So if they replaced all of the fire proofing in the strike areas with this nanothermite...why didn't the thermite go off with initial fireball?
9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
Oh come on. For crying out loud, this is completely unsubstantiated.
And why will none of you answer my question: why thermite go boom? Thermite no go boom. Thermite go hiss.
And to add: you're going to pretend now that the buildings were constructed with secrety secret demolition in mind. Reaching back into what? The 60s? With materials that had never been invented yet? And you're presenting this as fact.
NanoScott, cut it out.
NanoScott, cut it out.
This just gets dumber and dumber.
If we assume the thermite/thermate/nanothermite (or whatever the hell you think it was) was ignited from when the aircraft impacted... then that took a 1 hour long reaction to initiate the collapse.
1 hour. Since you don't believe the tower collapsed under its own momentum, then how does a 1 hour thermite reaction account for the instantaneous destruction of each floor below where the collapse was initiated?
It takes the thermite 1 hour (for the south tower) to collapse one floor... but less than a second for each of the other floors beneath.
You're embarrassing yourself.
Anyone know what temperature it takes to ignite thermite?
The thing is, I'm not sure it didn't:
***...the demolition hypothesis should be considered more than just simple demolition. If the idea was to create the appearance of a fire-induced collapse, then a fiery presentation was needed, much more than the jet fuel/office furnishings would have been able to provide. It seems that thermate may have been used not only to weaken or cut the steel infrastructure throughout the buildings, but also to help create that fiery presentation near the floors of impact.***
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272
No, it's not. You seem to cut out the part where I substantiate, so once more for those who didn't see it and I'll add a few more links too (in truth, just a fuller copy of the post I'm quoting from):
***
***have you considered nano alumino-thermic explosives technology manufactured as "frozen smoke"?
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/05/09/record.gel/
this technology has been around since at least the 1990s.
page 19-20 Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives
https://www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/10_00.2.pdf
...
Aerogels/frozen-smoke is an amazing insulator too, excellent for fireproofing.
fireproofing work carried out in the towers seemed to match the exact floors where the planes impacted:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272***
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...=44231&t=99915
We've answered it many times. Nanothermite is not thermite.
Last edited:
Try 1999/2000:
***Two blueprints for the 1999, 2000 construction upgrades to WTC 2, provided by a supporter, indicated that the work was done at almost exactly the point of impact and failure in that tower. That is, the southeast quadrant of WTC 2 was the focus of the work, at least on the 78th floor (the blueprints provided were for floors 77 and 78 only). It was the southeast quadrant of WTC 2, at and just above floor 78, where flight 175 hit.***
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272
The author of the aforementioned blog also feels that it may account for the molten metal pouring from WTC2:
***We have also seen video of molten metal pouring from WTC 2 prior to its destruction. The relationship between fireproofing upgrades and the pouring metal is close but not exact, as the molten metal seen in videos appears to be coming from floors 80 and 81. Communication to the NIST team from Frank Lombardi of the Port Authority, in 2002, indicated that only floor 78 of the impact failure floors of WTC 2 had been upgraded. But NCSTAR 1-6A (table 4-2, p 45) lists floor 85 as an upgraded floor as well. Could it be that certain areas within floors 79 to 84 were upgraded also, and not reported because the floors were not fully upgraded?***
The materials necessary were around atleast since 2000:
***nano-thermites, which are high-tech energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000).***
http://wearechangeseattle.org/2008/...etween-nist-and-nano-thermites-by-kevin-ryan/
The the source was Miragememories', not mine. Anyway, I've now found a few sources of my own:
***Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted (or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).
This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are high-tech energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.
The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites “high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). ***
http://wearechangeseattle.org/2008/...etween-nist-and-nano-thermites-by-kevin-ryan/
And from Wikipedia:
***High explosives normally are employed in mining, demolition, and military warheads. A high explosive compound detonates at rates ranging from 1,000 to 9,000 meters per second***
Since Mach 3 is around 1000 meters per second, it all works out.
Last edited:
I believe the argument is that there were different types of explosive materials used. Some to make the fire stronger then it would have been had it only been a plane crash (there is an argument that the filmed plane itself was carrying an explosive device as well and it seems persuasive), and others to make all the floors collapse. Remember that, beside the fireproof 'upgrade', there were also strange emergency drills for weeks before 9/11; plenty of time during this to plant more explosives and perhaps devices to explode the building from afar.
