hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 4 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Lots of possible explanations. Probably the most likely is as internal infrastructure collapsed (e.g. a floor or even part of a floor) then a very large volume of air would be compressed in a fraction of a second. Have you ever heard the justifications for the Holocaust? 1 Quote
Wilber Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 1 hour ago, hot enough said: Have you ever heard the justifications for the Holocaust? That's pretty pathetic. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Wilber said: That's pretty pathetic. Really, Wilber? Didn't it bother you even a wee bit to see the HUMAN BEING, one of yours, being blasted out the window of one of the twin towers by a huge explosion. Remember, NIST denied that there were any explosions. And you probably still trust these "scientists" who lied their asses off. All you people are defending those who have falsely accused the alleged hijackers. These same people illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, all based on lies, which, as we all know, is par for the course. Gulf of Tonkin, Nicaragua, Korea, Cambodia [no lies there, except for keeping it a compete secret], Laos, Indonesia, East Timor, Chagos Islands, the Maine, ... . A collection of holocausts. Quote
betsy Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, hot enough said: Really, Wilber? Didn't it bother you even a wee bit to see the HUMAN BEING, one of yours, being blasted out the window of one of the twin towers by a huge explosion. Remember, NIST denied that there were any explosions. And you probably still trust these "scientists" who lied their asses off. All you people are defending those who have falsely accused the alleged hijackers. These same people illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, all based on lies, which, as we all know, is par for the course. Gulf of Tonkin, Nicaragua, Korea, Cambodia [no lies there, except for keeping it a compete secret], Laos, Indonesia, East Timor, Chagos Islands, the Maine, ... . A collection of holocausts. Oh boy......not only do you ignore the rebuttals here (video and from Popular Mechanics, and the rebuttals on page 12).... But you've heaped upon accusations to boot! So, the hijackers were all falsely accused of causing the airplane to slam into the twin towers? And since they couldn't have known about the massive explosives that were placed in the twin towers (which anticipate their crashing into the buildings - psychics must've been consulted for this event), you're saying the hijackers were victims too! You plan to do any belated memorials and vigils for these poor hijackers? See what I mean about liberal minds? Edited March 4, 2017 by betsy Quote
Wilber Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 10 hours ago, hot enough said: Really, Wilber? Didn't it bother you even a wee bit to see the HUMAN BEING, one of yours, being blasted out the window of one of the twin towers by a huge explosion. Remember, NIST denied that there were any explosions. And you probably still trust these "scientists" who lied their asses off. All you people are defending those who have falsely accused the alleged hijackers. These same people illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, all based on lies, which, as we all know, is par for the course. Gulf of Tonkin, Nicaragua, Korea, Cambodia [no lies there, except for keeping it a compete secret], Laos, Indonesia, East Timor, Chagos Islands, the Maine, ... . A collection of holocausts. So anyone who dissagrees with your little fantasy is the same as a Nazi who wants to burn all the Jews. So this is supposed to be taken seriously? Double pathetic. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 3 hours ago, betsy said: Oh boy......not only do you ignore the rebuttals here (video and from Popular Mechanics, and the rebuttals on page 12).... See what I mean about liberal minds? Let's you and I, or anyone, Betsy, discuss the science. Show us that you understand what PM is really saying. PM's last offering is 2011. The study of science doesn't end, it always keeps on going. Remember, the chance of NIST's report on WTC7 being correct is zero. You can't go lower than zero. Tell me why, Betsy, NIST was able to do a "study", and come up with a "zero chance of being correct" report for WTC7 but it stopped at collapse initiation for WTCs 1 and 2? Quote
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Wilber said: So anyone who dissagrees with your little fantasy is the same as a Nazi who wants to burn all the Jews. So this is supposed to be taken seriously? Double pathetic. Wilber, the two year scientific study of NIST's WTC7 "study" came to the conclusion, because it studied all the science, that NIST's report had a zero chance of being correct. NIST denied explosions and yet you see with your own eyes a human being, one of the roughly 3,000 murdered that day, being explosively ejected from one of the twin towers, by a strong explosion, at high speed. And still you fantasize that the world renown liars are telling you the truth. How did the alleged hijackers melt the metals that had 1000F and up melting points above what jet fuel/office furnishings can provide? How did the alleged hijackers manage to get their hands on nanothermite, a US non-commercially available, recently developed at Lawrence Livermore Labs, high grade military explosive? Edited March 4, 2017 by hot enough Quote
