Nanothermite and the World Trade Center

[editor]

Are you denying that my previous reply does not address your question by virtue of examining its premises?

No, it's a classic wriggle which says nothing, offers nothing of substance and merely attempts to deflect the argument into a totally irrelevant area.

Now will you address the question directly please? You're claiming that the technology exists, so please explain why it's never been used or even seen in the subsequent 12 years.

 

[fogbat]

Just realised something, at the weekend Dotty was dressed as an animal which was black and white and looked slightly like a badger, it is apparently a cat according to my sister but I'm not convinced. The girl playing Queen Esther in the purim play at the weekend was also dressed as a dinosaur. So there you have it, a Jew dressed as a dinosaur who was also acting as a Queen, at an event which celebrates anti-semites' deaths.

And we all know the Queen's real identity:

So there you have it. Proof at last.

Clever girl...

 

[Jazzz]

No, it's a classic wriggle which says nothing, offers nothing of substance and merely attempts to deflect the argument into a totally irrelevant area.

Now will you address the question directly please? You're claiming that the technology exists, so please explain why it's never been used or even seen in the subsequent 12 years.

You seem confused as to the meaning of 'yes' or 'no'. Are you really claiming that a question that has faulty premises can be properly answered without reference to those premises?

And why, by your argument, do you think fire is not used to demolish massive skyscrapers?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You seem confused as to the meaning of 'yes' or 'no'. Are you really claiming that a question that has faulty premises can be properly answered without reference to those premises?

And why, by your argument, do you think fire is not used to demolish massive skyscrapers?

Stop wriggling ffs

 

[editor]

You seem confused as to the meaning of 'yes' or 'no'. Are you really claiming that a question that has faulty premises can be properly answered without reference to those premises?

And why, by your argument, do you think fire is not used to demolish massive skyscrapers?

Stop wriggling. You're claiming that nanothermite has incredible powers in the demolition of tall structures and was used in the demolition of the WTC towers.

I'm asking why it's never been used since if it's so amazing. Now, can you answer that?

 

[ayatollah]

Ayatollah I am reluctant to answer your post as it is obviously an attempt to bring race into things. There is no 'race' of people responsible for 9/11 - there are some relatively few terrorists whose races are entirely irrelevant. Even if you were to believe that the 9/11 hijackers were muslim it is incorrect to hold the many responsible for the crimes of a few. Our duty is to have a proper investigation to determine who the criminals are, both to hold them to account and to stop their future activity. It's a shame that you repeat the straw man theory 'no jews were in the WTC' which indeed was promoted by the BBC despite the fact that no serious researcher of 9/11 has ever given it credence.

Hey Jazz mate, I'm happy "not to bring race into this" if you're cool about "race", mate, then we all are. I just wondered what take on the usual 9/11 conspiracy stuff you've bought into - one popular racist one on the Conspiracy blogosphere (NOT the poor old maligned Auntie BBC FFS) being that all the Jews working in the Towers got a ring round (presumeably from one of those "Elders") giving them the heads up to take a sickie that day. Nope ? Not into that one ? Ocky dockey....then I still repeat my(so far unanswered) request for you to step away for a moment from the gripping debate on the new wonder explosive "nanothermite", and tell us what your own wider 9/11 conspiracy theory is IF the nanothermite theory , for the sake of argument, is TRUE ? Come on Jazz, you aren't just fascinated by the "nanothermite" question in isolation - it is part of a larger theory you are REFUSING TO SHARE WITH US ! SPIT IT OUT MAN... FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WE NEED TO KNOW !

 

[existentialist]

Are you denying that my previous reply does not address your question by virtue of examining its premises?

Give it a rest, Perry Mason - you're not in Horsham Magistrates' Court now...

 

[Edward Kelly]

Fook me !

Just been reading some of the other 911 (and other conspracy stuff) threads in the archives and most of that stuff is just so off the charts.
Holagraphic planes WTF ?

I know of all the conpiracys and stuff but catching up on them on some of those threads is just damm good laughing stock. ... Ahh... the internet.

 

[Nylock]

<derail>
So, with this nanothermite crap, jazz believes in a widely discredited viewpoint held by a minority of 'experts' with a dubious agenda... I wonder what his take on climate change is?
</derail>

 

[Pingu]

Eaxctly! The fact that you don't see anyone using it is proof of just how good a tool it is for secret demolitions!

