The great thermate debate

[Dunamis]

(09-17-2011 05:24 AM)Negentropic Wrote:  Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit!
T. Mark Hightower (with Jim Fetzer)

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/...st-acquit/

There's a comment on that page that made me think...

Quote:Brian
August 27, 2011 - 12:07 pm

Jim, I’m suggesting if the no planes theory is reported on FOX, NBC, ABC etc. the American people, right or wrong, will be stunned and will think the 911 truthers are lunatics. I think you know that’s true. They won’t care about the science, they’re too busy watching Internet porn.

The Jewish Zionist media can destroy the 911 truth movement with the no planes theory or just the theory the Pentagon was not hit by a plane. They’ll bring out all the Pentagon photographs the eyewitnesses, the air traffic controllers who watched the plane on the radar screens and perhaps they’ll find the Mike Rivero quote on the Internet which states: Hundreds of people saw the plane fly towards the Pentagon. Not one witness saw it fly away. Where did it go if not into the building?

Jim, with your status the Jewish Zionists media could destroy the 911 truth movement by presenting your no planes theory to the public in an eight minute feature. You’ll be screaming at your television.

AN AIRPLANE HIT THE PENTAGON. I have placed my evidence in one of your articles and other VT articles so I’m not going to place it again and get back into that argument. I strongly suggest you interview Jamie McIntyre of CNN. He can tell you what he saw at the Pentagon that day and provide you with powerful photographs including the one with thousands of small shards of the plane with the firefighters in the background. The photographs are even available on the Internet.

Nope I have not been duped by the Mossad/sayanim scheme to convince 911 truthers a missile hit the Pentagon; which implies the US government did 911.

That's a very good point made there. What if the footage that we haven't seen from all those camera's is simply an "insurance" policy, to be used after propagating and spurring on the more "out there" 9/11 claims, to then discredit the whole movement who are looking for concrete answers.

[p4r4]

Quote: Nope I have not been duped by the Mossad/sayanim scheme to convince 911 truthers a missile hit the Pentagon; which implies the US government did 911.

He is suggesting the terrorists did it, but the government let it happen. Of course he is not going like the idea of a cruise missile hitting the pentagon. This conspiracy "lite" was played nation wide in theaters, "Fahrenheit 911". Hell of a conspiracy, if it's been marketed so well.

[Dunamis]

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater

My point was, those who actually "did it" aside, if there was a plane used, then it would be useful for them to keep the lid on it until they need some great way to discredit the movement.

[Armilus]

This is recent, from AUG 2011, 9/11 Blog Series:
http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.com...ction.html
Parts 6 & 7 are about the Pentagon:
http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.com...a-gun.html
http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.com...esses.html

[JazzRoc]

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which is led by Richard Gage, has been ceaselessly promoting the nanothermite discovery as the “smoking gun” of 9/11, and calling the substance a “high explosive”. If there is ever a proper investigation and a lawsuit is filed in a court of law on the “strength” of nanothermite as “hard evidence” of controlled demolition by explosives at the World Trade Center and it is revealed to the court by the opposing side that nanothermite is at best a very weak “explosive” and could not possibly have destroyed the Twin Towers in seconds, the entire case would almost certainly be dismissed and a legal precedent set against future efforts by others.

The danger of promoting a false theory or of overselling a weak hypothesis to millions of people is that it may someday be a convenient way to close the book on the entire issue. That 9/11 nanothermite advocates insist on their position in the face of significant refutations is disturbing. They are clearly unwilling to change their minds or even to discuss facts that expose weaknesses in their statements. What do these refusals really mean? Are some leaders deliberately pushing a flimsy theory with the intent that it will ultimately be shot down? Or is nanothermite a red herring or limited hangout to keep us from looking into what was really used?

The 9/11 Truth community can be confident in its refutations of the official account of 9/11 without having to present a “bullet-proof” alternate theory. It may well be that thermite/thermate/nanothermite was used in its familiar role as an incendiary (or “cutter charge”) in destroying the Twin Towers. But that is very different than to claim that it is a “high explosive” that could have destroyed those buildings. The 9/11 Truth movement must not commit itself to a feeble alternative, especially when an honest assessment of the empirical data for that theory does not support its applicability and actually refutes it."

Isn't this the way it's going to be for ALL this worthless material?

As more REAL PHYSICS comes into play, then you guys have to run for the gaps. Don't worry the field will expand, for the way in which you look is BOUND to produce gaps and divisions.

Divisions where "zionist" "double-agents" promote embarrassing "no-planes"-like theories, divisions where people can't agree.

