'What about building 7'?

[DGM]

It may seem implausible that conventional paint could appear superficially similar to an incendiary or explosive material, but it is nevertheless a fact.

A common paint formulation is essentially a carbon-based resin with embedded particles giving it the desired color and characteristics.

A commonly used red pigment is made of iron-oxide particles while kaolin platelets (an aluminum-silicon compound), are commonly used as a filler and pigment.

Traditionally, thermite is a blend of iron-oxide and elemental aluminum, but in the 1990's, US National Laboratories started developing an advanced form, nano-thermite composite materials, using sol-gel technology.

Sol-gel can be engineered into a hybrid carbon-silica matrix material that is itself energetic, resulting in a composite material that can be turned into a powerful explosive.

This "super-thermite" essentially appears as a resin with nano-thermite embedded within.

Dr. Harrit et al note that this sort of a material "can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint."

Thus, this high-tech energetic material can appear like red paint.

As explained in the 2009 Bentham paper, Dr. Harrit et al were able to establish that the nano-scale platelets found in the red chip material were composed of elemental aluminum and not an aluminum-silicon compound (kaolin).

So you got nothing? I'm well aware or the composition of paint and the fact it burns in air.

 

[000063]

All the existing evidence is in mono and your vague recollection is meaningless without some kind of proof.

Quote mining eyewitness statements? No problem! believing people who are actually talking to you about what they recall? No, those are just "vague recollections". Even when you've already been shown them making similar claims in the past, and actually linked to videos which are now deleted.

As for your "thermitic paint", it's little more than an Appeal to Magic. No one has been able to reproduce the results, and the people who claim they have evidence refuse to let it be independently verified. The funny thing is that when the government has evidence they won't release, y'all insist they're hiding something. When the same is pointed out for Truthers, y'all tend to just plain ignore it.

 

[fitzgibbon]

All the existing evidence is in mono and your vague recollection is meaningless without some kind of proof.

Now mono, always mono, eh MM? And my recollection (and that of others [as corroborated by JREF posts from the time]) is anything but "vague". I'm sorry you feel so compelled to hang your hat on something so flimsy. Considering discussion of this particular video goes back 7 years+, your laughable attempt at turning tables is laughable

Back in 2010 I checked the audio of the contentious video and it was 2-track mono.

What part of 'the file was offlined and re-upped as mono after being debunked for its stereo explosion' didn't translate?

The significance of this is that a commercial production would have to license and pay for any footage they use.

They would purchase their footage from an agent for the source and thus obtain the best copy possible.

I know this from my own experience in TV where we regularly sold our field recordings to other TV networks.

It would make no sense for the seller to have added a bogus explosion to licensed footage."

I'm sorry but your attempt at puffing out your editor chest doesn't wash. Footage is licensed but there's nothing preventing it from being adjusted/altered. As far as what would or would not make sense in this instance, you aren't the editor or producer so your opinion on "sense" is moot.

This thread 4 years later covers things quite well (if that's what you actually want)

HTH
Fitz

 

[GlennB]

Dr. Harrit et al note that this sort of a material "can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint."

Thus, this high-tech energetic material can appear like red paint.

At which thickness it would have absolutely no effect on structural steel.

Next.

 

[MileHighMadness]

MM...question, column 79 had a 2" web and 3" flanges, and was reinforced with two 4" x 26" plates, how much thermite would it take to cut thru that column? And how long would it take?

Also, can AE Truth and Jon Cole please set up a demonstration of thermite cutting thru a full size mockup of column 79, and post it on YouTube?

 

[Animal]

At which thickness it would have absolutely no effect on structural steel.

Next.

I did a church project years ago, that used some W24x250's The steel supplier for fun gave us a couple 1" slices for the office. I do not think most people have a clue how big those steel elements were in the towers. "Paint" would have done nothing.

 

[jaydeehess]

It's not the same kind of sound. ................ High-brisance explosives like the RDX shaped charges used to cut structural steel for demolition must create a supersonic shock wave, and that can be both heard and felt from a great distance and over most other continuous sounds. Because it originates from a necessarily supersonic event, it is a different character of sound.

So trying to balance energy values is not really the right answer. There is a qualitative difference between explosive shock waves and mere noise from collapsing rubble. The latter may contain more energy overall, but that's not an indicator of sound.

Miragememories wants to claim there was a detonation without a particularly audible shock wave characteristic of explosives. That simply can't physically happen. Creating shock waves is what explosives do. That's like saying you lit a fire without burning anything. It really is that monumentally stupid, what the Truthers here are claiming.

That is what I was sarcastically referring to when I said that explosives were supposedly less energetic than the collapsing mass.

Way I look at it is that explosives release their energy extremely quickly and that will show up in the audio, yes as a result of the neccessarily supersonic pressure wave generated by this extremely fast release of chemical energy.

 

[jaydeehess]

At which thickness it would have absolutely no effect on structural steel.

Next.

However it might reduce my 18 foot aluminum boat to uselessness

 

[DGM]

At which thickness it would have absolutely no effect on structural steel.

Next.

Even one of the co-authors of MM's precious paper (Steven Jones) has given up on this working. He guesses they just painted this on as a fuse for the conventional explosives. We don't hear from him much anymore.

 

[jaydeehess]

Sol-gel can be engineered into a hybrid carbon-silica matrix material that is itself energetic, resulting in a composite material that can be turned into a powerful explosive.

This "super-thermite" essentially appears as a resin with nano-thermite embedded within.

Dr. Harrit et al note that this sort of a material "can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint."

Thus, this high-tech energetic material can appear like red paint.

As explained in the 2009 Bentham paper, Dr. Harrit et al were able to establish that the nano-scale platelets found in the red chip material were composed of elemental aluminum and not an aluminum-silicon compound (kaolin).

