Nanothermite and the World Trade Center

[existentialist]

...would have been...would have been...would have been

So, speculation. Unconsciously or otherwise, even you, Jazzz, know that you are speculating wildly.

 

[equationgirl]

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".

Basic health and safety knowledge dictates that if a substance is dangerous to study, it's dangerous to make. If it's dangerous to make research quantities, it's dangerous to make enough to demolish a large skyscraper.

Therefore there is no deductive fallacy.

 

[Graymalkin]

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".

Actually, it does. If this substance is so dangerous that most research facilities can't handle it safely then you can'it realistically expect t to be secreted into the wtc and set up without there being an extremely high risk of premature detention. Think about it. If you're planning to blow up an office building with tens of thousands of unaware victims milling about inside it then you're not going to use something that volatile, you'd be begging for something to go wrong. This is something you conspracists fail to grasp. Plans go wrong and unexpected contingencies arise in the course of executing any plan on this scale so 'they' would not set up something so highly prone to failure.

 

[Jazzz]

Basic health and safety knowledge dictates that if a substance is dangerous to study, it's dangerous to make. If it's dangerous to make research quantities, it's dangerous to make enough to demolish a large skyscraper.

The key word is "most research facilities". You'll have a hard time finding somewhere safe enough to study nuclear fission. Certainly in the 1940s. That didn't stop the USA bombing Hiroshima.

 

[equationgirl]

The key word is "most research facilities". You'll have a hard time finding somewhere safe enough to study nuclear fission. Certainly in the 1940s. That didn't stop the USA bombing Hiroshima.

Completely erroneous argument. Research into nuclear fission in the 1940s in no way compares to a highly experimental and dangerous field of research in 2013.
Even if there is one research facility capable of this type of world, it is a wholly different situation from manufacturing tonnes of material. Scale-up from kg to tonnes is notoriously difficult at the best of times, and certainly with such a worrying material.

 

[existentialist]

The key word is "most research facilities". You'll have a hard time finding somewhere safe enough to study nuclear fission. Certainly in the 1940s. That didn't stop the USA bombing Hiroshima.

You're reaching, now.

 

[Jazzz]

Actually, it does. If this substance is so dangerous that most research facilities can't handle it safely then you can'it realistically expect t to be secreted into the wtc and set up without there being an extremely high risk of premature detention. Think about it. If you're planning to blow up an office building with tens of thousands of unaware victims milling about inside it then you're not going to use something that volatile, you'd be begging for something to go wrong. This is something you conspracists fail to grasp. Plans go wrong and unexpected contingencies arise in the course of executing any plan on this scale so 'they' would not set up something so highly prone to failure.

The ignition point of the red/gray chips found by Harrit is around 430 degrees Centigrade. This is indeed much lower than conventional thermite, but it would seem still really quite stable.

Of course once you have plane collisions and fires it's another matter. Please note that the list of witnesses who witnessed explosions at the WTC before the towers collapsed is as long as your arm.

 

[equationgirl]

The ignition point of the red/gray chips found by Harrit is around 430 degrees Centigrade. This is indeed much lower than conventional thermite, but it would seem still really quite stable.

Of course once you have plane collisions and fires it's another matter. Please note that the list of witnesses who witnessed explosions at the WTC before the towers collapsed is as long as your arm.

Again, Harrit has not proven that the chips are definitely thermite, given the construction materials of the building.

 

[equationgirl]

You're reaching, now.

I think he's been reaching for most of his posts.

 

[equationgirl]

The ignition point of the red/gray chips found by Harrit is around 430 degrees Centigrade. This is indeed much lower than conventional thermite, but it would seem still really quite stable.

Of course once you have plane collisions and fires it's another matter. Please note that the list of witnesses who witnessed explosions at the WTC before the towers collapsed is as long as your arm.

And flying a passenger jet into a tower block is going to trigger any number of electrical faults. There is no proof that these explosions were the result of a controlled demolition.

 

[Jazzz]

Completely erroneous argument. Research into nuclear fission in the 1940s in no way compares to a highly experimental and dangerous field of research in 2013.
Even if there is one research facility capable of this type of world, it is a wholly different situation from manufacturing tonnes of material. Scale-up from kg to tonnes is notoriously difficult at the best of times, and certainly with such a worrying material.

Well quite possibly difficult, but the difficult might not be the impossible. This brings us back to the point about US military budgets and constraints. The Manhattan project cost $20 billion back in the 1940s. It was a massive, massive operation kept completely secret by a vast number of people. I think it's very much comparable. It was highly experimental and I doubt you'd get life insurance. There's now tons of plutonium across all US nuclear bombs.

From my limited understanding, I don't think nanothermite is anything like as dangerous as weapons-grade plutonium. Of course, I don't have the foggiest understanding of how it's made, but that's doesn't mean that it can't be, and can't be made safely in significant quantities given enough resources.

 

[Jazzz]

You're reaching, now.

The point beyond contempt with a certain poster

 

[existentialist]

I don't feel contempt for you, Jazzz...it's more like incomprehension.

 

[butchersapron]

I feel utter contempt for him.

 

[equationgirl]

Well quite possibly difficult, but the difficult might not be the impossible. This brings us back to the point about US military budgets and constraints. The Manhattan project cost $20 billion back in the 1940s. It was a massive, massive operation kept completely secret by a vast number of people. I think it's very much comparable. It was highly experimental and I doubt you'd get life insurance. There's now tons of plutonium across all US nuclear bombs.

From my limited understanding, I don't think nanothermite is anything like as dangerous as weapons-grade plutonium. Of course, I don't have the foggiest understanding of how it's made, but that's doesn't mean that it can't be, and can't be made safely in significant quantities given enough resources.