betsy Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, hot enough said: Let's you and I, or anyone, Betsy, discuss the science. You're funny. NIST wasn't the only source. See? You're ignoring the refutations being give. Science does keep on advancing, BUT......BUT if you can't refute the latest conclusion that's based on science (and logic).......that means nothing has changed as far as your theory goes. It's still the same cockamamie theory that's been soundly refuted! Refer to page 12 and 15. You can't even recognize the science that's been given (along with logic), that refute your silly theory...... .........and you want to discuss science??? Gimme a break. Edited March 4, 2017 by betsy Quote
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 51 minutes ago, betsy said: You're funny. NIST wasn't the only source. See? You're ignoring the refutations being give. Science does keep on advancing, BUT......BUT if you can't refute the latest conclusion that's based on science (and logic).......that means nothing has changed as far as your theory goes. It's still the same cockamamie theory that's been soundly refuted! Refer to page 12 and 15. You can't even recognize the science that's been given (along with logic), that refute your silly theory...... .........and you want to discuss science??? Gimme a break. In all that, Betsy, there is no discussion of the science, by Betsy. Big type doesn't mean science. Quote
?Impact Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 1 hour ago, hot enough said: Wilber, the two year scientific study of NIST's WTC7 "study" came to the conclusion, because it studied all the science, that NIST's report had a zero chance of being correct. You keep quoting a two year study that has not produced any results yet. Quote
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ?Impact said: You keep quoting a two year study that has not produced any results yet. On the contrary. You keep illustrating that you are unable or highly reluctant [Why?] to do the simple research needed to find out the results of the study done by Professor Leroy Hulsey. Why are you so set on protecting the liars? How long will you continue this deception? Edited March 4, 2017 by hot enough Quote
?Impact Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: On the contrary. You keep illustrating that you are unable or highly reluctant [Why?] to do the simple research needed to find out the results of the study done by Professor Leroy Hulsey. Please, show me where these results are published. The simple fact, and the one that is confirmed by this video you keep pointing to is that they are not. He clearly ends your video stating that when his 2 grad students finally publish results he will be able to comment based on science. Quote
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Please, show me where these results are published. The simple fact, and the one that is confirmed by this video you keep pointing to is that they are not. He clearly ends your video stating that when his 2 grad students finally publish results he will be able to comment based on science. Let's see how long it takes the "scientist", to locate that. Why were carbon nanotubes found in WTC firemen, first responders, workers, ... ? Case Report: Lung Disease in World Trade Center Responders Exposed to Dust and Smoke: Carbon Nanotubes Found in the Lungs of World Trade Center Patients and Dust Samples Maoxin Wu1, Ronald E. Gordon1, Robin Herbert2, Maria Padilla3, Jacqueline Moline2, David Mendelson4, Virginia Litle5*, William D. Travis6, Joan Gil1 1Department of Pathology, 2Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, 3Division of Pulmonary and Sleep Medicine, 4Department of Radiology, and 5Department of Thoracic Surgery, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; 6Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA Quote
?Impact Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, hot enough said: Why were carbon nanotubes found in WTC firemen, first responders, workers, ... Nanomaterials such as CNT have many potential applications in electronics, computer, and aerospace industries because of their desirable electrical, mechanical, and thermal properties. They can either be commercially synthesized or can develop spontaneously over flames and high temperatures in the presence of carbon and a metal catalyst. CNT of commercial origin, common now, would not have been present in substantial numbers in the WTC complex before the disaster in 2001. Edited March 4, 2017 by ?Impact Quote
