Jump to content

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, hot enough said:

1) NIST reports came out after and much after the 911C report.

2) Yet you are willing to believe the phantasmagorical USGOCT...

1) I stand corrected.

2) Yes, I believe it.  Since you didn't disagree with my point I will take it that you concur ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Yes, I believe it. 

You believe it but you can't provide any evidence to show this wild, crazy conspiracy theory has any truth to it.

Quote

Since you didn't disagree with my point I will take it that you concur ?

Why are all you USGOCT supporters so nebulous. I believe you made one point and I showed you that it was fatuous. 

If you wish to discuss it further, repost. Or are you going to flee now for a few more weeks, months?

A) Why do you support a wacky theory when the lead scientists for this wacky theory have repeatedly lied?

1) Are you denying that iron microspheres, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, were found in WTC dust by RJLee?

2) Are you denying that FEMA found and studied the eutectic steel and published a report on same?

3) Are you denying the melted revolvers, the fused concrete and steel, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speed of the twin towers' collapse?

4) Are you denying the molten steel seen flowing from WTC2 minutes before its collapse?

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Omni's video: "We've got to engineer better buildings to give people more time to escape".

===============================

There have been no changes to how buildings are constructed because everyone knows they were CDed. Insurance companies have not been telling clients to upgrade their buildings, and insurance companies are very risk adverse, because they too know the buildings were safe, that they was no chance for a fire induced collapse.

NIST's attempt to proved the insulation was removed was a farce that they largely abandoned. The Cardington fires had zero insulation on the secondary beams and no collapses occurred even with higher temperatures than were recorded at WTC.

Quote

Many steel framed high rises have burned much longer and much hotter and no collapses have ever occurred.

Quote

"Steel-framed car parks have been rigorously fire tested in a number of countries (Table 3). These tests demonstrate that most unprotected steel in open sided steel-framed car parks has sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur. Table 3 lists the maximum temperatures reached in open sided car park tests in four countries. These can be compared with the characteristic failure temperatures for beams carrying insulating floor slabs and columns of 620 [degrees] C and 550 [degrees] C respectively." 

Note that the description does not limit the duration of the fire. From this it does not appear to matter whether the fire burned all week or just for two hours. No mention is made, as some people have suggested (from erroneous interpretation of other graphs involving time), that prolonged heat brings about progressive weakening of steel. 

Here is the data from Corus' Table 3 (beams are horizontal members, columns are vertical): 

Full scale fire tests  Maximum measured steel temperature
Country Beam Column
UK  275 C (527 F) 360 C (680 F)
Japan  245 C (473 F) 242 C (467 F)
USA  226 C (438 F) -
Australia  340 C (644 F) 320 C (608 F)

A fire in a steel car park is a very imprecise event, and the heating of the steel supports varied widely in the tests. The temperature of (horizontal) beams varied from 226 C in the USA to 340 C in Australia; and the temperature of (vertical) columns varied from 242 C in Japan to 360 C in the UK. None of the steel was protected with the thermal insulation that is commonly used in office buildings, including the WTC. 

To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F).

Some may argue that there was much more fuel involved in the WTC events that in a car park. There was also much more steel involved, the support columns were more massive, and they were protected with insulation. 

I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers. 

— J. McMichael 

http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_2.htm

Gravity collapses cannot free fall, nor can they accelerate throughout the fall. Muslims cannot suspend the laws of physics, only controlled demolitions can cause buildings to fall as they did. 

Quote

7. Instability spread around entire building perimeter

NIST claims that "column instability" spread from core columns to the perimeter columns and vice-versa, leading to "global collapse" in the case of both Towers. This vague claim occupies onlya few paragraphs of NIST's Final Report, despite its being critical to the collapse theory.

Ryan asks how fast the "instability spread" would have to propagate to produce the sudden-onset telescoping collapses. Noting that the perimeter of each Tower measured 832 feet, for "column instability" to spread to all the perimeter columns in half a second would require a supersonic rate of propagation. This idea is entirely contrary to all experience with steel structures, and pre-9/11 literature on the subject.

