Nanothermite and the World Trade Center

[fogbat]

like flies round shit.

So you agree it is shit?

 

[fogbat]

Kudos to Jazzz for completely ignoring Free Spirit's arguments, btw.

 

[Dandred]

Kudos to Jazzz for completely ignoring Free Spirit's arguments, btw.

Why would he let science get in the way of his trooth?

 

[Nylock]

Honestly, why the hell do you all bother. No matter what science/cites/evidence/logic/authority you bring to this discussion, Jazzz is not going to consider any of it. He skim reads your rebuttals just enough so he can google up some fuckawful loonsite that he can claim answers it, but that's all. He has absolutely no intention, ever, of being swayed on this. He's a true believer with unswerving faith. His personal religion is that the lizard jew illuminati staged it all to transform the jolly jape of crashing a couple of titchy tiny planes into various buildings into a terrible disaster. There's nothing mere reason can do to persuade this level of fanatic that he's wrong.

[/Thread]

 

[editor]

I love it when someone contradicts themselves in the same post

I think you need to look up what a "community" is.

Clue: it's more than one person.

 

[existentialist]

I think you need to look up what a "community" is.

Clue: it's more than one person.

Not when it's the Urban monothought clique, it's not.

 

[8ball]

Kudos to Jazzz for completely ignoring Free Spirit's arguments, btw.

Hmmm. If he follows his usual pattern he won't be back after your post.

(obviously my post alters the probabilities somewhat)

Also - to Jazzz - could you please respond to the last 20 threads where you vanished once your arse was handed to you on a plate - kthxbai

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are there any good theories around how 'they' smuggled in hundreds of tonnes of explosives into one of the busiest office blocks in the world (that had previously been subject to a terrorist attack)?

I need cheering up.

One bloke, bringing in 500g of semtex up his arse every day for ten years.

 

[ViolentPanda]

"...little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked"

"The building structure would still be there."

"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it"

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners"

What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

"Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse"

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

You're aware how much smaller and lighter a 707 was compared to a 767 (the planes flown into the WTC twin towers)?

Maximum take-off weight of the heaviest version of the 707 (the 320B) was 151,300kg, maximum length was 46 and a half meters.
Maximum take-off weight for the lightest version of the 767 (the 200, which is what both AA flight 11 and UA flight 175 were versions of) is 179,000kg, at a length of 48 and a half meters. That's a 28 tonne weight difference, travelling at around 350mph. That's a lot of extra kinetic energy over and above a 707.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Difference between a Boeing 707 & a Boeing 767:
B-707 | B-767
145ft | 159ft (Length)
12ft | 16ft (Fuselage Width)
14ft | 18ft (Fuselage Height)
131ft | 156ft (Wingspan)
42ft | 52ft (Tail Height)
116.5t| 179t (Max takeoff weight)
65.5KL| 90KL (Fuel Capacity (KiloLiters))
540Kn | 493Kn (Cruising Speed (Knots))

Boeing 767 is:
14ft Longer
4ft wider/taller on fuselage
25ft wider on wingspan
10ft higher on Tail height
62.5t heavier at takeoff
carrying 24,500 more litres of fuel
47kn slower at cruising speed.

so... from the stats provided you can 'do the math' (as your fellow 911 troofer buddies are prone to saying) and work out just how much more force a 767 can bring to bear on a steel and concrete structure than a 707 can. Bearing in mind very tall structures like WTC 1&2 are built for both lightness and strength and are not 1000ft tall fortresses...

I compared heaviest 707 version with lightest 767, and even with the reduced differences, there's still 28 tonnes and some change difference in weight. One doesn't have to be a physicist to see the difference, and yet jazzz can't.

 

[existentialist]

You're aware how much smaller and lighter a 707 was compared to a 767 (the planes flown into the WTC twin towers)?

Maximum take-off weight of the heaviest version of the 707 (the 320B) was 151,300kg, maximum length was 46 and a half meters.
Maximum take-off weight for the lightest version of the 767 (the 200, which is what both AA flight 11 and UA flight 175 were versions of) is 179,000kg, at a length of 48 and a half meters. That's a 28 tonne weight difference, travelling at around 350mph. That's a lot of extra kinetic energy over and above a 707.

Facts. Pah.

 

[Nylock]

You're aware how much smaller and lighter a 707 was compared to a 767 (the planes flown into the WTC twin towers)?

Maximum take-off weight of the heaviest version of the 707 (the 320B) was 151,300kg, maximum length was 46 and a half meters.
Maximum take-off weight for the lightest version of the 767 (the 200, which is what both AA flight 11 and UA flight 175 were versions of) is 179,000kg, at a length of 48 and a half meters. That's a 28 tonne weight difference, travelling at around 350mph. That's a lot of extra kinetic energy over and above a 707.

I said as much with tabulated comparison data on the previous page... Maybe in using the numbers i was doing it wrong

E2A: Nvm

 

[Lemon Eddy]

I've got to say one thing - I've actually learned quite a lot from this thread, all down to people trying to correct Jazzz's claims. I had no idea that even back in the 60's engineers were designing buildings like these for scenarios such as plane hits.