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 9 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Nanomaterials such as CNT have many potential applications in electronics, computer, and aerospace industries because of their desirable electrical, mechanical, and thermal properties. They can either be commercially synthesized or can develop spontaneously over flames and high temperatures in the presence of carbon and a metal catalyst. CNT of commercial origin, common now, would not have been present in substantial numbers in the WTC complex before the disaster in 2001. Less understood, and requiring further study, are unusual illnesses of the immune system commonly observed in the WTC first responders. These include various types of interstitial lung disease, such as eosinophilic pneumonia, granulomatous pneumonitis, and bronchial obliterans. Environmental triggers for these illnesses include aluminum silicates, which have been found in the lungs of WTC first responders at high levels in “unusual platy configurations.” [2] Other common WTC lung ailments include sarcoidosis, which is known to be caused by aluminum dust[3], and pulmonary fibrosis, which can be caused by aluminum oxide.[4] These findings have, until now, lacked an adequate scientific explanation. But recent research suggests a correlation with the causes of the destruction of WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7. Aluminum oxide – a potential cause of the observed pulmonary fibrosis – is a product of the thermite reaction, and there is now considerable evidence for the use of thermite in the destruction of WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7.[5] Additionally, aluminum and silicates – potential causes of the observed illnesses of the immune system – are components of nanothermite formulations. Thermite is a mixture of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that, when ignited, exhibits an extremely exothermic reaction producing aluminum oxide and the metal in molten form. The thermite reaction has been utilized for welding railroads ties and for cutting metal as with anti-tank grenades. Thermite has also been used to develop patented devices for the demolition of structures. One such device allows for demolition of a concrete structure “at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.”[6] A recent experiment shows that thermite can cut structural steel efficiently.[7] Sulfur is often added to thermite mixtures to improve the burn qualities and it is then called thermate. Nanothermite, or superthermite, is a more recently developed variation on thermite in which the aluminum and metal oxide are mixed on the nanometer scale, allowing for more rapid energy release. Nanothermite can be a simple mixture of nanometer-scale powders or it can be made in a silicon matrix, through a solution-based technique, resulting in “sol-gel” nanothermite. The sol-gel process allows for the use of organic materials which expand during the reaction, providing more explosive power. In 2009, an international team of researchers discovered what appear to be sol-gel nanothermite formulations in every WTC dust sample tested.[8] Additionally, similar to the findings of aluminum silicates in the lungs of first responders, the aluminum found in the nanothermite of WTC dust samples was present, along with silicon, in plate-like (platy) configurations.[9] Whether or not the platy configurations of aluminum silicates in the lungs of WTC workers are related to the platy configurations of aluminum and silicon in WTC dust samples is a question that should be answered through further investigation. Environmental factors A review of WTC environmental testing results produced by EPA and the University of California was published in 2008.[10] That review showed that air and aerosol emissions of sulfur and silicon compounds at Ground Zero provided evidence that energetic materials such as thermite and nanothermite were present. The silicon compounds (i.e. silicates) were indicative of the sol-gel variety of nanothermites, and the sulfur compounds suggested the presence of thermate, a sulfur containing derivative of thermite. http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-04/energetic-materials-potential-cause-911-first-responder-illnesses Quote
?Impact Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 15 minutes ago, hot enough said: Less understood, and requiring further study Is why the subject keeps getting changed. I suggest however less time spent in the conspiracy blogs, and more in the actual scientific publications. When a truther says "there is now considerable evidence for the use of thermite" and links to a publication that talks about high temperature and fragmentation but not what caused it then we know that the truther has an agenda. This goes back so many lifetimes ago when I pointed out that I can easily get steel to burn with a wooden match in my kitchen. We don't know every detail about the fire at the WTC, and it is worth studying what caused their complete and rapid destruction to improve future building codes without relying on wild theories of covert government operatives installing explosives and killing thousands of Americans for some unexplained reason. Quote
Rue Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 3 hours ago, Wilber said: So anyone who dissagrees with your little fantasy is the same as a Nazi who wants to burn all the Jews. So this is supposed to be taken seriously? Double pathetic. Thank you Wilber I will refrain and defer to your comments. 1 1 Quote