47:00
"A steel structure, generally speaking, does not collapse suddenly when attacked by fire. There are unmistakable warning signs, namely, large deformations" 
--Hart, Multi-storey Buildings in Steel
 

Gravity collapses cannot produce molten iron, molten/vaporized steel, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead. Only nanothermite can do that.

Only thermate can produce the eutectic steel described by myriad scientists, including FEMA. 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) I actually made the last comment in that discussion between us.  If you want to walk away, that's ok.

I'm not walking away from anything, Michael, but you certainly are. You are also being purposefully deceptive.

You're afraid to mention your "point".

You are denying so many stark realities in favor of a highly speculative meme just so you can avoid the damning stark realities. That is lying by grand omission and all of you do it, with such incredibly craven cowardliness.  

1) Are you denying that iron microspheres, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, were found in WTC dust by RJLee?

2) Are you denying that FEMA found and studied the eutectic steel and published a report on same?

3) Are you denying the melted revolvers, the fused concrete and steel, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speed of the twin towers' collapse?

4) Are you denying the huge volumes of molten steel seen pouring out of WTC2 minutes before its collapse? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, hot enough said:

Steven Jones and the other six scientists have never been refuted by any peer reviewed scientists. All the USGOCT supporting scientists are long gone. 

Now its six. You claimed 7, now 6. There is a reason you won't provide their names, they don't exist. Neither does their peer review. 

There was no peer review. Jones admitted none was done. So did his publisher. To this date none has teen done and there is a basic and simple reason for it. He would not hand over his alleged materials for independent review.

It really is that simple.

For you to bluff your way at this point and pretend to ignore me is sad.

On each and every response to people who have tried to engage you in debate by presenting opposing views you panic. You have no idea how to respond, so you try cover up that inability by calling the presenter a liar and denying they presented the information and then when that doesn't work,  that the information was unscientific.

Did you really think trying to cover up your inability to debate by calling people names, arbitrarily dismissing their evidence and simply pasting references from subjective conspiracy sites has established your credibility?

Its ironic. All you have established since you have come on this board is that all kinds of posters who would otherwise disagree on everything agree on one thing-yer a a Hari Krishna devotee not that there is anything wrong with that.  Hari Krishna Krishna Hari.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rue said:

Now its six. You claimed 7, now 6. There is a reason you won't provide their names, they don't exist.

They are named on the paper I have quoted here a number of times, Rue. You folks really are the most incredible deniers of reality. 

There are actually nine.

Quote

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2 , Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4 , Frank M. Legge5 , Daniel Farnsworth2 , Gregg Roberts6 , James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3 1 Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark 2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA 3 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA 4 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA 5 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia 6 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA 7 International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA Abstract: 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.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/bentham_open/ActiveThermitic_Harrit_Bentham2009.pdf

This comports well with what the US Lawrence Livermore scientists have to say about the relatively recent discovery of the new super thermites, the nanothermites.

Do you deny that nanothermite was produced by Lawrence Livermore Labs in the 1990s, Rue?

===================

 

Energy Density vs Power, the Traditional Tradeoffs
Energetic materials are substances that store energy chemically. For instance, oxygen, by itself, is not an energetic material, and neither is fuel such as gasoline. But a combination of oxygen and fuel is.
Energetic materials are made in two ways. The first is by physically mixing solid oxidizers and fuels, a process that, in its basics, has remained virtually unchanged for centuries. Such a process results in a composite energetic material such as black powder. The second process involves creating a monomolecular energetic material, such as TNT, in which each molecule contains an oxidizing component and a fuel component. For the composites, the total energy can be much greater than that of monomolecular materials. However, the rate at which this energy is released is relatively slow when compared to the release rate of monomolecular materials. Monomolecular materials such as TNT work fast and thus have greater power than composites, but they have only moderate energy densities-commonly half those of composites. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

================

1) Are you denying that iron microspheres, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, were found in WTC dust by RJLee?

2) Are you denying that FEMA found and studied the eutectic steel and published a report on same?

3) Are you denying the melted revolvers, the fused concrete and steel, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speed of the twin towers' collapse?

4) Are you denying the molten steel seen flowing from WTC2 minutes before its collapse?

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

There was no peer review. Jones admitted none was done. So did his publisher. To this date none has teen done and there is a basic and simple reason for it. He would not hand over his alleged materials for independent review.