Give it a decade or two and you guys will have more chapters than catholicism or Hell's Angels, fighting the nitty-gritty amonst yourselves and giving the rest of us something to smile about.

It's going to happen all the way - because it's WORTHLESS.

In the case of the above - paint dust and cooled iron microspherules - are just the materials you would expect to find if you dropped a bloody great mess of steel from a bloody great height, but you'll just shake your head and pretend I didn't just tell you.

[p4r4]

Quote:In the case of the above - paint dust and cooled iron microspherules - are just the materials you would expect to find if you dropped a bloody great mess of steel from a bloody great height, but you'll just shake your head and pretend I didn't just tell you.

Can you be more specific and less speculative on how you get "iron microspherules" from a building collapse ?

[JazzRoc]

(09-20-2011 11:17 AM)p4r4 Wrote:  Can you be more specific and less speculative on how you get "iron microspherules" from a building collapse?

Sure, Grasshopper.

200,000 tons of THIS



Slid down forty-seven of these



Reaching a speed twenty miles an hour faster than THIS





Making lots of THIS





SPARKS to you...

But also spherules of THIS



Whenever there was no remaining oxygen in the air.

If you've watched the remarkable account of the fireman, who with a small group survived a tower collapse which occurred while he was SIX FLOORS UP on a staircase, then he said the tower made a noise "like hundreds of express trains screeching to a halt".

Is that specific enough?

This from another man in the same group

[p4r4]

Quote:200,000 tons of THIS

Slid down forty-seven of these

Reaching a speed twenty miles an hour faster than THIS

Making lots of THIS

Speculations

Can you prove it ?

Quote:If you've watched the remarkable account of the fireman, who with a small group survived a tower collapse which occurred while he was SIX FLOORS UP on a staircase, then he said the tower made a noise "like hundreds of express trains screeching to a halt".

Did you watch the remarkable account of the firemen describing explosions happening before the towers collapse? then specifically describing them as demolition charges ?

[JazzRoc]

(09-20-2011 02:02 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  Speculations

Evidence, actually.

Quote:Can you prove it?

You saw a SAMPLE of the WTC. You saw what it slid down. You saw how fast that went. You saw what finely-divided iron does in air - BURN. You saw ANOTHER sample of the WTC.
THAT is the proof.

F-R-I-C-T-I-O-N

The fireman's account cliches it for me. You could, indeed, go down any underground railway system and collect similar dusts.

Quote:Did you watch the remarkable account of the firemen describing explosions happening before the towers collapse? then specifically describing them as demolition charges?

Yes I did. But in the absence of any other evidence, I would expect he would have preferred to say "like" when he described it.
It isn't possible to discriminate the sound made by the simultaneous snapping of a group of bolts holding a floor, or the floor concrete exploding with heat, for instance, from demolition charges. They are ALL explosive events.

[p4r4]

Quote:Evidence, actually.

What evidence? do you even have evidence of iron microspherules ? other than other peoples words?

Quote:You saw a SAMPLE of the WTC. You saw what it slid down. You saw how fast that went. You saw what finely-divided iron does in air - BURN. You saw ANOTHER sample of the WTC.
THAT is the proof.

All concrete turned to dust. can you prove that the photo is from WTC?

Finely-divided iron does not burn in air.

If it pancaked than how come there was survivors in the lower levels of the building, one was at floor 22...

Quote:friction

If the columns broke off, than they would not slide on each other, they fall down by the path of least resistance, away from friction.

Quote:It isn't possible to discriminate the sound made by the simultaneous snapping of a group of bolts holding a floor, or the floor concrete exploding with heat, for instance, from demolition charges. They are ALL explosive events.

Why would the bolts snap, before the collapse started ?

[JazzRoc]

(09-20-2011 04:39 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  Evidence, actually. - What evidence? do you even have evidence of iron microspherules ? other than other peoples words?

Do you realize how stupid that question is? The picture of WTC microspherules is from a truther site.

Quote:You saw a SAMPLE of the WTC. You saw what it slid down. You saw how fast that went. You saw what finely-divided iron does in air - BURN. You saw ANOTHER sample of the WTC. THAT is the proof. - All concrete turned to dust. can you prove that the photo is from WTC?

All concrete turned to dust? LIAR. How can I prove? The question makes you a hypocrite. How can YOU prove? (Actually, that's a rhetorical question, because proving isn't something you can do at all.)

Quote:Finely-divided iron does not burn in air.

LIAR.
"How do atoms of iron react with molecules of oxygen in air to form a compound?
Steel wool burns in air with a very bright white light, giving off a large amount of energy, and white smoke which is iron oxide in very fine particles. The steel wool changes color to a more gray appearance which is the iron oxide. It is proven that the steel wool has changed into a compound because you can no longer ignite the steel wool after it has burned."
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/143Afeoxide.html

Quote:If it pancaked than how come there was survivors in the lower levels of the building, one was at floor 22...