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: I suggest however less time spent in the conspiracy blogs, and more in the actual scientific publications. When an anti-truther, like you, pretends in his every post that he is engaging in honest discussion and then only uses diversionary non sequiturs, we see clearly that the official conspiracy theory is pure hokum. So you still have not been able to located Professor Hulsey giving a, roughly 45 minute to one hour talk on why NIST's report has a zero chance of being accurate. And you have no explanation for the human being being blown out of the WTC window. You have never accessed any scientific publications in this whole discussion. You don't point out that all your really strange bedfellows say nothing at all, just like you. Edited March 4, 2017 by hot enough Quote
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 26 minutes ago, Rue said: Thank you Wilber I will refrain and defer to your comments. Thank you, Rue. Wilber said nothing in three sentences. You, on the other hand take hundreds of sentences to say nothing. 1 Quote
betsy Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, hot enough said: In all that, Betsy, there is no discussion of the science, by Betsy. Big type doesn't mean science. All you're doing is deflecting. Refer to page 12 and 15. You can't refute them! You haven't even tried, because you can't. Edited March 4, 2017 by betsy 1 Quote
betsy Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, hot enough said: In all that, Betsy, there is no discussion of the science, Oh yeah? What are these? Quote The authors of this paper make it clear that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite is significantly more reactive than the iron-oxide version, and cite a combustion velocity of 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite aerogel. So 895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock wave. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/ Quote FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/ See what I mean? You can't recognize science when it's right there in front of you......... and you want to discuss it? Quote there is no discussion of the science, by Betsy. Ahhhh, isn't that typical.......you don't want real science. You want me to be like you - pretend to be a scientist, and do a lot of bulls*** playing pretend? That's what you've been doing, eh? Doing your scientist act - "discussing" science. You want us to bulls*** each other! Wait.....let me get my scientist costume! Gotta wear the costume! Edited March 4, 2017 by betsy 1 Quote
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 31 minutes ago, betsy said: All you're doing is deflecting. Refer to page 12 and 15. You can't refute them! You haven't even tried, because you can't. Betsy, you don't know anything about these topics. You are like all the others, [with a minor exception as regards Impact, who thinks that big and bold print, and emoticons will make you appear knowledgeable. They don't. 1 Quote
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 45 minutes ago, betsy said: The authors of this paper make it clear that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite is significantly more reactive ... See, I told you you didn't understand much about these issues, Betsy. It doesn't matter that there might be more reactive or less reactive explosives being developed by a nation that has spent so much of its existence developing better ways to kill innocent men, women and children. The point is that there was no legal/legitimate reason for this recently US developed, non commercially available, high grade military explosive to be at WTC, an explosive that is capable of slicing thru large girders. 1 Quote
betsy Posted March 4, 2017 Report Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, hot enough said: See, I told you you didn't understand much about these issues, Betsy. It doesn't matter that there might be more reactive or less reactive explosives being developed by a nation that has spent so much of its existence developing better ways to kill innocent men, women and children. EH? It matters when you're talking about the collapse! Read the whole thing: Quote The authors of this paper make it clear that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite is significantly more reactive than the iron-oxide version, and cite a combustion velocity of 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite aerogel. So 895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock wave. REFUTE THAT! Don't edit it. Quote The point is that there was no legal/legitimate reason for this recently US developed, non commercially available, high grade military explosive to be at WTC, an explosive that is capable of slicing thru large girders. Edited March 4, 2017 by betsy Quote
hot enough Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 Thank you for your scientific comments, Betsy, and scientific emoticons. They are very helpful. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.