Nanothermite and the World Trade Center

[editor]

Well, both are good science. But say, how do you look for evidence to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis?

Any idea why the entire demolition community hasn't united to condemn the official story if it's such an obvious conspiracy?

As far as I can see, out of the tens of thousands of real experts with regular hands-on experiences of demolishing enormous buildings, you've only managed to trawl up a handful of retired types.

So why are the all the other workers keeping quiet?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Name one scientific reason, or scientific forensic investigation that either has been or could be done, to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence

 

[equationgirl]

As noted in earlier post, Bentham publish some 200 papers, and they claim that they are peer-reviewed. Whilst there may have been a problem with one paper, I don't believe anyone has succeeded in submitting nonsense articles to the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

But in any case, the point is moot - the paper is open for the peer-review process of the entire world. If any scientist has a criticism to make of it, we're all ears. So far there's been nothing forthcoming.

200 papers - are you kidding me? That's barely anything for a journal publisher. And as for your assertion that no-one has succeeded in submitting nonsense articles, you're wrong. THIS thermite paper, the one in the OP, resulted in an editor resigning. That's because it should never have been published, because it was nonsense.

Do you even know what a peer review process is?

 

[existentialist]

Sorry guys, I've had enough of your snide asides and am outing you both in the talking utter crap stakes. It was a mistake for you to join in here bees.

Name one scientific reason, or scientific forensic investigation that either has been or could be done, to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis.

O noez! Outed by Jazzz!

 

[Jazzz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence

Could you please explain your point in detail IN YOUR OWN WORDS instead of hiding behind snide remarks, facepalms, one-liners, and links to huge articles?

:

 

[two sheds]

Sorry guys, I've had enough of your snide asides and am outing you both in the talking utter crap stakes. It was a mistake for you to join in here bees.

Name one scientific reason, or scientific forensic investigation that either has been or could be done, to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis.

No I agree with this. In addition people please name one scientific reason, or scientific forensic investigation that either has been or could be done, to disprove the buildings being demolished by blue-green aliens with pink antennae.

 

[Jazzz]

O noez! Outed by Jazzz!

Good. Now please run off and leave the thread to people that actually have the balls for proper discussion.

 

[Wilf]

I wouldn't risk my TV licence on this being true.

 

[Jazzz]

No I agree with this. In addition people please name one scientific reason, or scientific forensic investigation that either has been or could be done, to disprove the buildings being demolished by blue-green aliens with pink antennae.

two sheds, this line was started by existentialist who suggested that proper science involved looking for evidence to disprove a hypothesis. I am not attempting to displace the burden of proof - however there is a very salient point to be made here.

 

[Jazzz]

So why are the all the other workers keeping quiet?

 

[editor]

--

Posting up an unexplained YouTube video does not answer the question, or to quote you: "Could you please explain your point in detail IN YOUR OWN WORDS."

So I'll ask again: seeing as there's tens of thousands of real experts with regular hands-on experiences of demolishing enormous buildings all around the world, why aren't they all kicking up a fuss about this supposed obvious deception?

Or do you think they're all too stupid to see it?

 

[Jazzz]

It's within your capabilities to work that one out editor.

 

[editor]

It's within your capabilities to work that one out editor.

Don't patronise me. Answer the question please.

 

[Jazzz]

Don't patronise me. Answer the question please.

okay, since you insist. It is worth noting that to speak out is to risk (certainly) your job and quite possibly your life as well. Danny Jowenko was a controlled demolition expert who unequivocally declared the collapse of WTC7 to be controlled demolition.

 

[equationgirl]

It's within your capabilities to work that one out editor.

Because you don't know the answer, do you?

You don't ever actually want to discuss anything, really, you just want us to be grateful for being shown the 'truth'.

 

[Wilf]

So I'll ask again: seeing as there's tens of thousands of real experts with regular hands-on experiences of demolishing enormous buildings all around the world, why aren't they all kicking up a fuss about this supposed obvious deception?

