing with the plane, so you're not adding a whole lot more complexity to your effort this way.

And you for darn sure wouldn't use something as exotic as nonsense nanothermite. I can think of literally hundreds of more effective, cheaper, simpler approaches.

So much for the "most likely hypothesis." By inference, this suggests that metamars's other ideas, being even less likely, aren't worth consideration at all. And with no competition, the existing theory remains unchallenged. Yet, somehow I predict he'll shift the goalposts and keep arguing...
 
metamars said:
I'm well aware of the fact that the 911 crashes weren't survivable.
Click to expand...
Then why even bother to make the comparison? It reeks of desperation - how about researching a more apt comparison by tracking down some WWII Japanese Kamikaze pilots and asking them what percent of their hits failed to cause fire and explosion? And just in case it wasn't entirely clear, I stundied your "most plausible" post for exactly the reason Mackey points out. Why plant supernanothermite in the building when the hijackers could just carry a cigarette lighter in one pocket, a handkerchief in another and a small bottle of rubbing alcohol, liquor or aftershave in their handcarry and walk right past security and onto the plane with a Molotov cocktail?!? Face it, when your "most plausible" plan is being compared with those of cartoon supervillians, isnt' it time to take a step back and ask yourself just how far down the rabbit hole you've gone?
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
...
I take this as an indication that at least 1/3 of survivable aircraft crashes do not result in fireballs. (I assume that you can have a fire, without a fireball that encompasses the entire passenger area).

I'm well aware of the fact that the 911 crashes weren't survivable. If anybody can find statistics on non-survivable airline crashes and fireballs, feel free.
Click to expand...
911Truth cherry-picks it way to rationalize failure.

The pilots are trained to shut down the engines in jet so if the plane is compromised during impact or crashes there will not be a fire.

I would say pilots TRY 100 PERCENT of the time in crashes trying to avoid a fire ball. On 911 fireballs were 100 percent happening due to lots of fuel, engines running at cruise or higher setting, and massive impacts confined to small area with KE above 1000 pounds of TNT!

The designed impact KE for the WTC was 187 pounds of TNT.

You are 100 percent wrong on the fireball.

The KE for crashes where people walk away are 53 pounds of TNT at 80 mph running off the runway before crashing. A landing accident would be 185 pounds of TNT KE and you could walk away and there would be no fireball maybe.

I showed you some fireballs for these case though. So you can have a fireball in a commercial jet if the pilot messes up and does not get the Throttled CUTOFF!

I was trained in aircraft accident investigation and find zero logic in you trying to rationalize your idea for the need of thermite. All the impacts on 911 were much larger and would have bigger and more violent fireballs that slow speed impacts. It is humorous for you trying to move your rubber-tree plant with so much anti-intellectual effort.
 
metamars said:
From Survivability of Accidents Involving Part 121 U.S. Air Carrier Operations, 1983 Through 2000



They define survivable in the prior paragraph



I take this as an indication that at least 1/3 of survivable aircraft crashes do not result in fireballs. (I assume that you can have a fire, without a fireball that encompasses the entire passenger area).

I'm well aware of the fact that the 911 crashes weren't survivable. If anybody can find statistics on non-survivable airline crashes and fireballs, feel free.
Click to expand...

Here: edjumacate yourself.

Did you ever consider that those 1/3 of injuries not caused by fires were the result of pilot skills or rapid response times by the fire department?

ETA: Even better; FAA requirements regarding firefighting capabilites
 
Last edited:
so whats new with the nano-thermite story?

has Cal-Tech, MIT, Cornell, or Princeton recieved samples of the thermite yet for indepedent analysis?

and if no..then why the hell not???
 
That's a very good question. I wonder why Jones isn't making an effort to get his work extended beyond this one single "journal".
 
1337m4n said:
That's a very good question. I wonder why Jones isn't making an effort to get his work extended beyond this one single "journal".
Click to expand...

i suspect there will be NO independent analysis from any reputable institution of higher learning or well known chemical or engineering company.

why not? because they are run by the NWO.

=)
 
1337m4n said:
That's a very good question. I wonder why Jones isn't making an effort to get his work extended beyond this one single "journal".
Click to expand...

According to Dr. Haritt, there are others doing studies as well. You should email him with your questions.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that the HOW question keeps coming up, when the WHO and WHY questions are clearly more pressing: once we find out WHO made this material and WHO placed in the building, investigation/interrogation can then find out HOW the nanothermite was used. Pressing justice is even more important!
Click to expand...

Who? The painters did it.
Why? To keep the steel from rusting.
 
I heard some of Jones' recent interview with Michael Woolsey on Visibility 911 - 25/3-09.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4ID99dSBWY


Woolsey declares 'we now have beyond any doubt at all that we have the proof that thermite type materials, specifically nanothermite was used in the catastrophe at the WTCon sept 11. Hard scientific facts which would completely obliterate the official story.'

Yes, the declarations are that it is now 'case closed' and there is no more doubt...

however, Jones mentions some unknowns - namely the energy outputs of 2 of the samples were higher than 'known thermite', and he speculates it might be due to the 'organic material' which seems to bind the Iron Oxide and Aluminum together.
'We would like to know what it is....we hope others will follow up on this'
'What is this organic material?' he asks 'We don't know in detail..'

Hardly a slam dunk for nanothermite when he admits he doesn't really know what it is.

I actually think this is good news for debunking CD, since the 'truth' movement has most of it's eggs in the thermite basket. If that is proved false, it'll be very difficult to backtrack to conventional explosives and blasting caps.

Perhaps the conclusion of debate is near, after all.......indeed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom