Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mark Loizeaux says nanothermite is a fantasy, the technology doesn't exist. Is he lying?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 07:11 PM
Original message
Mark Loizeaux says nanothermite is a fantasy, the technology doesn't exist. Is he lying?
...through his teeth? Remember, Mark Loizeaux is the president of Controlled Demolition INC, the world's premiere building demolition company. He goes head to head with Steven Jones and Richard Gage in this exchange. In a BBC interview for the documentary, The Third Tower, Loizeaux flat out denies that there even is such a thing. He says 'the materials and the technology' for nanothermite doesn't exist...if it did he would know about it, in his words. He calls it a fantasy and accuses Jones of making it up.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=op2MW2IdRms



So let's see who the liar is. Is nanothermite real or fantasy?

First off, let's take a look at the Wikipedia entry for nanothermite. Then we'll see what the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has to say about it. Then we'll go on to look at publications from the US Department of Defense(DoD) and Lawrence Livermore National Labs(LLNL) to get their input on the matter.




Nanothermite/Wikipedia

Nano-thermite is the common name of a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles. This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and much faster.

Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.<1>

In military research, aluminium-molybdenum oxide, aluminium-Teflon and aluminium-copper(II) oxide have received considerable attention.<2> Other compositions tested were based on nanosized RDX and with thermoplastic elastomers. PTFE or other fluoropolymer can be used as a binder for the composition. Its reaction with the aluminium, similar to magnesium/teflon/viton thermite, adds energy to the reaction. <3> Of the listed compositions, the Al-KMnO4 one shows the highest pressurization rates, followed by orders of magnitude slower Al-MoO3 and Al-CuO, followed by yet slower Al-Fe2O3. <4>

Nanoparticles can be prepared by spray drying from a solution, or in case of insoluble oxides, spray pyrolysis of solutions of suitable precursors. The composite materials can be prepared by sol-gel techniques or by conventional wet mixing and pressing.

Similar but not identical systems are nano-laminated pyrotechnic compositions, or energetic nanocomposites. In these systems, the fuel and oxidizer is not mixed as small particles, but deposited as alternating thin layers. For example, an energetic multilayer structure may be coated with an energetic booster material. Through selection of materials (the range of which includes virtually all metals) and size scale of the layers, functional properties of the multilayer structures can be controlled, such as the reaction front velocity, the reaction initiation temperature, and the amount of energy delivered by a reaction of alternating unreacted layers of the multilayer structure.<5>

...more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite






The following article is from Technology Review,
which is published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:




January 21, 2005
Military Reloads with Nanotech

Smaller. Cheaper. Nastier. Those are the guiding principles behind the military's latest bombs. The secret ingredient: nanotechnology that makes for a bigger boom.

By John Gartner
Technology Review, an MIT publication

Nanotechnology is grabbing headlines for its potential in advancing the life sciences and computing research, but the Department of Defense (DoD) found another use: a new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.

With funding from the U.S. government, Sandia National Laboratories, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are researching how to manipulate the flow of energy within and between molecules, a field known as nanoenergentics, which enables building more lethal weapons such as "cave-buster bombs" that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs such as the "daisy cutter" or MOAB (mother of all bombs).

Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.

"The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says.

Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.

"Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times," Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.

Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.

However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.


Nanoaluminum is more chemically reactive because there are more atoms on the surface area than standard aluminum, according to Douglas Carpenter, the chief scientific officer at nanometals company Quantumsphere.

"Standard aluminum covers just one-tenth of one percent of the surface area (with atoms), versus fifty percent for nanoaluminum," Carpenter says.

Carpenter says the U.S. military has developed "cave-buster" bombs using nanoaluminum, and it is also working on missiles and torpedoes that move so quickly that they strike their targets before evasive actions can be taken.

"Nanoaluminum provides ultra high burn rates for propellants that are ten times higher than existing propellants," says Carpenter.

The military is also trying to make sure that its bullets kill quickly.

The U.S. Army Environmental Center began a program in 1997 to develop alternatives to the toxic lead that is used in the hundreds of millions of rounds that are annually fired during conflicts and at its training ranges. Carpenter says that although bullets using nanoaluminum are ready to be field tested, the government has been slow implement the technology.

"Getting the government to change the way they kill people is difficult," Carpenter says.

Because nanometal provides a higher concentration of energy while requiring fewer raw materials, the overall cost of these weapons would drop, according to Kevin Walter, vice president of technical business development at nanometals manufacturer Nanoscale Technologies.

"You get a little better bang for your buck," Walter says.

The nanometals can be produced in particles as small as eight nanometers, Walter says, and then combined with other chemicals to create the explosive materials, which can also be used for non-military applications including pyrotechnics and explosives for mining.

Nanotechnology "could completely change the face of weaponry," according to Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert with analyst firm and publisher Jane's Information Group. Oppenheimer says nations including the United States, Germany, and Russia are developing "mini-nuke" devices that use nanotechnology to create much smaller nuclear detonators.

Oppenheimer says the devices could fit inside a briefcase and would be powerful enough to destroy a building. Although the devices require nuclear materials, because of their small size "they blur the line with conventional weapons," Oppenheimer says.

The mini-nuke weapons are still in the research phase and may be surreptitiously funded since any form of nuclear proliferation is "politically contentious" because of the possibility that they could fall into the hands of terrorists, Oppenheimer says.

The creation of much smaller nuclear bombs adds new challenges to the effort to limit weapons of mass destruction, according to Oppenheimer.

"(The bombs) could blow open everything that is in place for arms control," Oppenheimer says. "Everything gets more dangerous."

Copyright Technology Review 2005.


more on page 2
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/?a=f




The development of nano-explosives technology at Lawrence Livermore Labs:


Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives

Lawrence Livermore Labs, 2000


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 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 powerthat'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."


Energetic Nanostructures in a Beaker

....Energetic 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.

....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.

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




AMPTIAC Quarterly, special issue on nanotechnology:
(a Department of Defense publication)



Spring 2002

This article was written by the US Army research laboratory, weapons & materials:




from page 44:
Metastable Intermolecular Composites (MICs)

Metastable Intermolecular Composites (MICs) are one of the
first examples of a category of nanoscale energetic materials
which have been studied and evaluated to a considerable
degree. MIC formulations are mixtures of nanoscale powders of
reactants that exhibit thermite (high exothermicity) behavior.

As such, they differ fundamentally from more traditional energetics
where the reactivity is based on intramolecular (not intermolecular)
properties. The MIC formulations are based on
intimate mixing of the reactants on the nanometer length scale,
with typical particle sizes in the tens of nanometers range (e.g.
30 nm). One important characteristic of MICs is the fact that
the rate of energy release can be tailored by varying the size of
the components. T h ree specific MIC formulations have
received considerable attention to date; Al/MoO3, Al/Teflon,
and Al/CuO.

Research and development on MIC formulations is being
performed in laboratories within all military services, as well as
at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). LANL researchers
Drs. Wayne Danen and Steve Son, along with their colleagues,
have not only pioneered the dynamic gas condensation method
for the production of nanoscale aluminum powders (also
known as Ultra Fine Grain ), but they have also conducted
numerous studies on physical and chemical properties.
As an example, Figure 2 shows a scanning electron microscope
(SEM) image of a nanoscale MIC (Al/MoO3 mixture) produced
by the dynamic gas condensation process at LANL. One
critical aspect of producing successful MIC formulations is the
ability to produce nanoscale aluminum particles of small particle
sizes in the tens of nanometer range, as well as with reasonably
narrow size distribution. And, of course, the production
process needs to be reproducible batch to batch. The current
state of UFG aluminum production is that this is an area that
still requires considerable effort. Even though there are commercial
sources for UFG aluminum (such as the ALEX process
originated in Russia, or commercial sources in other nations
such as Japan), the need for reliable non-government sources of
ingredient materials for uses in MIC applications is still there.
Progress in this area is being made by companies such as
Technanogy and Nanotechnology.


http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/ammt/quarterly.do?categ...





I think it is safe to conclude, nano-explosives and nano-thermite does in fact exist. And Mr. Loizeaux is lying through his teeth when he says that it doesn't. 'The materials and the technology just isn't there,' in his words. Oh, really?


Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Also of note
...Mr. Loizeaux and his company Controlled Demolition INC. was in charge of the clean-up of the WTC and ground zero in the aftermath of 9/11.



Mark Loizeaux

A similar example involves Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Inc., a key company in the Ground Zero cleanup operation. An article published two days after the attack quotes demolitions expert Loizeaux mischaracterizing the collapse of the South Tower (whose top only began to topple like a tree, but then rapidly disintegrated) and expressing perplexity at the way the North Tower's top telescoped down.

Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one wouldlike fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping. 1

Later, in an interview published in New Scientist magazine, Loizeaux suggested that he knew from the beginning that the towers would pancake straight down.
When I saw what hit, that it was an airliner, that it was loaded with jet fuel, I remembered the long clear span configuration from the central skin to the outer skin of the World Trade Center from the report I did. And we had just taken down two 40-storey structures in New York.

I still had some cellphone numbers so when the second plane hit I said: "Start calling all the cellphones, tell them that the building is going to come down."

...

And I sat there watching, I picked up the phone and and I called a couple of people on the National Research Council Committee involved in assessing the impact of explosives. They said "What do you think this is, that they're going to fail, that they're both going to fail?" The expression around was they're going to pancake down, almost vertically. And they did. It was the only way they could fail. It was inevitable. 2

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/index.h...



So Mr. Loizeaux seems to have a habit of being less than forthcoming, doesn't he?
To put it mildly.

---------------------------------




Here's another little bombshell I came across today. It appears that NIST, the government agency that performed the official investigation on the collapse of the WTC buildings, are experts in the field of nanotechnology research.




----------
NIST is headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and operates a facility in Boulder, Colorado. NIST's activities are organized into laboratory programs, and extramural programs. NIST Laboratories include:<4>

* Building and Fire Research Laboratory
* Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology
* Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory
* Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory
* Information Technology Laboratory
* Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory
* Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory
* NIST Center for Neutron Research
* Physics Laboratory
* Technology Services

The Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) performs research in nanotechnology, both through internal research efforts and by running a user-accessible cleanroom nanomanufacturing facility. This 'nanofab' is equipped with tools for lithographic patterning and imaging (e.g. electron microscopes and atomic force microscopes).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Stan...




Oh, boy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Oh boy..
The delusion is grand in this one
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. So you agree with Loizeaux's assertion?

all I can say is, you are truly deluded if you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I agree with him
That little quote-snip you posted in the OP is clearly a follow-up to his previous statement, that he had not heard of anyone using thermite for controlled demolitions. That statement was followed by Steven Jones peddling his nano-thermite stuff, and Mark Loizeaux then states that he has not heard of nano-thermite being used in controlled demolitions. The materials and technology for the use of nano-thermite in demolition just aren't there.

Also, for what it's worth, even Niels Harrit have stopped peddling the "WTC was demolished by nano-thermite"-line and is now claiming that it was instead used as a fuse for 100 tonnes of explosives... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. You agree with him?
that nanothermite is a fantasy? it doesn't exist? MIT, the Dept of Defense, LLNL, they're all making it up? How does one go about trying to have any sort of rational debate with an apparently insane person like yourself? (The answer is, you can't).

btw, do you have a source for that comment you made about Niels Haritt?
or am I supposed to just take your word for it, the word of a crazy person? lol







Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote
Edited on Sun Oct-25-09 09:10 PM by KDLarsen
Nano-thermite is a real thing.

Nano-thermite being used in a controlled demolition is not a real thing.

As for Niels Harrit: http://www.russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-07-09/Did_nano...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. 'Nano-thermite being used in a controlled demolition is not a real thing.'
1) Can you back up that statement?

2) Loizeaux states that nanothermite doesn't exist, period. So he is either a) lying or b) has been living in a cave, so is completely ignorant and unaware of more recent technological developments. The likelihood of b) is very unlikely.

3) any powerful explosive has more than multiple applications. RDX for example has multiple applications and was originally designed for military and industrial uses. years later, RDX became commonly used in controlled demolitions. the point is, any powerful explosive has the potential to be used for controlled demolitions to bring down buildings. the recent technology of nano-explosives, for example, are far more powerful than RDX, can be precisely controlled and formed into shaped-charges, so would be ideally suited for controlled demolition.

4) the absence of RDX doesn't explain the pools of molten material that burned for months and the presence of nano-sized, highly-engineered thermitic substances found in the WTC dust. blow torches cannot do that.

5) do you have a quote from that article? it's usually common courtesy to highlight or provide a quote from a lengthy article, instead of expecting people to read the whole thing.

I did a search for the word 'fuse' and 'fuses' from the article you posted.
Nothing comes up. So I have to wonder where you get this idea about the fuses.
How come the word 'fuse' or 'fuses' doesn't even appear in the article? Are you making it up?





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I stand corrected
1) A google run through only bringes up one case (and even then it's anecdotal), where the military supposedly used thermite to demolish a bridge.

2) You're still ignoring the context of that quote.

3) Are you suggesting that (nano-)thermite is a powerful explosive?

4) Molten aluminium perhaps? The facades of both WTC1 and WTC2 were covered in aluminium.

5) My apologies, I was in a bit of a hurry. Turns out I mixed up Niels Harrit & Steven Jones. Harrit is into the 100 tonnes of conventional explosives, while it is Jones that suggest nano-thermite might have been used as a fuse

Courtesy of Dr. Greening: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-mate...
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I didn't ignore it
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 01:45 AM by rollingrock
1) like I said, nanotechnology is a new and growing field. The research and development began only in the last decade (the 90s). Nanothermite, or superthermite has not been known to be used in any building demolitions (outside of 9/11) because it is a new technology. As I alluded to before, when RDX first came out over a 100 years ago, it wasn't used for any building demolitions until years later. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used for that purpose, because it obviously could have.

Here's a statement from a military analyst on how nano-explosives could be used to take down a building. This gives you an idea of the unprecedented EXPLOSIVE power of this material:


Nanotechnology "could completely change the face of weaponry," according to Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert with analyst firm and publisher Jane's Information Group. Oppenheimer says nations including the United States, Germany, and Russia are developing "mini-nuke" devices that use nanotechnology to create much smaller nuclear detonators.

Oppenheimer says the devices could fit inside a briefcase and would be powerful enough to destroy a building. Although the devices require nuclear materials, because of their small size "they blur the line with conventional weapons," Oppenheimer says.


(from page 2 of the MIT article)


2) I don't ignore the context at all. I take into account every word Mr. Loizeaux said, and he couldn't have been more clear. He says nanothermite is 'a fantasy, the materials and technology just isn't there.'

3) see #1. Thermite is an incendiary, but SUPER-thermite, or nano-thermite, is an explosive. The MIT article says a nano-explosive device fitted into a briefcase has enough destructive power to 'destroy a building.' So you get an idea of how little of it is needed to destroy a large structure, only a fraction compared to conventional RDX.


Note the reference to nano-sized RDX in the Wiki article:


In military research, aluminium-molybdenum oxide, aluminium-Teflon and aluminium-copper(II) oxide have received considerable attention.<2> Other compositions tested were based on nanosized RDX and with thermoplastic elastomers. PTFE or other fluoropolymer can be used as a binder for the composition. Its reaction with the aluminium, similar to magnesium/teflon/viton thermite, adds energy to the reaction. <3> Of the listed compositions, the Al-KMnO4 one shows the highest pressurization rates, followed by orders of magnitude slower Al-MoO3 and Al-CuO, followed by yet slower Al-Fe2O3. <4>



So nano-RDX is tens of times more powerful than conventional RDX, since much less of it would be required in a building demolition, making for a much more efficient working material; potentially saving a great deal of time and expense for the commercial demolition company.

4) I'll get back to you on this one.


5) I don't see what your point is in bring up the fuses. The presence of nano-fuses in the WTC dust would indicate the use of high-tech demolition devices. Either way, there's no legitimate reason for these fuses to be there.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. You have absolutely ZERO proof that nano-thermite or super-thermite...
was used on 9/11, dude. Quit stating it like it was fact, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. The WTC dust tested positive
for the presence of nanothermitic materials.

and there is zero evidence the buildings were brought down by fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. No, it did not. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. I'm afraid it did
unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. You are incorrect. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. No, it didn't...
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 08:44 AM by SDuderstadt
besides the issues with provenance and chain of custody, thermite and the welding process go hand-in-hand, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #27
40. Wrong
cutting steel with blow torches creates temporary red hot steel as the torch passes over the steel. the second you take the torch away, the area immediately begins to cool and goes back to normal room or atmospheric temperature. blow torches do not create large pools of molten metal or big, sustained high temperature hotspots that is seen and picked up by heat sensors on aircraft flying thousands of feet above the ground. hence, the blow torch theory has no merit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HannibalCards Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Thermite
does not create large pools of molten metal or big, sustained high temperature hotspots that last for weeks, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Thermite and nanothermite are not the same
the nano-scale version is radically different and packs much more energy than the conventional version.

from MIT article,

Nanoaluminum is more chemically reactive because there are more atoms on the surface area than standard aluminum, according to Douglas Carpenter, the chief scientific officer at nanometals company Quantumsphere.