Never a source for your lies, Rue. I wonder why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

1) I'm not walking away from anything, Michael, but you certainly are. You are also being purposefully deceptive.

2) You're afraid to mention your "point".

 

1)  If you're not walking away then continue the discussion.  Comment on the complexity, risk and purpose of a CD plan.

2) I did mention my point.

My interest in the science was explained by me long ago.  I read and posted the NIST report and feel that if there are legitimate alternative theories, they can be published and debated by real (non crackpot) scientists in a real journal.  It's not too much to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1)  If you're not walking away then continue the discussion.  Comment on the complexity, risk and purpose of a CD plan.

However complex it was, it was done, of that there is no doubt. That will be the subject of a further investigation. One motive I already mentioned was the huge cost of  taking out all the asbestos, a multi-billion dollar task. One could speculate on many other possible motives, - how good the new nanothermite works, ... , but as we can easily see they don't get us anywhere. 

Dealing with the present realities, on the other hand, does get us somewhere.

1) Are you denying that iron microspheres, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, were found in WTC dust by RJLee?

2) Are you denying that FEMA found and studied the eutectic steel and published a report on same?

3) Are you denying the melted revolvers, the fused concrete and steel, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speed of the twin towers' collapse?

4) Are you denying the molten steel seen flowing from WTC2 minutes before its collapse?

5) Are you denying that the US government developed new nanothermite explosives in the 1990s?

 

Quote

My interest in the science was explained by me long ago.  I read and posted the NIST report and feel that if there are legitimate alternative theories, they can be published and debated by real (non crackpot) scientists in a real journal.  It's not too much to ask.

There are many published and debated issues written by real scientists in many journals. The NIST report has been challenged for good reason, it is fraudulent, it is bad science, as Richard Feynman noted, it is cargo cult science, similar in nature to that of religions. Real scientists don't hide their science.

Do you think it's science to provide a "scientific" paper two days after a complex event like WTC? What scientist would ever do that?

Quote

t's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another." - Richard Feynman

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, hot enough said:

1) However complex it was, it was done, of that there is no doubt. That will be the subject of a further investigation.

2) One motive I already mentioned was the huge cost of  taking out all the asbestos, a multi-billion dollar task. One could speculate on many other possible motives, - how good the new nanothermite works, ... , but as we can easily see they don't get us anywhere. 

3) The NIST report has been challenged for good reason 

 

1) Actually, there is significant doubt.  You are just waving your hands to make this go away, but the complexity and risk is key to this.  What is the investigation ?  Include me in that one thanks.

2) These are ridiculous theories.  Would you destroy your own building and kill thousands because of the cost of cleaning it ?  Would you coordinate it with an NSA notification of an impending attack ?  If you had to test fireworks would you do so to injure the maximum number of people ?  Ridiculous.

3) Ok, I'll wait for the scientists to work it out on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎06 at 8:08 AM, hot enough said:

They are named on the paper I have quoted here a number of times, Rue. You folks really are the most incredible deniers of reality. 

There are actually nine.

 

Your ignorance is painful. First the original paper by S. Jones was never peer reviewed and he got caught lying it was along with his publisher. Now you engage in out and out deceitful conduct and switch to another paper but you again make a bonehead out of yourself. You listed names of people that all claim to have contributed to the  paper. Tahat means they are contributors not peer reviewers. You clearly don't know the difference.

A peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work., not the producers or contributor to the work. People who write or contribute to an article don't peer review themselves for obvious reasons.
 
The whole point is to have someone neutral who did not write or contribute to the paper review it.
 
Science peer review is a method where persons of the same profession who did not write or contribute to the paper review it independently.
 
Peer review is  way to assure the paper presented has basic standards of quality and credibility.
 
So not only did you deliberately switch to a paper to avoid the one not peer reviewed thinking I would not notice, but you blew it again-you produced the name of the paper's contributors trying to suggest they were peer reviewers which is out and out bullshit and shows you haven't a clue what a peer review is or you are pretty bad at trying to evade out and out b.s.
 
By the way here's a peer review of this second  paper you try pas off as Jones' first paper. Enjoy.
 