Not to mention the many hundreds of people who must have been involved in the political conspiracy, the vast explosives project that brought the towers down, the cover up, the people who hoodwinked the media, the assassins who killed various people afterwards. Why have none of them peeled off and blown the whistle? When something really happened, somone always blabs - the soldier who developed a conscience, the civil servant who falls for an attractive journalist, the bloke who gets pissed with journalist.

Jazzz, rather than adding layer upon layer of detail, of plot (not, I'd imagine, all internally consistent), why don't you address that? How has the biggest and most technically involved conspiracy in all human history been so tightly maintained? Is it because it didn't happen?

 

[editor]

okay, since you insist. It is worth noting that to speak out is to risk (certainly) your job and quite possibly your life as well. Danny Jowenko was a controlled demolition expert who unequivocally declared the collapse of WTC7 to be controlled demolition.

Except he died in 2011. TEN YEARS after 9/11 so they sure took their time bumping him off, and gave him lots of time to do as many TV interviews as he liked in the meantime. So where would be the logic in that?

Now what about all the tens of thousands of demolition experts all around the world? Why haven't loads of them all spoken out if the deception is as obvious as you claim?

Can you come up with a credible answer for that one?

 

[free spirit]

Sorry guys, I've had enough of your snide asides and am outing you both in the talking utter crap stakes. It was a mistake for you to join in here bees.

Name one scientific reason, or scientific forensic investigation that either has been or could be done, to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis.

I've disproved it on this very thread using the very data given in the very paper you quoted.

Unless you think it even vaguely plausible that there were somewhere between dozens and hundreds of lorry loads of thermite deliberately placed within the building.

The supposed thermite residue found at the concentrations found in the paper prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they must have resulted from reactions between the steel work, iron, copper, aluminium and other substances within the building structural basically burning as thermite within the raging furnace that existed in the basement for several days.

They're concentrations are several orders of magnitude too high for them to have been anything to do with thermite deliberately used within the building to cut the steel supports.

That's assuming the dust samples are anything like representative, which they may well not be, but this is the best evidence you've got so you're a bit fucked either way if you're now going to argue that point.

TBH if thermite was used, then you've literally no way of being able to tell in these conditions as the volumes would be so small in proportion to the volumes of residue caused by the high temperature reactions of the metalwork within the building structure itself that it'd be impossible to tell if it was there or not.

 

[equationgirl]

Sorry guys, I've had enough of your snide asides and am outing you both in the talking utter crap stakes. It was a mistake for you to join in here bees.

Name one scientific reason, or scientific forensic investigation that either has been or could be done, to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis.

This website is full of experiments and scientific investigations that disprove many if not all of the arguments of 9/11 conspiracies.

http://www.debunking911.com/

I suggest you read it.

 

[Jazzz]

TBH if thermite was used, then you've literally no way of being able to tell in these conditions as the volumes would be so small in proportion to the volumes of residue caused by the high temperature reactions of the metalwork within the building structure itself that it'd be impossible to tell if it was there or not.

In which case, nothing in your argument disproves a controlled demolition hypothesis, thermite or otherwise.

How about....

TESTING THE STEEL DEBRIS FOR EXPLOSIVES?

... would that be a sensible forensic science investigation?

Put your scientific hats on!

 

[editor]

Jazz: Have you any credible evidence at all to prove that Danny Jowenko was bumped off? Anything at all?
What did his family say about it? How about the local accident investigators? Anything?

 

[Jazzz]

200 papers - are you kidding me? That's barely anything for a journal publisher. And as for your assertion that no-one has succeeded in submitting nonsense articles, you're wrong. THIS thermite paper, the one in the OP, resulted in an editor resigning. That's because it should never have been published, because it was nonsense.

My bad, 200 journals, not 200 papers.

If you are going to claim that Harrit et al.'s paper is 'nonsense' I would like to know a reason or rationale.

 

[free spirit]

btw, that there is a demonstration of why papers should be treated with suspicion and appraised critically, even more than usual, if they appear in not very well peer reviewed journals. The flaws in the logic of that paper are so obvious that any half credible journal and peer review process should have laughed it out of the room before it got anywhere close to publication, or at least redrafted it so that it was clear what it actually showed - ie nothing unexpected, rather than the message it does give.