"Standard aluminum covers just one-tenth of one percent of the surface area (with atoms), versus fifty percent for nanoaluminum," Carpenter says.

"Nanoaluminum provides ultra high burn rates for propellants that are ten times higher than existing propellants."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HannibalCards Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. I thought
the claim was that nano-thermite was an explosive? Explosives don't cause 'large pools of molten metal' or long lasing heat signatures.

Also, explosives go 'boom'. There was clearly no 'boom' just prior to collapse of any of the towers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. You thought wrong
Clearly no boom? Were you there? or are you a psychic? tell that to barry jennings, kevin mcpadden, william rodriguez or any number of first responders who were there and heard the 'booms.' clearly, you make far too many assumptions that have no basis in reality.

Ever heard of an HEI? a weapon that exhibits characteristics of both explosive and incendiary? of course not. because you are ignorant and have no basis from which to speak credibly on any of these matters.

----------------------------

High explosive incendiary


In warfare, High-explosive incendiary (HEI) is a type of ammunition specially designed to pierce armor, fragment, and ignite readily combustible materials.

High Explosive Incendiary shells (HEIS) are designed to penetrate the armor of the target using high explosive properties, and then fragment and flare up, causing a fire either inside or outside of the target. HEI shells have been in use with numerous countries since the invention of the modern howitzer.

HEI ammunition is fused either mechanically or chemically. The armor piercing ability can vary widely, allowing for more focused fragmentation or larger scatter.
Contents


* 1 History
* 2 Employment
* 3 See also
* 4 References
* 5 External links

History

HEI ammunition was originally developed for use in large-caliber cannon, howitzer and naval artillery. Currently, HEI rounds are most commonly made in medium-caliber sizes of 20 mm, 25 mm, and 30 mm. They are fired from various platforms, including aircraft, anti-aircraft cannons, and anti-missile systems, as well as common battlefield howitzers, though the latter has gone through a recent decline in use.

HEI ammunition has also been used on the battlefield against tanks and other armoured vehicles, but this has become impractical due to the invention of modern armour systems such as Chobham and explosive reactive armour, which can absorb most high-explosive rounds currently used.

Recently, APIS (armour piercing incendiary shells) have been used; these penetrate the target using the kinetic properties of the round before the incendiary round goes off, smothering the crew in flames, cooking off ammunition and igniting combustible materials, generally destroying the target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_incendiary



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. As usual, it's you squaring off against everyone else in the thread, save...
lovepg. Ever wonder why that is, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. 'Everyone else?'
what are you guys, like the three stooges or something? or is it four?
am I supposed to be intimidated by your big bad...sad little army? LOL









Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. No, what intimidates you are actual facts, dude...
I'm still chuckling over your poor grasp of just about...well, everything, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. how amusing, dude...
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 04:55 PM by reinvestigate911
you chuckle over rollingrock's inability to grasp facts, yet the debunker clown car is still stuck in first gear and can't tell the difference between conventional thermite and nanoenergetic super-thermite.

i'd love to see debates like these televised - just so i could witness the expressions on your faces as you're proven wrong, time and time again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Really?
Show me where I confused the two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Now that's what I call irony
sheer delusion, in fact.

your postings have been completely devoid of any facts, unsurprisingly enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Dude...
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 05:34 PM by SDuderstadt
you start by totally mischaracterizing what Loizeaux actually said. What facts do I have to present when you start out with a false premise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Dude....
he's talking about with respect to controlled demolition. Did you find any examples to contradict him yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. He... doesn't.... say.... a ....word ...about.... controlled....demoltion
P....E....R....I....O....D....