It's all so obvious, just remove the scales from your eyes

 

[Lemon Eddy]

Are you denying that my previous reply does not address your question by virtue of examining its premises?

Look, I understand you're not too keen on logic, chemistry, physics and other such trivia, but can we at least try for meaningful sentences? Unless you're claiming he's accepted your answer*, then you've chucked in one negative too many.




* he hasn't.

 

[DotCommunist]

fail, they've reference the allfather but used an image of thor

 

[Pingu]

fail, they've reference the allfather but used an image of thor

its a holographic Odin you fool

 

[Random]

fail, they've reference the allfather but used an image of thor

False-rune operation run by ice giants

 

[Jazzz]

Stop wriggling. You're claiming that nanothermite has incredible powers in the demolition of tall structures and was used in the demolition of the WTC towers.

I'm asking why it's never been used since if it's so amazing. Now, can you answer that?

okay, let's really spell it out for you.

The fact that civilian demolition companies do not use nanothermite for their demolitions is as remarkable as the fact that when you fly to Spain for a summer holiday you are not flown there in a stealth bomber. Stealth bombers are similar to 767s in that they fly you someplace, but there the similarity ends. The controlled demolition of the WTC would have been an extraordinary military operation with entirely different constraints to usual demolitions. Deception would have been a primary objective and there would have been essentially an unlimited budget for the materials and devices that could accomplish the job secretly. The devices may of course be military secrets. With normal demolitions, one looks for explosives that literally give the most bang for the buck, this is certainly not the case with nanothermite. If anyone doubts that I suggest they try buying some.

I trust that answers your question even to your satisfaction.

 

[editor]

okay, let's really spell it out for you.

The fact that civilian demolition companies do not use nanothermite for their demolitions is as remarkable as the fact that when you fly to Spain for a summer holiday you are not flown there in a stealth bomber. Stealth bombers are similar to 767s in that they fly you someplace, but there the similarity ends. The controlled demolition of the WTC would have been an extraordinary military operation with entirely different constraints to usual demolitions. Deception would have been a primary objective and there would have been essentially an unlimited budget for the materials and devices that could accomplish the job secretly. The devices may of course be military secrets. With normal demolitions, one looks for explosives that literally give the most bang for the buck, this is certainly not the case with nanothermite. If anyone doubts that I suggest they try buying some.

I trust that answers your question in really some detail.

Stealth bombers and their technology are common knowledge around the world, silly boy, and have been for a considerable length of time.

So where are all the relevantly qualified people (i.e. non-loons) talking about nanothermite as a fast, invisible and efficient demolition tool?

 

[Crispy]

tbf, if it cost 100x the regular method, nobody would bother

 

[editor]

tbf, if it cost 100x the regular method, nobody would bother

Have you any idea of the pricing then?

That said, it if could be installed invisibly with zero interference to anyone at all, it may well save the demolition firm that sort of money.

 

[Jazzz]

Stealth bombers and their technology are common knowledge around the world, silly boy, and have been for a considerable length of time.

So where are all the relevantly qualified people (i.e. non-loons) talking about nanothermite as a fast, invisible and efficient demolition tool?

I think you might try your own research rather than needing me to spoon-feed you, not that it matters whether nanothermite or stealth bombers are publicly known about, or not:

Novel Energetic Materials

Novel Energetic Materials consists of fundamental research programs to expand and validate physics-based models and experimental techniques to devise chemical formulations that will enable the design of novel insensitive high-energy propellants and explosives with tailored energy release for revolutionary Future Force lethality and survivability. This program supports demonstration of advanced energetic materials with ability to tune energy release for precision munition & counter-munition applications (e.g., propellants, explosives, thermobarics, multi-purpose warhead, APS).

These energetic materials may have the potential of providing factors of 3 to 4 in increased energy release rate compared with conventional formulations. The Army's Novel Energetic Materials for the Objective Force effort seeks to mature advanced energetic materials to provide a 40% increase in deliverable energy from advanced gun propellant systems and a 20-50% increase in warhead effectiveness (munitions, active protection).

DoD and DOE continue to have very similar requirements for energetic materials. Both agencies desire high explosives with increased or tailored performance and decreased sensitivity, and recent accomplishments have benefited both agencies. Like advanced initiation, improved energetic materials are enabling technology for the next generation of weapon systems that will be safer, smaller and more lethal. Under this program a combination of evolutionary and novel technologies are under development. Conventional chemistry has been used to develop more powerful, less sensitive explosives.

