Nanothermite and the World Trade Center

[Delroy Booth]

Can I just ask, anyone but Jazzz, what is nano-thermite? As compared to normal thermite?

If I have it right, conspiracy theorists (or at least those making more of an effort to be consistent than Jazzz) tend to shy away from thermite because there's some very obvious flaws with it. Firstly, it's a terrible material for doing a controlled demolition. It burns chaotically and unpredictably. Secondly it would require so much of the damn stuff to get through the hundreds upon hundreds of tonnes of re-inforced steel girders that held up the WTC that the idea someone has been able to set it up without noticing is absolutely ridiculous.

So instead they refer to some sort of "weaponised nano-thermite" which instead of being like the regular run of the mill thermite is altered on a sub-atomic level in some vague way to overcome these obstacles. The theories I've heard are they put it into paint and painted over the bits of the girders they wanted to weaken when the plane hits, and because it's "nano-thermite" not normal thermite they don't need hundreds and hundreds of tonnes of the stuff.

Great theory except I'm not sure anyone's ever confirmed that this stuff actually exists, outside of people's heads at least. Surely it's a sign of desperation when the cornerstone of your conspiracy theory rests on a substance that no-one can prove even exists. Anyone prove this one way or the other? Anyone BUT Jazzz that should say, as he's already demonstrated an ability to try palming off disingenuous sources from charlatans and hucksters on here many times before.

 

[editor]

Right, but you are not suggesting that you can heat rust by itself to create elemental iron?

Hence the particles found by Harrit are not rust.

Can you perhaps give some examples of demolition firms using this amazingly effective and efficient means of bringing down tall buildings, please?

It's been over a decade since 9/11 so there must be loads and loads of examples you can post up.

 

[free spirit]

Can I just ask, anyone but Jazzz, what is nano-thermite? As compared to normal thermite

Smaller, better mixed particles for a faster, more complete (and therefore hotter) reaction with lower ignition temperatures. I think.

but mostly it's the fact that some scientist who obviously knows nothing of building construction materials found some really small particles of something that had a vaguely similar chemical make up to thermite, which after all is just rust and aluminium, and then decided this must actually be nanothermite deliberately placed in the building to bring it down should a passing jet happen to set light to it.

 

[editor]

Smaller, better mixed particles for a faster, more complete (and therefore hotter) reaction with lower ignition temperatures. I think.

but mostly it's the fact that some scientist who obviously knows nothing of building construction materials found some really small particles of something that had a vaguely similar chemical make up to thermite, which after all is just rust and aluminium, and then decided this must actually be nanothermite deliberately placed in the building to bring it down should a passing jet happen to set light to it.

And it proved so fantastic at bringing down tall structures that it's, err, never ever been used since anywhere else in the world.

 

[free spirit]

And it proved so fantastic at bringing down tall structures that it's, err, never ever been used since anywhere else in the world.

tbf, if you wanted to covertly bring a building down, then thermite would be a good choice as the start and finish products are all present within the building structure in huge volumes, so it'd be virtually impossible to identify any thermite in the debris, at least if a lot of fire was involved.

Why you'd then also go to the bother of flying 2 planes into the buildings as well though is a different matter.

 

[equationgirl]

And it proved so fantastic at bringing down tall structures that it's, err, never ever been used since anywhere else in the world.

And so good the entire civil engineering community has never been convinced of is, apart from the few engineers who have bought into this theory.

 

[equationgirl]

tbf, if you wanted to covertly bring a building down, then thermite would be a good choice as the start and finish products are all present within the building structure in huge volumes, so it'd be virtually impossible to identify any thermite in the debris, at least if a lot of fire was involved.

Why you'd then also go to the bother of flying 2 planes into the buildings as well though is a different matter.

Which makes it incredible that materials alleged to be nanothermite could have been found at all, and also a bit

 

[free spirit]

Which makes it incredible that materials alleged to be nanothermite could have been found at all, and also a bit

it'd have been far more if such materials weren't found as it would have meant that none of the steel & aluminimum in the building had made it into the dust cloud.


eta - which is the major flaw with that report, as it seems to claim that all the particles containing Fe that were tested were nano thermite.

 

[equationgirl]

it'd have been far more if such materials weren't found as it would have meant that none of the steel & aluminimum in the building had made it into the dust cloud.