Knock yourself out calling this scientist a liar: 

Friday, May 08, 2009

A Response to Harrit, Jones, et.al. From Dr Greening

 

 
Copied from here, reproduced without permission in the interests of science:
 
I just sent this e-mail to the authors of the "Active Thermite" paper:

The "Active Thermite" debate, (if there ever was one!), has now sadly reached a state of stasis and stalemate. It basically boils down to this: do you believe Harrit and Jones or not. Or stated another way: Are the red/gray chips definitive evidence that "energetic" nanothermitic agents were pre-planted in the WTC or are these chips explainable in some other, less conspiratorial, way?

To begin to answer this question we need to consider just how unusual, (or not!) these red/gray chips really are. Harrit et al. believe that the red/gray chips are indeed very remarkable - so much so that these authors insist that these chips simply could not be found in dust produced by a "natural" collapse of the Twin Towers. Harrit et al. make this claim mainly because of two characteristics of the chips:

(i) Their alleged engineered "nano-scale" structure

(ii) Their alleged "highly energetic" pyrotechnic properties

With regard to the first of these points it is quite evident that Harrit et al. have based their characterization of the WTC red/gray chips almost entirely by copying the work of scientists at Texas Tech University and the Lawrence Livermore National Labs who have made and patented nano-structured energy-dense materials for use as detonators and pyrotechnic agents. (See the papers and reports of authors such as M. L. Pantoya, T. M. Tillotson, R. L. Simpson, B. J. Clapsaddle and A. E. Gash, as well as Chapter 7 of the book "Energetic Materials" by U. Teipel) It is therefore very significant that these nano-technology materials scientists consistently and repeatedly make use of scanning electron microscopy, X-ray analysis, and DSC to characterize their samples - precisely the techniques used by Harrit et al to characterize their red/gray chips. But in spite of this obvious attempt to convince the scientific community that the WTC red/gray chips are indeed the high-tech creations of dedicated "nano-engineers" toiling away in some clandestine weapons laboratory, these chips are in reality quite low-tech and decidedly micro, as opposed to nano, in scale and structure.

With regard to point (ii) above, Harrit asserts that the chips are fragments of an "energetic material". This claim is mostly based on DSC measurements, but we need to consider: is it supported by experimental evidence? The Harrit paper reports the energy content of the red chips to be in the range 1.5 - 7.5 kJ/g. This is in fact not very "energetic" at all when you consider that common organic materials such as simple hydrocarbons or oxygenated hydrocarbons contain far more energy per gram than the red chips. Thus gasoline releases about 48 kJ/g, and stearic acid, found in plant and animal fats, releases about 40 kJ/g upon combustion. Since carbon, in some as yet unknown chemical state, is also found in the red chips, it is certain that some of the energy content of the red chips is accounted for by this non-thermitic ingredient. In fact, if the chips contained a mere 10 % of graphitic carbon it would account for more than half of their energy content!

Nevertheless, on page 28 of their paper, Harrit et al. offer another reason to believe that the red chips are a highly energetic thermitic material:

". the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Figure 29."

This statement, also repeated in the Abstract to the paper, is simply not correct and shows a complete lack of understanding of DSC by the authors of the paper. Why do I say this? Well, Figure 29 is the DSC trace of a red chip heated from 20 deg C to 700 deg C at 10 deg C/ min and shows an exothermic peak extending from approximately 420 - 470 deg C. Now, as someone who has run many DSC analyses on a wide variety of materials, I know that the height and width of a DSC peak depends on many factors such as the sample-holder, the furnace atmosphere, the sample packing density, etc, but most of all, DSC peak widths depend on the heating rate. Given that the DSC trace of Harrit et al. was acquired at 10 deg C/min and has a FWHM ~ 25 deg C, one can be certain that a different peak width would have been obtained if a different heating rate had been used. Thus DSC peak widths are not indicative of reaction rates. This is amply illustrated by many of the DSC traces and the discussion given in Chapter 5 of the well-known chemistry textbook "Thermal Analysis" by W. Wendlandt.

Finally, I should add that DSC is most effectively used to study reaction rates if it is carried out in isothermal mode using the Avrami-Erofeev equations to analyse the data. This experimental approach allows a rate constant and an activation energy to be calculated for the reaction responsible for an exothermic peak. I am surprised that a Chemistry Professor at a well-respected University appears to be unaware of this simple fact ....