Loizeaux.... doesn't....say.... nanothermite... or... thermite .... is.... not.... present.... in.... the.... dust..... he...says....the.....TECHNOLOGY.... is....NOT....there....it....doesn't.... exist...its.....not.... REALLLLLLLL.....it.....is....a.....FAAANNNTTAAAAASSSSSYYYYYY....PERIOD.....











Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. And what is the context of the conversation....
dude? What is the show about???? Are they just having a colloquy on thermite and nanothermite?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Oh dear, looks like you caused RR to meltdown
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 07:20 PM by KDLarsen
Oh well, what can you do :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. I know....
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 07:28 PM by SDuderstadt
it reminded me of some science fiction movie I saw once. I think he blew a fuse or went haywire or something. You can always tell when RR has lost the debate, because he goes into name-calling mode. He goes into name-calling mode a lot these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Are you melting down again, RR?
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 08:30 PM by SDuderstadt
BTW, I just recalled what this reminds me of. It's when Rosie the maid (robot) would go haywire on the "Jetsons".

I'm still pondering the irony of your post to KDL when, from the beginning, you're totally mischaracterizing what Loizeaux is saying and the context in which he's saying it, dude.

This is why no one here takes you seriously, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. You've been watching one too many cartoons, dude

You ought to turn off the boob tube and try reading a book once in a while.
You might learn something.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. I don't watch TV, dude...
hint: the Jetsons were big when I was a kid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Hmmm, that's odd
personally, I never met anyone who used the word 'dude' so much, as you do in almost every other sentence; who wasn't of cartoon age. yeah, you sure sound like someone we all better take VERY seriously from now on, sdude....or else!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Well, you should take notice of whom I refer to as "dude"....
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 09:48 PM by SDuderstadt
dude. BTW, you're busted for your mischaracterization of what Loizeaux said, dude. Unfortunately for you, the BBC has posted program notes for the very program in question and, of course, you're omitting anything that contradicts your goofy claim, dude.

Here's the part referring to conventional controlled demolition|

According to Richard Gage, an American architect who founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the skyscraper was destroyed by a controlled demolition:

"Building 7 is the smoking gun of 9/11. It is the most obvious example of controlled demolition with explosives."



Watch WTC 7 collapsing and a controlled demolition
Steven Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University for two decades until 2006, thinks it looks suspicious:
"I saw this building which had never been hit by a plane come crashing straight down. I must admit I was taken aback as a physicist looking at this. We've all seen controlled demolitions I think. They proceed rapidly and straight down. But that's with explosives."

They point to Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolition expert who has been in the business for 28 years, and who when shown footage of Tower 7's collapse said:

"That is a controlled demolition... absolutely. It's been imploded. It's a hired job done by a team of experts."

But most controlled experts disagree.

Mark Loizeaux who runs one of the world's leading demolition companies, Controlled Demolition Incorporated, and who holds the world record for bringing down the largest steel structure, the J L Hudson building in Detroit, says it is simply not possible to bring down a building like Tower 7 which was fully occupied and without anybody seeing or hearing something.

The operation would take months to design and months to prepare the structure for the placement of charges:

"It's noisy. There's just no way to get around it. You go in, you knock out usually all the walls on the floors where you place explosives, gut them."

Mr Loizeaux also told the BBC that you would need to place hundreds of explosive charges along with miles of initiating cable and miles more detonating cord. And you would find evidence left behind of all these explosive charges, blasting caps and tubes.

Furthermore says Loizeaux, when you are dealing with charges big enough to bring down a building like Tower 7: "The amount of air that's displaced will break windows easily.

"There were a lot of broken windows mainly through impact debris. But I didn't see windows broken on the backs of building, only where debris falling from the Towers struck it.

"But come round the back side, no windows were broken there.

"They were shielded from debris falling. If explosives of the magnitude necessary to cut the columns in a big building, were detonated the windows all the way round would have been shattered. No way round it."

Dr Gene Corley, the lead investigator for the first inquiry by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) told the BBC: "We looked at everything.

"Controlled demolition was ruled out because there was no evidence of controlled demolition ... we looked for it, yes, and we found no evidence of controlled demolition."



Next, the program turns its attention to the question of whether the buildings could have been brought down with an incendiary:

Was an incendiary used to demolish Tower 7?