It's obviously harder to pancake a stairwell - which doesn't happen to be made of FLOOR.
Someone on floor 22 must have been lucky to live.
There are only so many of these SIMPLETON's questions I'm prepared to answer.

Quote:friction - If the columns broke off, than they would not slide on each other, they fall down by the path of least resistance, away from friction.

Columns sliding on each other? Earth to moron - how might THAT happen?
How can FLOORS, threaded through by 47 vertical columns do anything but slide down them?

Quote:Why would the bolts snap, before the collapse started?

Because the floors, heated by fire, have expanded and SAGGED. It's in the NIST Report which you should have bloody well read.

Kindly PISS OFF and learn ANYTHING before you ask me questions, and ESPECIALLY before you insult me further with your ignorance. Otherwise I shall take an entirely different approach with you. You are an ignorant fool and a liar. You ARE the same P4R4 with the ludicrous Pentagon show, aren't you? Yeah, you are. Fuck off.

[p4r4]

Quote: Evidence, actually. - What evidence? do you even have evidence of iron microspherules ? other than other peoples words?
-----
Do you realize how stupid that question is? The picture of WTC microspherules is from a truther site.

So you consider it as evidence? why does the official report does not mention it?

Quote:All concrete turned to dust? LIAR. How can I prove? The question makes you a hypocrite. How can YOU prove? (Actually, that's a rhetorical question, because proving isn't something you can do at all.)

How can you prove that the photo is from WTC ?

Quote:"How do atoms of iron react with molecules of oxygen in air to form a compound?
Steel wool burns in air with a very bright white light, giving off a large amount of energy, and white smoke which is iron oxide in very fine particles. The steel wool changes color to a more gray appearance which is the iron oxide. It is proven that the steel wool has changed into a compound because you can no longer ignite the steel wool after it has burned."
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/143Afeoxide.html

The building was not made out of steel wool...

If you can light steel wool with a match, why can't you light a nail? Or a cast-iron pot? It's a question of surface area versus volume. The burning process, which is just rapid oxidation of the metal, has to bring nearby iron to its ignition temperature fast enough to sustain a chain reaction. Thick pieces of iron conduct heat away far too fast for the surface to ever reach the ignition point. But in very thin strands, there's nowhere for the heat to go, and a burning patch can race along the length of wire, converting a whole steel-wool pad into iron oxide-rust-in less than a minute.

Quote:It's obviously harder to pancake a stairwell - which doesn't happen to be made of FLOOR.
Someone on floor 22 must have been lucky to live.
There are only so many of these SIMPLETON's questions I'm prepared to answer.

"Lucky" is your scientific explanation?

Quote:Columns sliding on each other? Earth to moron - how might THAT happen?
How can FLOORS, threaded through by 47 vertical columns do anything but slide down them?

The columns broke off, the concrete floors turned to dust. You can also see the building debris expanding on collapse is the effect of finding a path of least resistance, away from friction. Also the "lucky" survivors of the lower floors did not experience any friction...

Quote:Because the floors, heated by fire, have expanded and SAGGED. It's in the NIST Report which you should have bloody well read.

That would be only a couple of floors. The firemen claim the explosions happened all the way down. So your saying all the bolts in the building popped all at once ?

[JazzRoc]

(09-21-2011 04:24 AM)p4r4 Wrote:  So you consider it as evidence?

Evidence of friction.

Quote:why does the official report does not mention it?

Because their report was concerned with the CAUSE of the collapse.

Quote:How can you prove that the photo is from WTC?

How can you prove your video comes from wherever it comes?
The SAME way.

Quote:The building was not made out of steel wool...

The building didn't ALL burn. Just where friction occurred.

Quote:"Lucky" is your scientific explanation?

In the light of the evidence to hand.

Quote:The columns broke off

External ones, yes. The internal columns were restrained by their surrounding floors.

Quote:the concrete floors turned to dust

10,000 tons of dust were made - but that left a much greater tonnage of compacted steel and concrete, a small sample of which I've shown you.

Quote:debris expanding on collapse is the effect of finding a path of least resistance, away from friction.

Once more you don't know what you're talking about. You remind me of Harun Yaya. What you think is gibberish, right here.
The "path of least resistance" WAS to SLIDE DOWN THE COLUMNS.
The floors encircled the 47 core columns with a RING of compacted concrete/steel rubble. The path of least resistance was obviously the one involving NOT snapping these columns, and SLIDING down the OUTSIDE of them.