Yes indeed Prof. Harrit, you had the temerity to tell me to take my time and not waste yours, when perhaps I should be telling you to take your time, but not waste mine!


The thread over there is pretty interesting to read. You can see quite clearly that only Greening (Dr G) speaks with confidence and authority; the Truther posters are mostly "Well, what about this, and what about that?" I don't want to knock them, because I get the sense that Metamars, in particular, is making an honest attempt to discuss the issues but clearly doesn't know the science (and let me add that I don't know it either; I can only judge by the way the discussion flows).

I am a bit surprised to learn that Steven Jones swears in his emails; it just seems out of character for someone who is generally soft-spoken and genial.

Note also this key point:
 
I've already done a calculation, (see my post from a few days ago), of how much heat energy a layer of nano-thermite (such as the one allegedly found by Jones et al) could generate. And, by the way, you have not commented on this calculation as you said you would. Nevertheless, my conclusion was that Jones' chips would do no more than slightly warm a WTC column!


Faced with this, what did Jones claim?
 
So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!

Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed.

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎06 at 11:28 AM, hot enough said:

Dealing with the present realities, on the other hand, does get us somewhere.

1) Are you denying that iron microspheres, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, were found in WTC dust by RJLee?

2) Are you denying that FEMA found and studied the eutectic steel and published a report on same?

3) Are you denying the melted revolvers, the fused concrete and steel, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speed of the twin towers' collapse?

4) Are you denying the molten steel seen flowing from WTC2 minutes before its collapse?

5) Are you denying that the US government developed new nanothermite explosives in the 1990s?

In regards to 1, the RJ Lee report speaks for itself and can be found at: 

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/cache/nyenvirolaw_WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf

People can see what the article says for themselves. I do think your attempt to limit and simplify it to the question you ask me is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent its findings.

In regards to 2,  again the report exists and what I am saying is only someone who is an idiot would keep referring to steel as eutectic. What Fema found was evidence of melting points or eutectic marks on steel. It doesn't  and did not make the steel eutectic, it shows evidence of a eutectic system or marking. If anything the steel might be euctectoid and the heating point at which it may have turned to molten steel if one believes such a theory would be the eutectic temperature point.

 

In regards to 3, I don't deny anything- I do state what you call evidence of "melted revolvers", "fused concrete and steel" could evidence other things and even the wording you use may be defective and inaccurate and be caused by you repeating someone who has no understanding of metallurgy, structural engineering and basic chemistry. I also think when you use words like "free fall" and "accelerating speed" of the twin tower's collapse you do so forcing them into a narrow paradigm to suit your preconceived unproven belief of an orchestrated demolition.

 

In regards to 4, you have been provided numerous explanations that state that what you think has to be molten steel could also have been evidence of something else melting such as aluminum. You have  preconceived  a subjective unproven assumption what you saw could only be molten steel. I am arguing it could be evidence of something other than melted steel and your clumsy attempt to have me "deny" is pointless. You try in all your questions to plant the answer in all your questions that I deny things. I am not, you are. You have come on this forum and demanded people accept only one theory, the one you support. You have provided no independently tested proof for your theories and deny any other possible explanations. Its you who deny anything and everything you disagree with. I simply point out there is more than one explanation not just the one you present. Ultimately which one is the most accurate is still not known and may never be known.

In regards to 5, I can't deny or acknowledge what the US government may or may no have developed in its military research. Of course I can't.  I have no access to such information. I did point out that conspiracy theorists like you think you know what secret military weapons the US military has but you never produce any proof for your conclusions just theories with zero proof.

In conclusion and let me be to the point-it is idiotic to ask me as you have tried if I deny things that have never been proven,  which is what you are try to do. That is not only illogical but it in my opinion evidence of mental retardation.

Here pronounce after me-its not possible to deny something never proven to exist. One does not deny a speculated theory, they challenge it as inconclusive if they don't agree with it which is what I and all those you call "liars" have done.

 

"The boy keeps  asking  me if I deny his God exists, and I keep responding and stating  why would I deny myself?"