 

[Nylock]

I compared heaviest 707 version with lightest 767, and even with the reduced differences, there's still 28 tonnes and some change difference in weight. One doesn't have to be a physicist to see the difference, and yet jazzz can't.

I used the 707-120B and compared with the 767-200... (This more for Jazzz's benefit than yours )

 

[frogwoman]

It woz the badgers wot dunit m'lud

Badgers are stripey and Jews wear stripey shawls when in the synagogue. Badgers have black fur and some Jews have black clothes. Badgers don't eat pigs because the pigs are too big and neither do Jews. Badgers have long noses and Jews -

Hmm it all begins to make sense now.

 

[Blagsta]

Badgers are stripey and Jews wear stripey shawls when in the synagogue. Badgers have black fur and some Jews have black clothes. Badgers don't eat pork and neither do Jews

Hmm it all begins to make sense now.

I saw a dead badger by the side of the road the other day.

*taps nose*

 

[frogwoman]

Have you ever seen a badger and a jew in the same room?

 

[Blagsta]

say badger enough times and it sounds like "bad jew"

 

[frogwoman]

why has nobody mentioned this theory before today? we know the answer to that dont we? because the truth has been suppressed!

 

[goldenecitrone]

Guess how many badgers were in the World Trade Centre on that fateful day. Exactly.

 

[editor]

Guess how many badgers were in the World Trade Centre on that fateful day. Exactly.

None because they were tipped off by a holographic jew missile.

 

[frogwoman]

one of the elders of zion, yesterday

 

[BigTom]

No, you're clearly wrong because Jews are lizards and Badgers are mammals. I'm not sure where this Badger stuff has come from, probably co-intel pro using delphi mind tricks or chemtrail mind control stuff. It's obviously wrong though, and I can produce plenty of scientific papers to prove that Badgers are mammals not lizards.

 

[DotCommunist]

farmers also want jews culled without any good reason. Bloody farmers.

 

[Jazzz]

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.

But the nanothermitic material found by Harrit et at. is not 'rust and aluminium' - it's bilayered chip of very fine quality.

If you blow up a stack up books, you aren't going to get a library.

There's no scientist signing up to this explanation.

 

[frogwoman]

It's Purim starting from tomorrow and I am sure a jew somewhere in the world has dressed up as ... a badger! on that most nefarious of days dedicated to celebrating the hanging of that brave truth-seeker who died in his quest to expose THE TRUTH.

 

[existentialist]

But the nanothermitic material found by Harrit et at. is not 'rust and aluminium' - it's bilayered chip of very fine quality.

If you blow up a stack up books, you aren't going to get a library.

There's no scientist signing up to this explanation.

Most scientists have got more important things to do than point out to cargo cultists that those things on their ears are half-coconuts.

 

[SpineyNorman]

So are we all now agreed that badgers did 9/11? Not all badgers, we're not bigots - just the rothschild zionist ones. That's why the badger cull happened - some brave, heroic badgers were about to blow the whistle so they had to be 'dealt with'.

 

[free spirit]

But the nanothermitic material found by Harrit et at. is not 'rust and aluminium' - it's bilayered chip of very fine quality.

If you blow up a stack up books, you aren't going to get a library.

There's no scientist signing up to this explanation.

No scientist of any note is going to waste their time with this rubbish. I'm currently sat across the room from a Professor of Combustion Engineering, who specialises in fire and explosion hazards, but would be far too embarrassed to ask him to give an opinion on something as fucking obvious as this.

There is a huge flaw in your and that paper's logic on this, namely that they're examining all the Iron based chips within their dust samples and claiming that all of them are nanothermite.

Even if there was some artificially introduced nanothermite present, then they should have been finding the cast majority of the Iron based samples to not have been this substance, and only a small minority to have been this nano thermite. The 200,000 or so tonnes of galvanised steel used in the structure of the building can not possibly have just disappeared, and should logically form the vast bulk of the Iron based particles found within the dust - it should have been at most 1% nanothermite particles, 99% steel from the building, but the report authors are claiming that all the steel particles found were actually nanothermite particles.

This is so obviously bullshit that tbh anyone taken in by this is showing themselves to be fucking clueless.

Elements present in steel
Fe, C, Mn, P, S, Si, O, N, Al, plus sometimes NI, Cr, Mo, Bo, Ti, V, & Nb

Chemistry of the hot dip galv layer
ZnCO3 - usually a dull grey layer btw

Chemicals present in glass
SI, Na, O, Ca, and sometimes Cl

plus lots of Al in the window frames

Chemicals found in the samples
Fe, C, O, Fe, Mg, Al, Si, S, K, Ca, Ti

This is just rusty specs of steel ffs, and why would anyone deliberately use steel in thermite rather than just iron itself, which rusts much easier than steel?

I also love the fact that they see the fact that this has a much lower auto ignition temperature than is the case with all known commercial thermites as evidence that this is some unknown super thermite material rather than just evidence that it's not a deliberately produced form of thermite at all, just a mixture of the iron based remnants of various parts of the building structure.

 

[goldenecitrone]

This is so obviously bullshit that tbh anyone taken in by this is showing themselves to be fucking clueless.

Thread over.