Apart from which, some remaining columns stood erect after the collapse before they fell over. Evidence. Evidence that they were smoking hot.

Quote:Also the "lucky" survivors of the lower floors did not experience any friction...

They WEREN'T sliding down columns!

Quote:That would be only a couple of floors. The firemen claim the explosions happened all the way down. So your saying all the bolts in the building popped all at once?

NO. YOU are saying it.

Let me tell you something. Go to a library and learn something about physics before you lecture an engineering graduate and industrial engineer on the physics of the collapse of the buildings of the WTC. Your ignorant assumption, that your opinion has merit in this case, is totally unjustified, and insulting to anyone with any engineering knowledge who has the misfortune to cross your path...
If you persist in asking inane questions which could be answered in any physics textbook, I shall have to treat you like an irritating small dog snapping at my ankles, for that is what you are like, and also your actions.

While you're at it, you could also make a study of the perspective view. I hope that engineering and the understanding of perspective are your only deficiencies, but fear otherwise...

[p4r4]

Quote: So you consider it as evidence?
-----
Evidence of friction.

The question was about a "truther" that claimed to have found microspherules in the dust. No one else have claimed it, beside that one person.

Do you have evidence of microspherules in the dust? did YOU sample it ?

Quote: How can you prove that the photo is from WTC?
-----
How can you prove your video comes from wherever it comes?
The SAME way.

i can't and neither can you ... that's why all you do is speculate.

Quote: The building was not made out of steel wool...
-----
The building didn't ALL burn. Just where friction occurred.

And you also claim that the melted steel pools are due to friction as well ?

Quote: "Lucky" is your scientific explanation?
-----
In the light of the evidence to hand.

The evidence at hand is inconsistent with the pancake theory. there should be no survivors in a pancake collapse, but if the building was disintegrating than surviving seems more plausible.

Quote:The "path of least resistance" WAS to SLIDE DOWN THE COLUMNS.

No, the path of least Resistance is away from friction, that's why the building disintegrates from the top down with debris being frown sideways before they fall down. the floors that you claim slid down the inner columns did not fall straight down but away from them.

Quote: That would be only a couple of floors. The firemen claim the explosions happened all the way down. So your saying all the bolts in the building popped all at once?
-----
NO. YOU are saying it.

Quote:Let me tell you something. Go to a library and learn something about physics before you lecture an engineering graduate and industrial engineer on the physics of the collapse of the buildings of the WTC. Your ignorant assumption, that your opinion has merit in this case, is totally unjustified, and insulting to anyone with any engineering knowledge who has the misfortune to cross your path...

Says the engineer who designed a plug ...

[JazzRoc]

(09-21-2011 04:42 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  So you consider it as evidence? - Evidence of friction. - The question was about a "truther" that claimed to have found microspherules in the dust. No one else has claimed it, beside that one person. Do you have evidence of microspherules in the dust? Did YOU sample it?

NO.
I expect there to be microspherules in any sampled dust.
The truthers destroyed the provenance of their samples (in other words they finally had possession of a commodity for which they could no longer prove that the sample they possessed was the original sample taken), so there's no real reason to believe a word they say about it...
But if one does, it's an unremarkable sample of what you would find if a large steel building collapsed on itself.

Quote:I can't and neither can you ... that's why all you do is speculate

My, my. That's a finely-honed HYPOCRISY you have there.

Quote:And you also claim that the melted steel pools are due to friction as well?

You tested them for iron?

Quote:The evidence at hand is inconsistent with the pancake theory

How would YOU know? You have zero understanding of either.

Quote:there should be no survivors in a pancake collapse

Stairwells aren't part of the pancake, are they? Weren't all but one of the survivors in the stairwell?
Where's the hymn sheet for this crap you're reciting?

Quote:but if the building was disintegrating than surviving seems more plausible.

Which exemplifies your dimness. The greater the disintegration the less likely a human body would survive it, for there would be MORE whirling pieces in the same volume, and less chances for a human body to occupy a safe free space.

Quote:The "path of least resistance" WAS to SLIDE DOWN THE COLUMNS. -
No, the path of least Resistance is away from friction, that's why the building disintegrates from the top down with debris being frown sideways before they fall down. the floors that you claim slid down the inner columns did not fall straight down but away from them.

Look once again, my foolish grasshopper,
THE FLOORS ENCIRCLED THE COLUMNS
so how could they escape?
Once again, you are naked, you haven't wiped your bottom, and there's SNOT hanging from your nose.

Quote:Says the engineer who designed a plug...

NO. A socket. Lightweight 50 amp continuous DC charge, to be mounted on an electric commuter car. This one. THINK