Rue 1312

" Just today I ran into 23 people claiming to be Jesus. Just once I want to find someone who thinks he is Rue."

Rue 1313

" I am what I am and that's all that I am I am Popeye the sailor man"

Popeye's song

 

Moses: who are you?

God:  " I am what I am"

Moses: " ... that's a tad cryptic...you know I have   to deal with a bunch of Hebrews with no sense of direction, can't you give me any?"

God: "uh no, if I direct you I will blind you at the same time"

Moses: "  Is that what happened to Hot Enough? "

God:  You mean that putz who worships the Golden calf? No... he's never spoken to me.

Moses: So?

 God:  So sue me..

 

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2017 at 9:52 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1) Actually, there is significant doubt.  

2) These are ridiculous theories.  .

3) Ok, I'll wait for the scientists to work it out on both sides.

No doubt at all Michael. They are peer reviewed science, not theories. Why don't you make it known and discuss that NIST wouldn't do peer review. That and your support for same plus your distractions and your careening wildly off topic illustrates that you are a cargo cult scientist.

The questions you refuse to address, the ones of hard science, tell it all. They prove there were no hijackers so come on, stop being delusional, who does that leave that owns the nanothermite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

No doubt at all Michael. They are peer reviewed science, not theories.

How many peers though compared to climate change science for example. If you had something like that you'd have something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2017 at 7:08 PM, Rue said:

In regards to 1, the RJ Lee report speaks for itself and can be found at: 

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/cache/nyenvirolaw_WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf

People can see what the article says for themselves.

Why can't you discuss it yourself, Rue?

I do think your attempt to limit and simplify it to the question you ask me is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent its findings.

1) Are you denying that iron microspheres, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, were found in WTC dust by RJLee? Are you denying that the USGS found iron microspheres, that FEMA found and discussed molten/vaporized steel.

In regards to 2,  again the report exists and what I am saying is only someone who is an idiot would keep referring to steel as eutectic.

What Fema found was evidence of melting points or eutectic marks on steel. It doesn't  and did not make the steel eutectic, it shows evidence of a eutectic system or marking. If anything the steel might be euctectoid and the heating point at which it may have turned to molten steel if one believes such a theory would be the eutectic temperature point.

You don't understand how English works. 'eutectic' is an adjective that describes the thermate [thermite plus added sulfur] reaction on steel. It lowers the melting point of steel by about 1000F. 

Oxford: eutectic 

ADJECTIVE

Chemistry 

  • Relating to or denoting a mixture of substances (in fixed proportions) that melts and solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting points of the separate constituents or of any other mixture of them.

    You can see this reaction in the following video.

    Jonathan Cole - 9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel - AE911Truth.org

     

    ================================

In regards to 3, I don't deny anything- I do state what you call evidence of "melted revolvers", "fused concrete and steel" could evidence other things and even the wording you use may be defective and inaccurate and be caused by you repeating someone who has no understanding of metallurgy, structural engineering and basic chemistry.

You have no understanding of "metallurgy, structural engineering and basic chemistry" and that is apparent by your refusal to discuss direct evidence showing these things. What other things can explain melted revolvers, fused concrete and steel?

I also think when you use words like "free fall" and "accelerating speed" of the twin tower's collapse you do so forcing them into a narrow paradigm to suit your preconceived unproven belief of an orchestrated demolition. 

Scientific measurements are hardly a narrow paradigm. You have used nothing but bafflegab to obscure and divert attention away from  the science. NIST admits free fall for WTC7. It fell from stasis to free fall which continued for 2.25 seconds, 105 feet, 8 storeys. 

Measurements of WTC1 show that the building fell at accelerating speed. That is not possible in a gravity collapse. You are familiar with Newton's Laws of Motion, aren't you?

In regards to 4, you have been provided numerous explanations that state that what you think has to be molten steel could also have been evidence of something else melting such as aluminum. 

Stop being so deceptive and dishonest. You saw the molten/vaporized steel beam John Gross the liar was holding. You saw the FEMA eutectic steel. Why are you lying?