Critics of the official account believe they have found evidence of the unconventional demolition of Tower 7 using a substance called thermite.

Thermite is a substance that can literally melt steel and is made up of iron oxide and aluminium.

Sceptics base their claims for this on an analysis of the dust from the World Trade Centre site after the attacks. In this dust they have found tiny iron rich spheres. These spheres can only be formed in very high temperatures - temperatures higher than those reached in the fires in the towers before their collapse.

The former professor of physics, Steven Jones, believes the spheres he has found in the dust from the World Trade Centre site match the spheres you get in a thermite reaction. He argues that thermite is the explanation for the presence of iron and aluminium in the spheres.

However, other scientists say there are other explanations for presence of these tiny iron rich spheres.

They could have come from the cutting torches used after 9/11 to clear the site, from any building work on the site before the attacks or even from the collapse of the Towers themselves.

The demolition contractor, Mark Loizeaux says the timing of when the explosions on the columns are set off is critical. He cannot see how thermite or any derivative of thermite could have been used to deliberately demolish Tower 7.

"I've never seen anyone use a material, which melts steel for demolition purposes. I don't see how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time
."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/...

See that, dude? It's apparent to everyone (except for you) that Loizeaux is not denying the existence of such materials, he's saying that, "I've never seen anyone use a material, which melts steel for demolition purposes. Is that clear enough for you? Again, the irony here is how you've mischaracterized what Loizeaux was saying to paint him as a liar. I say that "turnabout is fair play". Oh, and ask me if I care what your reaction is to me calling you "dude". Hint: I don't...dude.

Question: When you mealtdown, are you using just plain thermite or some sort of super duper thermite? Just curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Is that supposed to prove something?
because it doesn't prove anything.

Maybe you should stick to your day job, if you have one.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Yeah, it proves you misrepresented Loizeaux, dude....
as far as your comment about , "maybe (I) should stick to my day job, if (I) have one": Ouch, dude. Ouch. Oh,wait, I DO have a day job. You'd actually find it impressive. Maybe I'll tell you about it sometime. Or, maybe I won't. You wouldn't understand it anyway.

And it's clear the score is Loizeaux 1, RollingRock 0. Sorry, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. Fires do not cause office buildings to collapse or pancake
you see, that only happens in a cartoon. the real world works a lot differently.
one day when you grow up you might come to realize that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. Hah!
Arrogant ignorance is funny! Do it again, rollingrock - I could use another laugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. Me too
cartoon descriptions of pancaking buildings are always good for a laugh or two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. Fortunately the engineering community doesn't take...
the opinions of the uneducated very seriously, especially when they're as laughably wrong as yours is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #74
102. 'Engineering community'
I didn't know the opinions of NIST represented that of the world's entire engineering community? you're a funny guy, AZCAT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #102
107. Generally speaking, it does.
There are plenty of quibbles professional engineers might have with the report, but most of us agree with its main points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. Unless you are a mind reader
sorry to burst your bubble, but speak for yourself, please. because guess what? the opinions of NIST represent....the opinions of NIST. nothing more. the conclusions of NIST represent their own personal opinion and baseless speculation, which isn't based on any common scientific laws or principles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #108
110. What a stupid post....
"their own personal opinion"?? "which isn't based on any common scientific laws or principles"?

Dude, it's obvious you haven't read the report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #108
122. Promoting ignorance again, rollingrock?
Too bad you aren't familiar enough with "common scientific laws or principles" to be making that judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. What is the point of it that you agree with?
My understanding is that they had to push out to the extreme case on some of the major factors influencing the model in order to get the towers to collapse, so the report seems to me a misstatement of their results. They did not demonstrate what they claim to have demonstrated.

Here is a critical analysis of the NIST WTC report that lays it out:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-W...

What is your basis for agreeing with it? Have you done any actual analysis? Have you reviewed the model?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #109
121. Your understanding is incorrect.
I haven't read the article you linked to (I'm not a regular reader of JONES, since I consider most of its articles garbage) but I'd be surprised if its arguments were substantiated. I'm not going to promise to read it, since I don't have a lot of time these days for September 11th-related stuff.