Nano-structured and engineered materials are being explored to increase energy density and energy on target by factors of three or more.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/novel-energetic-materials.htm

 

[mauvais]

Stealth bombers are similar to 767s in that they fly you someplace, but there the similarity ends

So there's another thing you don't know anything about.

 

[Jazzz]

That said, it if could be installed invisibly with zero interference to anyone at all, it may well save the demolition firm that sort of money.

 

[editor]

Please explain how this magic substance was installed. Thank you.

 

[equationgirl]

I think you might try your own research rather than needing me to spoon-feed you, not that it matters whether nanothermite or stealth bombers are publicly known about, or not:


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/novel-energetic-materials.htm

You've spoonfed nothing on this thread. Every question is answered with a question or weasel words.

 

[equationgirl]

For those of us not so familiar with novel energetic materials, my own research shows them to be highly experimental and research into them is still in its infancy. The following from a CRC Press book written by two US Army engineers gives some clues as to why this might be:
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439835135

Energetic Materials: Thermophysical Properties, Predictions, and Experimental Measurements

Published: December 07, 2010 by CRC Press - 280 Pages
Editor(s):Veera Boddu, US Army ERDC-CERL, Champaign, Illinois, USA; Paul Redner, US Army, ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, USA

The development, processing, and lifecycle environmental impact analysis of energetic materials all pose various challenges and potential dangers. Because safety concerns severely limit study of these substances at most research facilities, engineers will especially appreciate a tool that strengthens understanding of the chemistry and physics involved and helps them better predict how these materials will behave when used in explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, and other applications.

I've highlighted the relevant passage.

No way could enough of this material have been safely made in the first place, therefore it is highly unlikely Jazzz that it was used on 9/11.

 

[Nylock]

Sadly, Jazzz will never allow such things as facts to get in the way of his assertions...

 

[equationgirl]

Sadly, Jazzz will never allow such things as facts to get in the way of his assertions...

I know, but it's good for the facts to be stated, if only so that others who are lurking can see both sides of the argument.

 

[Jazzz]

You've spoonfed nothing on this thread. Every question is answered with a question or weasel words.

You aren't familiar with editor's robo-question debating tactics. He needs especially firm treatment right from the start of his endless-question stream. You have to realise he throws questions at you like someone throws a stick to a dog! There's no genuine interest in the response. After you are totally worn out having constructed hours of detailed responses to dozens of questions he'll just go back to his first question and claim you haven't answered it! So my responses to him are more polemic than may seem necessary.

Keep demanding more facts, but ignore them all until you find one that might possibly support the tiniest strand of your argument, and then declare yourself the winner.

from "The Correct Way To Behave After Losing An Internet Argument"

 

[equationgirl]

You aren't familiar with editor's robo-question debating tactics. He needs especially firm treatment right from the start of his endless-question stream. You have to realise he throws questions at you like someone throws a stick to a dog! There's no genuine interest in the response. After you are totally worn out having constructed hours of detailed responses to dozens of questions he'll just go back to his first question and claim you haven't answered it! So my responses to him are more polemic than may seem necessary.

from "The Correct Way To Behave After Losing An Internet Argument"

Do not patronise me.

And you don't answer the questions you are asked, on this or any other thread. Just stop with your passive-aggressive victim stance. Just. Stop.

 

[butchersapron]

You aren't familiar with editor's robo-question debating tactics. He needs especially firm treatment right from the start of his endless-question stream. You have to realise he throws questions at you like someone throws a stick to a dog!

Why do you throw a stick for a dog jazzz? What do you want the dog to do?

 

[Jazzz]

For those of us not so familiar with novel energetic materials, my own research shows them to be highly experimental and research into them is still in its infancy. The following from a CRC Press book written by two US Army engineers gives some clues as to why this might be:
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439835135

Energetic Materials: Thermophysical Properties, Predictions, and Experimental Measurements

Publishedecember 07, 2010 by CRC Press - 280 Pages
Editor(s):Veera Boddu, US Army ERDC-CERL, Champaign, Illinois, USA; Paul Redner, US Army, ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, USA



I've highlighted the relevant passage.

No way could enough of this material have been safely made in the first place, therefore it is highly unlikely Jazzz that it was used on 9/11.

Deductive Fallacy. Your conclusion "no way could enough of this material have been safely made" does not follow from the premise "safety concerns severely limit study of these substances at most research facilities".