You have  preconceived  a subjective unproven assumption what you saw could only be molten steel. I am arguing it could be evidence of something other than melted steel 

NIST said the molten Seen Pouring Out of the South Tower Minutes Before its Collapse was aluminum. But they never did any experiments to prove it. They lied! Other scientists have done tests and it is NOT possible that it was aluminum. 

FAQ #14: What was the Molten Metal Seen Pouring Out of the South Tower Minutes Before its Collapse — Steel and Iron, or Aluminum and/or Lead?

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/899-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

In regards to 5, I can't deny or acknowledge what the US government may or may no have developed in its military research. Of course I can't.  I have no access to such information.

Yes, you do, Rue, and it has been provided to you and the other science deniers here many times. That no one has come forward to point this out to you illustrates how deep is the lying going on here by the supporters of the USGOCT. Here it is again. 

Why does MLW allow blatant, outright lying by USGOCT supporters?

Quote

Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives

ONE thousand years ago, black powder was prepared by grinding saltpeter, charcoal, and sulfur together into a coarse powder using a mortar and pestle. Since then, the equipment for making energetic materials-explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics-has evolved considerably, but the basic process for making these materials has remained the same. That, however, is changing, thanks to an explosive combination of sol-gel chemistry and modern-day energetic materials research.
dot_clear.gifAt Livermore Laboratory, sol-gel chemistry-the same process used to make aerogels or "frozen smoke" (see S&TR, November/December 1995)—has been the key to creating energetic materials with improved, exceptional, or entirely new properties. This energetic materials breakthrough was engineered by Randy Simpson, director of the Energetic Materials Center; synthetic chemists Tom Tillotson, Alex Gash, and Joe Satcher; and physicist Lawrence Hrubesh.
dot_clear.gifThese new materials have structures that can be controlled on the nanometer (billionth-of-a-meter) scale. Simpson explains, "In general, the smaller the size of the materials being combined, the better the properties of energetic materials. Since these `nanostructures' are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar. In addition, these `nanocomposite' materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods."

 


RSimpson1.gif

 

 

  Energy Density vs Power, the Traditional Tradeoffs
dot_clear.gifEnergetic materials are substances that store energy chemically. For instance, oxygen, by itself, is not an energetic material, and neither is fuel such as gasoline. But a combination of oxygen and fuel is.
dot_clear.gifEnergetic materials are made in two ways. The first is by physically mixing solid oxidizers and fuels, a process that, in its basics, has remained virtually unchanged for centuries. Such a process results in a composite energetic material such as black powder. The second process involves creating a monomolecular energetic material, such as TNT, in which each molecule contains an oxidizing component and a fuel component. For the composites, the total energy can be much greater than that of monomolecular materials. However, the rate at which this energy is released is relatively slow when compared to the release rate of monomolecular materials. Monomolecular materials such as TNT work fast and thus have greater power than composites, but they have only moderate energy densities-commonly half those of composites. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

 


RSimpson2.gif

 

 

 