But how can one tell the difference between thermite and non-thermite materials in a big pile of rubble anyway?

 

[Jazzz]

It's not denied that thermite can cut columns, it's just that for the World Trade Centre you'd need thousands of tons of the stuff. Thousands upon thousands of tons snuck into the building unobserved.

Also it's known thermite burns chaotically, not in neat lines like an acetylene torch.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Can I just ask, anyone but Jazzz, what is nano-thermite? As compared to normal thermite?

If I have it right, conspiracy theorists (or at least those making more of an effort to be consistent than Jazzz) tend to shy away from thermite because there's some very obvious flaws with it. Firstly, it's a terrible material for doing a controlled demolition. It burns chaotically and unpredictably. Secondly it would require so much of the damn stuff to get through the hundreds upon hundreds of tonnes of re-inforced steel girders that held up the WTC that the idea someone has been able to set it up without noticing is absolutely ridiculous.

So instead they refer to some sort of "weaponised nano-thermite" which instead of being like the regular run of the mill thermite is altered on a sub-atomic level in some vague way to overcome these obstacles. The theories I've heard are they put it into paint and painted over the bits of the girders they wanted to weaken when the plane hits, and because it's "nano-thermite" not normal thermite they don't need hundreds and hundreds of tonnes of the stuff.

Great theory except I'm not sure anyone's ever confirmed that this stuff actually exists, outside of people's heads at least. Surely it's a sign of desperation when the cornerstone of your conspiracy theory rests on a substance that no-one can prove even exists. Anyone prove this one way or the other? Anyone BUT Jazzz that should say, as he's already demonstrated an ability to try palming off disingenuous sources from charlatans and hucksters on here many times before.

If you guys actually check out the video I linked to in the last post, it features debunking of the debunking - cutting of steel columns, including vertical ones, with relatively modest amounts of thermite. And strategies to simply cut the bolts using even less thermite.

DB - surely the whole point of Harrit's paper is proof that the stuff exists, or he wouldn't have found it.

There was all kinds of building work that went on in the World Trade Center. Entire floors were rented out privately.

 

[free spirit]

But how can one tell the difference between thermite and non-thermite materials in a big pile of rubble anyway?

well, I suppose you could do as the scientist quoted earlier suggested, and look at the ratios of Fe to AL present, which the chemical equation shows should be 1 atom to 1 atom, though Jazz's expert witness reckons it should be 0.17:1 for some reason, but either way none of the samples look anything like either of those ratios.

 

[equationgirl]

If you guys actually check out the video I linked to in the last post, it features debunking of the debunking - cutting of steel columns, including vertical ones, with relatively modest amounts of thermite. And strategies to simply cut the bolts using even less thermite.

DB - surely the whole point of Harrit's paper is proof that the stuff exists, or he wouldn't have found it.

There was all kinds of building work that went on in the World Trade Center. Entire floors were rented out privately.

If you actually check out anything anybody else has ever posted on one of your threads I'll eat my hat.

 

[Delroy Booth]

DB - surely the whole point of Harrit's paper is proof that the stuff exists, or he wouldn't have found it.

serves me right for asking.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

from Harrit's reply to Denis Rancourt:

ANSWER: Sensational. According to your suggestion, when you heat rust, elemental iron is formed. I look forward to the publication of this hypothesis in – say - Journal of Inorganic Chemistry (an ACS publication). If supported by observation(!) - be sure it will be accepted promptly and be widely recognized. Next time you present this hypothesis, the least you can do is to provide it with proper references and observations.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45837672/101220-Answer-to-Denis-Rancourt-1

Thanks for proving an earlier observation:

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.

That said, I'm still learning quite a lot from this thread (particularly from free spirit's tireless attempts to eradicate stupidity) so I suppose I should be grateful that Jazzz keeps the idiocy coming

 

[ViolentPanda]

Haven't seen this link before - backyard experiments prove that thermite can cut steel columns:

Thermite is also used to weld steel columns (and rails).

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's not denied that thermite can cut columns, it's just that for the World Trade Centre you'd need thousands of tons of the stuff. Thousands upon thousands of tons snuck into the building unobserved.

Also it's known thermite burns chaotically, not in neat lines like an acetylene torch.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Although it's fair to say that a combination of shaping the thermite charge and adding adjuvant metals can make it burn less chaotically. However, there's no process currently used that'd give it the same utility as a plasma cutter, for example.