TBH I think there are a lot of lessons that ought to be learned from the WTC fire and collapse, and the chemical reactions that fuelled the fires in the basement, and potentially earlier prior to the actual collapse, as if this data is anything like right, then it'd seem that huge quantities of rusted steel / iron and aluminium were burned, and I'd actually suspect that this reaction was actually being sustained by the water being poured into it creating superheated steam, which quickly rusted the fragmented steel work from the concrete reinforcing etc at high temperatures, which then supplied the oxygen for the thermite reaction with aluminium, which then raised the temperatures sufficiently to fully melt the steel and other metals... which would explain the continued burning of the fires when the lack of oxygen supply should have damped them, and the pools of molten metal that can't directly be explained by the temperatures achieved from burning jet fuel.

It's potentially interesting stuff, and the actual process that took place that led to the buildings collapsing does deserve proper investigation, not for the reasons Jazz keeps giving us, but for it's implications for building design, and fire fighting methods that should be employed in these massive steel framed buildings. If above certain temperatures it's actually the case that pouring water on the burning building is actually providing the chemical precursor (rust) needed to ignite a self sustaining exothermic thermite reaction between the rusts in steel / iron / copper and aluminium, plus the zinc coating used to galvanise much of the steel work, which would first melt off the steel work to expose the steel to the water to for the rust reaction, then actually boils at around 900 deg C.

basically there's a whole cocktail of metals in there in close proximity that could combine with water at high temperatures to create extreme self perpetuating exothermic reactions above certain temperatures to the cause the supporting steel work of the building to reach the temperatures needed to lose sufficient strength to bring the building crashing down.

 

[Nylock]

"We have suggested and recommended to NIST that they should look for remains and traces of explosives, and they have refused to do so every time. They have not investigated it" - Niels Harrit

A precis of the explosives research by Jim Hoffman:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[free spirit]

In which case, nothing in your argument disproves a controlled demolition hypothesis, thermite or otherwise.

How about....

TESTING THE STEEL DEBRIS FOR EXPLOSIVES?

... would that be a sensible forensic science investigation?

Put your scientific hats on!

wtf are you on about?

no explosive residue was found by the scientist you quoted, the only residue found was particles that demonstrated a thermite reaction had been taking place in huge volumes. It'd be impossible to test whether this reaction resulted from actual thermite manufactured for the purpose of bringing the building down, or from the thermite reaction that occurred unintentionally as the building fabric itself burned for several days in a thermite reaction.

So no, I've not disproved that thermite could have been used as a controlled demolition, I've just proved that the only evidence you have for it is nothing of the sort, so you're back to a position of basically making it up as a theory without a shred of evidence to back it up, and where there exists several perfectly plausible causes for the buildings collapsing without the need for any form of demolition charges to be involved.

 

[Dandred]

Jazzz I think you should carefully read the posts that free spirit has made on this thread.

 

[free spirit]

ps you keep banging on about science, well there you go, that's science in action right there.

Your guys posited a hypothesis, I've tested that hypothesis and shown beyond reasonable doubt why their hypothesis can't actually explain the proportions found, and why there is a far more rational explanation to explain the data they obtained.

In a nutshell, that is the scientific method in action, and I didn't even need to do any experiments because many far more brilliant minds than mine have done all the necessary work before me, all I need to do is find the basic information about the reactions involved, then use my (fairly good) knowledge of the elements present in a building of this nature to ascertain that all the necessary elements existed in vast quantities within the building fabric itself to produce the products found in the paper, assuming sufficient input of heat and water, both of which were present due to the burning jet fuel and the sprinkler systems which would inevitably have been in use.

 

[Jazzz]

wtf are you on about?

no explosive residue was found by the scientist you quoted, the only residue found was particles that demonstrated a thermite reaction had been taking place in huge volumes.