Odd then that armed with this knowledge that no one has bothered, over the course of the last five years, to obtain a quantity of sol-gel and test to see how much of an effect it has if painted onto a steel sample.

I frankly doubt that it would cut common 1/2 inch rebar if simply painted on.

 

[DGM]

Odd then that armed with this knowledge that no one has bothered, over the course of the last five years, to obtain a quantity of sol-gel and test to see how much of an effect it has if painted onto a steel sample.

I frankly doubt that it would cut common 1/2 inch rebar if simply painted on.

According to the Harret paper it would be easy to make. Every ingredient they list is readily available. You could get it all from Amazon.

 

[jaydeehess]

Even one of the co-authors of MM's precious paper (Steven Jones) has given up on this working. He guesses they just painted this on as a fuse for the conventional explosives. We don't hear from him much anymore.

But MM and others require tons of "leftover" supertherm?te with which to feed the underground (and strictly underground - another oddity) fires that resulted in liquid phase steel. How many gallons of supertherm?te paint are required to effect that?

 

[DGM]

But MM and others require tons of "leftover" supertherm?te with which to feed the underground (and strictly underground - another oddity) fires that resulted in liquid phase steel. How many gallons of supertherm?te paint are required to effect that?

Odd how such a highly reactive substance ended up, in huge quantities, un-reacted in the dust.

 

[jaydeehess]

​

The NIST position on the WTC7 east penthouse collapse is that it was the extreme consequence from the total failure of column 79.

[qimg]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8526/wtc7fl8edit4pp2.png[/qimg]

If you look at the nice floor plan you provided, column 79 is clearly not a perimeter column. The raw exterior of such a major column would have been enclosed and not visible.

Additionally, if the perimeter columns were involved in the collapse of the east penthouse, why do they remain so remarkably intact during the penthouse's plummet through the roof of WTC7?[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/EastPenthouse_zps9b6d8b1d.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/EastPenthouseCollapse_zps749a3bd3.png[/qimg]

Are you now agreeing that the destruction of column 79 led to the progression of interior collapse that itself resulted in global collapse.
AND/OR
Does this mean that the final fall of the remenant of WTC 7 did not involve explosives on the north , east, and west sides of that structure. I thought all columns had to be explosivesly removed in order to effect free fall.

Has that position changed?

 

[jaydeehess]

Odd how such a highly reactive substance ended up, in huge quantities, un-reacted in the dust.

Underground dust that's where there was an underground conflagration of burning thermite and the resultant molten steel. In addition, high quantities of theremite were found in the locations where Harrit's dust samples came from, but its mere coincidence that the large number of above ground thermite flares did not consume the thermite from the locations tested by Harrit.


.................oh, wait,,,,,,,,,,,,ummmmmmm

 

[JayUtah]

Traditionally, thermite is a blend of iron-oxide and elemental aluminum, but in the 1990's, US National Laboratories started developing an advanced form, nano-thermite composite materials, using sol-gel technology.

Asked and answered.

First, you want to invoke the Dept. of Energy labs. But I've already reported that they don't support your claims and that they disagree with your layman's interpretation of their findings.

Second, while nanocomposites are well known among those qualified in the field, the specific formulation and use that you propose is unknown. The only documentary evidence you've presented to substantiate your claim is from well after 9/11 and described a substance of yet woefully inadequate brisance.

It is apparent that you want to trump up the semblance of credibility for your key belief by alluding to activities and principles you hope your readers don't really understand.

This "super-thermite" essentially appears as a resin with nano-thermite embedded within.

No, that's hopelessly wishful thinking to believe that could be used as some kind of magical paint-on demolition explosive for structural steel, especially where it is applied universally so as to appear like primer paint.

This clearly layman's handwaving is undoubtedly why almost no qualified professionals even entertain this farfetched hokum. Keep in mind that it is not merely a bunch of JREF debunkers who laugh at your feeble attempts to wish your magical paint-on demolition charge into existence -- it is the entire relevant professional and scientific community.

 

[Georgio]

Keep in mind that it is not merely a bunch of JREF debunkers who laugh at your feeble attempts to wish your magical paint-on demolition charge into existence -- it is the entire relevant professional and scientific community.

Could you back that up please?

 

[Redwood]

Are you suggesting that the columns in WTC7 were exposed rather that enclosed?

WTC 7 was not as "neat" a design as the Twin Towers. Besides the core columns for elevators, stairways and such, forming a rectangular core with no visible columns (like the Twin Towers), and the perimeter columns visible to all, it also had visible columns in the rentable space, specifically the columns supporting the East Penthouse. Surely with all your experience in the Truther movement, you realize this. To refresh your memory:

You don't think that all that space between the inner core (to the right in the top photo and columns 79,80, and 81 went unrented, do you? I'm amazed that in all these years, no Truther has interviewed anyone who worked in Building 7, or asked for old photos of their workplace, to get an idea of the layout of WTC 7. Most Truthers still labor under the illusion that WTC 7 had a basement.

 

[DGM]

Could you back that up please?

Citations are the bar which scientific papers a judged on. Other scientist read a paper and cite it as precedent. The Harrit paper has never been acknowledge as more than a joke.

The only real acknowledgement of this paper was in a couple articles showing the lack of rigor in the "open source" journals (Bentham in particular).

 

[JayUtah]

Quote mining eyewitness statements? No problem!

Indeed. I'm still waiting for Miragememories to explain how a statement

"I heard a noise that I saw was caused by X."​

can be honestly redacted to say

"I heard a noise..." and that's evidence of Y.​

It's one thing to dispute the witness's interpretation or to show that other facts make the witness's statement unlikely. It's an entirely different thing to omit the witness's actual words and then pretend no harm was done to the integrity of the testimony.