Yes...a quick check of the woo-woo-O-meter indicates a ambient reading of 9.5 on a full scale defection of 10.
Unfazed by a complete lack of evidence, the conspiracy theorist fantasises that the buildings were brought down with a combination of bombs in the basement, thermite, thermate, nano thermite, and an extra bomb attached to the plane! ...Even though it's fairly easy to demonstrate that this wouldn't be needed to cause the floors to collapse.
NanoScott I’m starting to think you are joking. You don't actually believe all that do you?
So the theory is that this super thermite, which just happened to be on the floors hit by the planes, explodes like a bomb and somehow that explains the soft steel? Or did it cut the columns like thermite?
NanoScott I’m starting to think you are joking. You don't actually believe all that do you?
So the theory is that this super thermite, which just happened to be on the floors hit by the planes, explodes like a bomb and somehow that explains the soft steel? Or did it cut the columns like thermite?
No one said a fire from a gas tanker couldn't weaken metal. Melting it is another matter.
You're right; it could have been done by normal demolition as well, but then it would have been obvious that what brought the buildings down was demolition not the planes.
Yes, I do. But then, I believed it way before I knew so much. I think that, in the ending, it comes down to what you are willing to believe. As a line in my favourite movie goes:
"Yeah, well, I guess they can only make you believe what you want to believe". If you don't want to believe that government experts are lying, it'll be very hard to persuade you otherwise.
Surely even you must find that 'coincidence' a little odd?
Thermate is better suited to cutting columns then thermite. In any case, Kevin Ryan and others believe that more then one type of explosive was used:
***despite agreement from all parties that the assumed availability of fuel allowed for the fires in any given location of each of the WTC buildings to last only twenty minutes (NIST 2007), the fires lasted much longer and produced extreme temperatures (Jones and Farrer et al 2008).
These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that. Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted (or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).***
http://wearechangeseattle.org/2008/...etween-nist-and-nano-thermites-by-kevin-ryan/
Temperatures of 1832F can be achieved by normal office fires. Why introduce anything else?
Idiot.
That bulge is normal on a 767, and is where the wings meet the fuselage and landing gears are held.
Very impressive. These imaginary men managed to rig 267 floors of busy office space to collapse within the window of some brief security checks.
Not even the finest in the demolition business could manage this in a 40 floor building without worrying about concealing anything.
Just out of curiosity, how long did these drills last, and how much of the 267 floors did they cover?
Show me thermate cutting a thick steel beam horizontally and remotely.
The steel weakened enough for the building to collapse just as it did with the tanker. There is no mystery here. If you apply some critical thinking and stop believing everything you read on the internet you will be closer to seeing this.
No there is a perfectly reasonable explanation that doesn’t involve demolition. Lets skip through analyzing the implausible plan of smashing planes into a building while setting of explosions all over the place to make it look like the planes brought the building down … something which they certainly could do on their own. Why use the planes at all? It sounds rather silly. Ah but perhaps that's what they want me to think!
I’m not at all surprised to read that. Yours is a religious like belief based on accepting everything you read on conspiracy sites and overlooking any evidence which invalidates those theories.
You’re joking right?
.
.
No you’re probably not. Ok. It is you that should find that a little odd. It stretches the credibility of the absurd conspiracy a little more. Did the pilots have to count the floors to know which one to hit? The more reasonable explanation being that there was no thermite, thermate, nano thermite, super thermite or bombs. The steel weakened where the planes hit and the fires burned. The evidence supports this.
So which one was it?
How do you explain the twisted columns which were caused by the weakened steel, just as with the bridge?
When challenged with evidence that doesn’t match the theory, you don’t accept that maybe the theory is wrong, you just add it to the pile and then claim that they are all correct!
With close-minded blind faith like that nothing could ever convince you otherwise.
NIST misrepresents the physics of fires. 911research.wtc7.net points out their flaw:
***Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF ... Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF ... And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent. Here the article implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF.***
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
You've tried to 'debunk' this, but failed to do so:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2024162&postcount=973
shaman then gives it a go, and I now realize that I haven't responded to him. I will do so in my next post.
- Status