Well no, that's not the case, Harrit found unreacted thermitic material (I think you address other points):

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

The puzzlement is over a bit of cross-thread direction brought about by the sneering of existentialist, who posited that Harrit's science was not proper science, because one should not look for evidence to back up a hypothesis, but evidence to disprove it. So (having been quite unimpressed with his contributions to discussion) I challenged him as to what science one should attempt, or to quote an already existing reason, in order to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis. The point is important, as NIST, who controlled the forensic evidence and investigation, have refused to do the very simple tests that would settle the matter such as testing the steel for 'twinning'. They have done precisely nothing to examine the hypothesis. Why not? It is actually a criminal lack of forensic investigation.

Harrit believes that vast amounts of explosive (thermitic or otherwise) was used to demolish the three WTC skyscrapers.

 

[free spirit]

just returning to Zinc for a minute, Zinc dust apparently has an auto ignition temperature of 460 deg C, I'm not sure exactly what the autoignition temperature is for it when not in dust form, but it's almost certainly going to be lower than the temperatures reached by huge volumes of jet fuel burning in close proximity.

Zinc is the most common galvanising agent used in the majority of galvanised steel, which in turn is used in the vast majority of air conditioning ducts, and for the framework for partition walls, which would both have been present on the floors that were hit by the planes in significant quantities, so it's basically guaranteed that the zinc coatings and any zinc dust will have burned off, which in turn both raises the temperatures significantly in the vicinity of these ducts and partition walls, as well as removing all the rust protection for the steel work it was protecting.

In close proximity to these ducts and internal walls will have been all the cabling for the building, made from copper. Copper starts to ignite in dust form at around 700 deg C, and in molten form a bit above that.

Iron starts to ignite at around 930 deg C

Aluminium at around 660 deg c.

Ignition temperatures are in oxygenated air for the metal in dust form, so in none dust form it'd be higher than that, but still well within the sorts of temperatures that would be reached from a combination of the jet fuel and other lower ignition point metals (eg the zinc) would achieve.

Air flow would have been good due to the huge hole in the side of the building, plus the lift shaft, plus the venitliation ducts.

So essentially the presence of huge volumes of burning jet fuel provided the heat that would be needed to set off a chain reaction of the metals burning, starting with the zinc coatings, then the copper cables, and or aluminium, then the now not so galvanised steel ventilation ducts, and partition hangers etc, with all these services probably running up the building in ducts right next to the central core supporting steels of the building, until the steels are weakened to the point where they can no longer support the load of the building above and the whole lot comes crashing down.

It's really not that much of a mystery why this would have happened.

The worrying thing for me is the number of architects and structural engineers who obviously don't know enough about the materials they're specifying in these buildings to cause them to make such stupid statements as they make on that architects and engineers for 911 crap website. IMO they should all be struck off for incompetence just for not knowing this shit.

I strongly suspect that there are a hell of a lot more steel framed buildings out there that are also a lot more susceptible to collapse due to fire caused by the sort of chain reaction outlined above than the architects and SE's of this world would like us to believe. I suspect that once a fire got above a certain temperature it'd likely set off the sort of chain reaction given above, and reach the temperatures needed to bring the building down - unless they've really taken to separating the ducting from the structural core of the building.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0482073

 

[free spirit]

Well no, that's not the case, Harrit found unreacted thermitic material (I think you address other points):



http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

The puzzlement is over a bit of cross-thread direction brought about by the sneering of existentialist, who posited that Harrit's science was not proper science, because one should not look for evidence to back up a hypothesis, but evidence to disprove it. So (having been quite unimpressed with his contributions to discussion) I challenged him as to what science one should attempt, or to quote an already existing reason, in order to disprove a controlled demolition hypothesis. The point is important, as NIST, who controlled the forensic evidence and investigation, have refused to do the very simple tests that would settle the matter such as testing the steel for 'twinning'. They have done precisely nothing to examine the hypothesis. Why not? It is actually a criminal lack of forensic investigation.

Harrit believes that vast amounts of explosive (thermitic or otherwise) was used to demolish the three WTC skyscrapers.

unreacted thermite material is rust and aluminum, both of which would have been present in pulverised form in the dust in significant quantities just from the buildings fabric.