 

[ViolentPanda]

tbf, if you wanted to covertly bring a building down, then thermite would be a good choice as the start and finish products are all present within the building structure in huge volumes, so it'd be virtually impossible to identify any thermite in the debris, at least if a lot of fire was involved.

Although you'd find an awful lot more metal oxides than would be attributable to the structure itself in the wreckage.

Why you'd then also go to the bother of flying 2 planes into the buildings as well though is a different matter.

Because the Joooz demanded it, silly!

 

[ViolentPanda]

But how can one tell the difference between thermite and non-thermite materials in a big pile of rubble anyway?

By grading the dust, one supposes.

 

[free spirit]

Although you'd find an awful lot more metal oxides than would be attributable to the structure itself in the wreckage.

not really. Probably a lot lower than 1% if there's 200,000 tonnes of steel used in the building, and IMO it'd take some extremely thorough forensic examination of the rubble and dust to pick up such residues in those sorts of proportions.

This in no way should be taken as supporting this nuts theory, just pointing out that the evidence presented can not possibly be taken as evidence to support the theory, and the fact that the single person with a background in the field proposes that it does should really automatically remove any credibility from anything he might say. I'm pretty astounded that this guy can reach this conclusion, it certainly looks like a not being able to see the wood for the trees type situation where he set off looking for evidence of the presence of thermite, found a thermite like substance that gave off an exothermic reaction, and immediately assumed it must actually have been thermite placed there deliberately to bring the buildings down, rather than taking a step back and assessing what other sources of those elements there might have been within the building.

 

[equationgirl]

By grading the dust, one supposes.

That's an awful lot of dust to be grading then

 

[Barking_Mad]

So you agree it is shit?

Yes, if you agree the people responding to it are the flies.

 

[ayatollah]

I just know I'm going to regret raising this, but standing back from the dodgy chemistry for a moment, can I just ask Jazz what the wider historical/political conclusion to be drawn out of his apparent belief that there actually is solid chemical evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down , not by the sheer kinetic energy and resulting fireball of fucking great fuel-filled airliners crashing into them, but by controlled internal demolition, actually is ?

Were the Islamic fundamentalist ,mainly Saudi, nutters who hijacked the planes all part of some US government (and their "puppetmasters"of course - yep we know who that means in conspiracy euphemism-speak don't we kiddies ... its those damned International Joos again ! ) plot too to kick off the "War on Terror" and the coming of the age of totalitarian ZOG tyranny ? Were there in fact no planes at all, but what we saw on our TV screens that day were simply CGI mock-ups inserted into the news feeds by the US Government ? Does Jazz think all the Jewish people working in the building were tipped off beforehand to take a sickie that day ? Basically what particular wider conspiracy scenario are you trying to buy us into Mr Jazz ? I think after 9 pages of this thread you could take the time off the chemistry issue to explain what we are being invited to conclude IF your assertion about a massive conspiracy to demolish the buildings using some sort of internally fixed explosives is true. It's hard not to simply conclude that you think this is all down to that good old" ZOG" (Zionist Occupation Government ) obsession in all its multi tentacular glory. Prove me wrong..and tell us what other , non-anti Semitic, wider political/historical theory about 9/11 you are pursuing with this thread ?

Please don't just say you put this thread up simply because "you thought it was interesting".

 

[fogbat]

Yes, if you agree the people responding to it are the flies.

Deal!

 

[Barking_Mad]

Deal!

Done

 

[Jazzz]

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.

 

[equationgirl]

There has been an official investigation, it just didn't say that it was because of nanothermite.

 

[Roadkill]

Sweet Mary mother of God.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

There has been an official investigation, it just didn't say that it was because of nanothermite.

The only investigation Jazzz wants is one that agrees with him. Nothing less will do

 

[equationgirl]

The only investigation Jazzz wants is one that agrees with him. Nothing less will do

Oh I think that's become only too clear given the whole 'it's a moral victory/no score draw result' on the TV licence thread

 

[equationgirl]

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.

Prove the BBC did this by posting a BBC link, for starters.

And the civil engineering community and the editorial staff & readership of 'Popular Mechanics' aren't 'serious researchers'? Really? Qualified professionals who investigated these claims are 'serious researchers'? Rubbish - they just didn't agree with you and your buddies.