  Energetic Nanostructures in a Beaker
dot_clear.gifTo control the mix of oxidizer and fuel in a given material at the nanometer scale, Livermore researchers turned to sol-gel methodologies. Sol-gel chemistry involves the reactions of chemicals in solution to produce nanometer-size particles called sols. These sols are linked together to form a three-dimensional solid network or skeleton called a gel, with the remaining solution residing in the open pores of the gel. The solution can then be supercritically extracted to produce aerogels (highly porous, lightweight solids) or evaporated to create xerogels (denser porous solids).
dot_clear.gif"A typical gel structure is extremely uniform because the particles and the pores between them are so small," notes Tillotson. "Such homogeneity means that the material's properties are also uniform. Our main interest in the sol-gel approach is that it will allow us to precisely control the composition and morphology of the solid at the nanometer scale so that the material's properties stay uniform throughout-something that can't be achieved with conventional techniques."
dot_clear.gifUsing these sol-gel-processing methods, the team derived four classes of energetic materials: energetic nanocomposites, energetic nanocrystalline materials, energetic powder-entrained materials, and energetic skeletal materials.
dot_clear.gifEnergetic nanocomposites have a fuel component and an oxidizer component mixed together. One example is a gel made of an oxidizer with a fuel embedded in the pores of the gel. In one such material (termed a thermite pyrotechnic), iron oxide gel reacts with metallic aluminum particles to release an enormous amount of heat. "These reactions typically produce temperatures in excess of 3,500 degrees Celsius," says Simpson. Thermites are used for many applications ranging from igniters in automobile airbags to welding. Such thermites have traditionally been produced by mixing fine powders of metal oxides and metal fuels. "Conventionally, mixing these fine powders can result in an extreme fire hazard. Sol-gel methods can reduce that hazard while dispersing extremely small particles in a uniform way not possible through normal processing methods," adds Simpson. The Livermore team has successfully synthesized metal oxide gels from a myriad elements. At least in the case of metal oxides, sol-gel chemistry can be applied to a majority of elements in the periodic table.
dot_clear.gifIn energetic nanocrystalline composites, the energetic material is grown within the pores of an inert gel rather than mixed into it. One way to initiate the growth is to dissolve the energetic material in the solvent used to control the density of the resulting gel. After the gel is formed, the energetic material in the pore fluid is induced to crystallize within the pores. The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN. The resulting structures contain crystals so small that they do not scatter visible light and are semitransparent.
dot_clear.gifIn the powder-entraining method, a high concentration of energetic powders (90 percent by weight) is loaded within a support matrix (for example, silica) that takes up a correspondingly small mass. Highly loaded energetic materials are used in a variety of applications, including initiators and detonators. Manufacturing this type of energetic material using current processing technologies is often difficult. Producing detonators with pressed powders is a slow manufacturing process, mixing two or more powders homogeneously is difficult, and precise geometric shapes are not easy to produce. Also, pressing powders is a hazardous process.
dot_clear.gifMany of these problems may be overcome with the sol-gel process. One result is that the sol-gel explosives formed by adding energetic powders are much less sensitive than those produced by conventional methods. "These results were surprising because conventionally mixed powders generally exhibit increased sensitivity when silica powders are added," says Simpson. "We're still exploring the reasons for this decreased sensitivity, but it appears to be generally true with sol-gel-derived energetic materials."
dot_clear.gifThe final class of energetic material produced by sol-gel methods is energetic skeletal materials. Basically, the sol-gel chemistry is used to create a skeletal matrix, which is itself energetic. Satcher thinks that it might also be possible to form a nanostructure made up of a fuel-oxidizer skeleton with precise stoichiometry (the numerical relationship of elements and compounds as reactants and products in a chemical reaction). "This is something we are still looking into," he adds. In addition to providing materials that have high energy density and are extremely powerful, sol-gel methodologies offer more safe and stable processing. For instance, the materials can be cast to shape or do not require the hazardous machining techniques required by materials that cannot be cast.

 


RSimpson3.gif

 

 

 

  Future Looks Bright
dot_clear.gifRight now, making energetic materials using the sol-gel technique is in the basic research stage, but results look promising. "Many compositions depend on a simple, inexpensive procedure that we can basically do in an ordinary chemistry beaker," says Tillotson. He notes that the practical advantages of these materials are encouraging. Some of the pluses are less sensitivity, safe mixing, low-temperature synthesis, safe handling, safe processing, and homogeneity leading to better performance.
dot_clear.gif"We've just begun to explore the possibilities for these new materials and the methodologies that produced them," adds Simpson. "This approach is like a new baby—it has lots of potential. The ramifications are still largely unknown."
—Ann Parker

Key Words: aerogel, energetic materials, explosives, nanocomposites, PETN, propellants, pyrotechnics, RDX, sol-gel, xerogel.

For more information contact Randy Simpson (925) 423-0379 ([email protected]).


 

=============

 

Quote

 

 

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How many peers though compared to climate change science for example. If you had something like that you'd have something.

How does this escape a guy who normally appears sensible?

There has been no challenges, no peer reviewed science in any peer reviewed journals challenging the discovery of nanothermite in WTC dust. 

There was no peer review allowed by NIST for their "science" but you still, phantasmagorically, support their wacky theories, for which there is no scientific support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Prove there were ACTUALLY hijackers. You don't have a grasp of proof or honesty. Where are the photographs? Where is the DNA? 

I'll wait for you to catch up by answering the question as to what caused the planes to hit the buildings if you think there were no hijackers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...