1) You are incorrect. The Manhattan project cost $2bn, equivalent to around $26bn today. Not '$20bn back in the 1940s'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

2) It was kept secret because the USA was involved in WWII.

3). We are not talking about life insurance, to introduce it is merely diversionary.

4) I reiterate, making a dangerous material in small-scale quantities (e.g. grammes) is entirely different to scaling-up to manufacturing tonnes of dangerous materials. And yes, often it does mean it can't be made in larger enough quantities safely. I've looked at scaling up production of two dangerous bench-scale materials over the past 12 months, have you?

5) Even the military doesn't have infinite resources. Vast, yes - infinite, no.

 

[Jazzz]

And flying a passenger jet into a tower block is going to trigger any number of electrical faults. There is no proof that these explosions were the result of a controlled demolition.

Which is precisely a proper investigation needs to be conducted. Not one that assumes what happened and refuses to look into any evidence that may point in a contrary direction.

 

[Jazzz]

I've looked at scaling up production of two dangerous bench-scale materials over the past 12 months, have you?

If you can create 1kg of something, I would venture the US military could create a tonne of it if it really wanted.

 

[butchersapron]

If you can create 1kg of something, I would venture the US military could create a tonne of it if it really wanted.

Is that a no?

 

[equationgirl]

Which is precisely a proper investigation needs to be conducted. Not one that assumes what happened and refuses to look into any evidence that may point in a contrary direction.

It's not me that refuses to look into any evidence that may point in a contrary direction, Jazzz, you should look in the mirror for that.

I have deployed large amounts of common sense though, which tells me that flying a large plane into a skyscraper - so that the plane deeply penetrates the building - will sever a number of electric cables, and that in turn will cause a variety of electrical faults.

 

[equationgirl]

If you can create 1kg of something, I would venture the US military could create a tonne of it if it really wanted.

That's a no then. Because you have absolutely no idea of what's involved.

 

[equationgirl]

Jazzz - care to post a reference for the Manhattan project costs you claim were $20bn in the 1940s?

 

[Jazzz]

It's not me that refuses to look into any evidence that may point in a contrary direction

I'm not talking about you, silly! I'm talking about the NIST investigation which controlled, threw away and suppressed all the evidence! And refuses to do the simple tests which could rule out controlled demolition! Refuses to let anyone else look at the steel! Refuses to release its data for peer review!

This was from Fire Engineering in 2002:

$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION
BY BILL MANNING
01/01/2002
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...ors-opinion/elling-out-the-investigation.html

Complete Failure to Comply with Crime-Scene Protocol at WTC

Although the attacks were clearly the crime of the century, the impact areas weren’t treated as crime scenes to be studied. Ground Zero was sealed it off from journalists and photographers and deliberately disturbed before evidence could be tagged, photographed, and studied (AP 9/27/01).

The cleanup effort was immense. Thousands took part—including police, firefighters, and iron workers, many of whom came to New York voluntarily from all over the country (Guardian [UK] 9/11/09). Despite their heroic efforts and good intentions, the use of heavy machinery to remove debris greatly reduced the possibilities for learning much from “the Pile.” In a delightful irony, visitors who were threatened with arrest for taking photos were told “it’s a crime scene”—this was the bogus pretext for banning photos and videos (AP 9/27/01).

Wreckage from the World Trade Center (WTC) was rapidly destroyed. Less than two weeks after the attacks, the City accepted a proposal to recycle the steel from the collapsed buildings. The overwhelming majority of it was quickly cut up, shipped off, or melted down without proper documentation or forensic analysis, in violation of federal law (NYT 12/25/01). Most of the steel was quite literally on a slow boat to China. Although the steel was deemed of no use to investigators, it was considered important enough to equip all trucks hauling it with GPS locaters, at a cost of $1000 apiece, so its location could always be known (http://www.securitysolutions.com/mag/security_gps_job_massive/index.html).

http://www.mountingevidence.org/appendix-c.html

 

[butchersapron]

I'm talking about the NIST investigation which controlled, threw away and suppressed all the evidence!

This is why it's much better just to do the sort of demolition job (huh huh) he's had on the court/licence fee thread.

 

[equationgirl]

Jazzz - do NOT call me silly. It's both belittling and insulting. Stop it. I'm not some small child, I'm a highly-educated grown woman.

Please address the questions asked of you instead of posting more cut & paste epics.

 

[equationgirl]

It may have been a crime scene but firefighters and police personnel were searching for the bodies of their fallen friends, comrades and familes. Crime scene protocols were observed as much as possible under the circumstances, especially given the amount of asbestos in the debris.

 

[frogwoman]

"mountingevidence.org" yeah that's not at all biased

 

[Jazzz]

It may have been a crime scene but firefighters and police personnel were searching for the bodies of their fallen friends, comrades and familes. Crime scene protocols were observed as much as possible under the circumstances, especially given the amount of asbestos in the debris.

No they certainly were not otherwise they wouldn't have thrown away the steel! With respect you are no expert on the 9/11 investigation at all.

 

[equationgirl]

No they certainly were not otherwise they wouldn't have thrown away the steel! With respect you are no expert on the 9/11 investigation at all.

Neither are you.

Where do you propose they should have kept all the debris? Should they have gone looking for all the missing pieces that were spread over lower Manhattan?

Have you ever done disaster site management?

 

[Jazzz]

Jazzz - do NOT call me silly. It's both belittling and insulting. Stop it. I'm not some small child, I'm a highly-educated grown woman.

I'm sorry equationgirl!

I quite like you really. Even if you are bit silly.

 

[editor]

I'm sorry equationgirl!

I quite like you really. Even if you are bit silly.

She's proved herself to be way smarter than you.