OftenWrong Posted June 17, 2017 Report Share Posted June 17, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: Do you deny that US government scientists discovered nanothermite in the 1990s? I'm not going to answer you, because it is irrelevant. Whether I deny it or not, additional explosives were not necessary. F = M x A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted June 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: I'm not going to answer you, because it is irrelevant. Whether I deny it or not, additional explosives were not necessary. F = M x A What kind of a scientist would throw up a stupid, overly simplistic equation that only reveals how deeply that "scientist" is into denying reality? Additional explosives were found at WTC. Do you deny that US government scientists discovered nanothermite in the 1990s? Do you deny that nanothermite was found in WTC dust? Edited June 17, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 17, 2017 Report Share Posted June 17, 2017 5 hours ago, hot enough said: Do you deny that nanothermite was found in WTC dust? Er, what is nanothermite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2017 Report Share Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, capricorn said: Er, what is nanothermite? It's a really tiny creature that eats your beams if you live in a wood frame building. Or is that a nano termite...? Edited June 18, 2017 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 18, 2017 Report Share Posted June 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, bcsapper said: It's a really tiny creature that eats your beams if you live in a wood frame building. Or is that a nano termite...? I see. A nano (i.e small) bug that eats wood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2017 Report Share Posted June 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, capricorn said: I see. A nano (i.e small) bug that eats wood. Well, there are collapsing buildings, right? Termites! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted June 18, 2017 Report Share Posted June 18, 2017 They came from Mars. Oh no, that's nanu termites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2017 Report Share Posted June 18, 2017 Shazbat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted June 18, 2017 Report Share Posted June 18, 2017 Maybe Bin Laden had the patent to that stuff, but really, how did they get off Mars ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted June 18, 2017 Report Share Posted June 18, 2017 They hitched a ride with Robin Williams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted June 18, 2017 Report Share Posted June 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, scribblet said: Maybe Bin Laden had the patent to that stuff, but really, how did they get off Mars ? Nanu termites are all powerful, a thimble full of nanu termite turd can power a rocket from Mars to Earth. Takes a ton of board feet and lot of termites to fill a thimble though. They had to leave Mars because they ran out of trees. Kind of like the pine beetle except for the super turds and inter planetary travel. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted June 18, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, capricorn said: Er, what is nanothermite? It is a newly discovered group of super explosives found by US scientists from the Lawrence Livermore Labs. Normal thermite is made by grinding the components down to sand sized particles and smaller. Nanothermite is made by building it up at the nano scale. This makes the particle sizes nano sized, which means around one billionth of a meter. Which is what makes it a SUPER explosive! To get some perspective on size that means that in one cubic millimeter [1/25.4 of an inch] there are a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles of thermite which, again, is what gives nanothermite its super explosive power. The crucial thing about this nanothermite is that it is a US government proprietary, non-commercially available explosive, ie. no one has access to it except the US government. The even more crucial thing is that nanothermite was found in WTC dust. Unreacted particles that exploded upon being heated and the reaction had the same chemical signature as regular thermite. This is the only thing that can account for the volumes of molten and vaporized steel found at WTC. Unlimited amounts of jet fuel and office furnishings burning for months on end cannot melt or vaporize steel. That means that Arab hijackers did not cause the collapses of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. You can read about nanothermite for yourself, capricorn. Described by Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists. 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. At 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. These 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." Energy Density vs Power, the Traditional TradeoffsEnergetic 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 Edited June 18, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, hot enough said: Unlimited amounts of jet fuel and office furnishings burning for months on end cannot melt or vaporize steel. Perhaps, but even just burning for an hour or so is enough to soften it. That's all it took and that's all that happened. Edited June 19, 2017 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 57 minutes ago, eyeball said: Perhaps, but even just burning for an hour or so is enough to soften it. That's all it took and that's all that happened. Of course you're correct, but good luck convincing HE of that. Conspiracy theorists will not be swayed, neither by science, nor common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted June 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 9 hours ago, eyeball said: Perhaps, but even just burning for an hour or so is enough to soften it. That's all it took and that's all that happened. You might have a point if other steel frame buildings that have burned much longer and much hotter also collapsed. None ever have, before or since 911. You might have a point if the twin towers hadn't collapsed at accelerating speed. That is impossible for an alleged gravity collapse. You might have a point if WTC7 hadn't collapsed at free fall speed. That is impossible for an alleged gravity collapse. You might have a point if a two year study by a top forensic engineering scientist says the NIST report for the collapse of WTC7 has a zero chance of being correct. No building from a fire will ever collapse straight down, symmetrically, at free fall speed. That is impossible. You might have a point if the twin towers had had jolting, halting collapses. Gravity collapses cannot hurl multi-ton steel sections 600 feet away. Gravity collapses cannot pulverize 220 acres of concrete, the steel forming pans into micron sized particles. All the energy needed to do that makes accelerating collapses completely impossible. You might have a point if NIST hadn't lied about the free fall and the explosions, the molten/vaporized steel, vaporized lead, all of which are impossible in a jet fuel/office furnishings fire. You might have a point if nanothermite, solely a US government/military OWNED explosive hadn't been found in WTC dust. Unreacted particles, which means that there was a lot of reacted nanothermite that went off, which is the ONLY thing that could have created the molten and vaporized metals. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s? Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust? Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust? Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see? Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum? How does anyone reconcile all these impossibilities and make claims to be a thinking individual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted June 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 8 hours ago, Omni said: Of course you're correct, but good luck convincing HE of that. Conspiracy theorists will not be swayed, neither by science, nor common sense. Notice, Omni, that there is never any science from you. Address the science in the post just above this one. How many of those impossibilities do you deny? "common sense", from you and all the other science deniers, what a laugh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted June 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 9 hours ago, eyeball said: Perhaps, but even just burning for an hour or so is enough to soften it. That's all it took and that's all that happened. Why didn't the Cardington test fires, with added loads of 2x4 materials cause any collapse? How do you explain the molten steel pouring out of WTC2 minutes before its collapse? How do you explain NIST lying about that same molten steel? Remember, unlimited amounts of jet fuel and office furnishings burning for months on end cannot melt steel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: Notice, Omni, that there is never any science from you. Address the science in the post just above this one. How many of those impossibilities do you deny? "common sense", from you and all the other science deniers, what a laugh! Already linked the science. Too bad it refutes your Steve Jones version. Still waiting to see your response to the simple common sense questions of how all this explosive got installed and how so many people were convinced to keep quiet about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted June 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Omni said: Already linked the science. Too bad it refutes your Steve Jones version. No, you didn't. You threw up an old science denying, anti-truther website that was so badly out of date and then you fled from it, never discussing a thing. Steven Jones isn't actually the lead scientist on the paper but one can't expect science denying, anti-truthers to know that. The Harrit et al paper describing the nanothermite found in WTC dust was published in a peer reviewed journal and it has never been challenged by any scientist in any peer reviewed journal. That makes it the gold standard. That is how science works. Now address all the science issues raised in my first reply to eyeball. You can start with these two. Do you deny that US government scientists developed nanothermite in the 1990s? Do you deny that nanothermite was found in WTC dust? Edited June 19, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 6 minutes ago, hot enough said: No, you didn't. You threw up an old science denying, anti-truther website that was so badly out of date and then you fled from it, never discussing a thing. Steven Jones isn't actually the lead scientist on the paper but one can't expect science denying, anti-truthers to know that. The Harrit et al paper describing the nanothermite found in WTC dust was published in a peer reviewed journal and it has never been challenged by any scientist in any peer reviewed journal. That makes it the gold standard. That is how science works. Now address all the science issues raised in my first reply to eyeball. You can start with these two. Do you deny that US government scientists developed nanothermite in the 1990s? Do you deny that nanothermite was found in WTC dust? I'll wait for your response first to the simple common sense issue I asked of you many times so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted June 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, Omni said: I'll wait for your response first to the simple common sense issue I asked of you many times so far. You are a science denier, Omni, an anti-truther. eyeball raised the science issues and even you "discussed" them. Now, in your typical cowardly fashion you run. You run from everything. Just start with the two questions I asked of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: You are a science denier, Omni, an anti-truther. eyeball raised the science issues and even you "discussed" them. Now, in your typical cowardly fashion you run. You run from everything. Just start with the two questions I asked of you. Like I said, it's your turn. I'll get the popcorn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted June 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Omni said: Like I said, You have made many totally false assumptions, [also known as lies] the latest one against Dr Steven Jones. And now you do the typical cowardly thing you all do. Provide your source that refutes the Harrit et al scientific paper. Do you deny that US government scientists developed nanothermite in the 1990s? Do you deny that nanothermite was found in WTC dust? Edited June 19, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted June 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 On 6/17/2017 at 7:49 PM, Wilber said: Nanu Do you deny that US government scientists developed nanothermite in the 1990s? Do you deny that nanothermite was found in WTC dust? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted June 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 On 6/17/2017 at 6:16 PM, bcsapper said: Well, there are collapsing buildings, Do you deny that US government scientists developed nanothermite in the 1990s? Do you deny that nanothermite was found in WTC dust? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.