I have done some analysis (although limited) and NIST's conclusions seem reasonable to me and to other engineers with whom I have discussed the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #121
132. My understanding is correct.
Edited on Wed Oct-28-09 06:49 PM by eomer
In the early phase of the investigation NIST developed three sets of values for the influential parameters for each tower:
  • "base case" (their best estimate)
  • "less severe case"
  • "more severe case"

At some point in the early investigation they stop even mentioning the less severe case. Then later, by the time they are performing the final global analysis, they drop the base case (their best estimate) and run this final model only on the more severe case.

Their rationale for dropping the less severe case is not provided (not that I see). The reason they give for dropping the base case and focusing only on the more severe case is that the severe case "more closely matched the structural behavior observable in photographic and video evidence than did analyses using" the base case.

Let me say that again: their best estimate values for a large number of influential parameters did not cause the towers to bow and tilt to the extent that they did in real life. So they arbitrarily switched to more severe values for those influential parameters in order to get the towers to do what they needed them to do.

Here are selected excerpts from the NIST WTC Report, with important parts in bold, and the really key parts that demonstrate my point in red

NIST NCSTAR 1-6D: Global Structural Analysis of the Reponse of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire


Executive Summary
E.2.2 Impact Damage

...

The NIST investigation identified four aircraft impact damage sets (two damage sets for each tower) consisting of an impact damage condition and a fireproofing damage condition. These damage sets were named Case A and Case B for WTC 1 and Case C and Case D for WTC 2. Case B and Case D damage sets were used in the final global analyses. Case B and Case D impact damage sets for columns are shown in Figs. E-2 to E-5, where severed columns are shown as missing vertical lines. For comparison, core columns and beams before aircraft impact are shown in Figs. E-6 and E-7 for WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively. (Note that the global models included only core beams that had moment connections; hence, Figs. E-3 and E-5 do not show all the core beams that existed in the WTC towers.)


2.2 IMPACT DAMAGE

2.2.1 Introduction


The extent of aircraft impact damage to the structural components of the WTC towers has been separately investigated as part of NIST Project 2 and was reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and NIST NCSTAR 1-2B. SGH incorporated the results of these studies into the global models of the WTC towers to characterize the aircraft impact damage to exterior columns and spandrels, core columns, beams, and floors. Specifically, those elements identified in the aircraft impact studies as severed or heavily damaged were removed from the global models.

NIST's investigation initially identified two sets of aircraft impact damage for each of the two towers, consisting of a sturctural damage condition, which was damage to the structure, and a insulation damage condition, which affected the temperature in members. These damage sets represent a base case and a more severe case of damage estimates. They were named as Case Ai and Case Bi for WTC 1 and Case Ci and Case Di for WTC 2. These initial damage sets were used in early analyses to study the structural response of full floor subsystem models and global models without creep. The results of the full floor subsystem analyses were presented in Section 5.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C and summarized in Appendix A of this report. The results of the global modle analyses without creep are discussed in Section 4.1 of this report.

NIST refined the initial damage sets at later stages of the investigation and renamed them as Case A and Case B for WTC 1 and Case C and Case D for WTC 2. These damage sets were used in isolated wall and isolated core models and global models with creep. The results of the isolated wall and core models are discussed in Chapter 3, and the results of the global model analyses with creep are discussed in Section 4.2 of this report.


2.2.3 Final Damage Sets


NIST provided a series of final damage sets for use in the global analyses. Two sets were provided for each of the two buildings, together with temperature time history data sets computed by NIST based on the damage set. The final damage sets for WTC 1 were designated Case A and Case B, respectively, representing different scenarios of aircraft impact damage to the structure and thermal insulation. The final damage sets for WTC 2 were designated Case C and Case D. The exterior wall damage contained in the final damage sets are identical to those in the contained in the (sic) initial damage sets, described inthe previous section and illustrated in Figs. 2-2 and 2-3. However, the projected damage to floor and core elements differed from the initial damage sets. The final damage sets were used in SGH analyses of the isolated wall models, the isolated core models, and the global analyses with creep.


Chapter 4

4.2.4 Simulation of WTC 1 Collapse


The global model of WTC 1, described in the previous section, was used to simulate the response of the building to aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fire environment. Studies performed on the isolated exterior wall and core models and on the full floor subsystem models indicated that the calculated response of these models to the Case B impact damage and temperature time history set, as described in Section 2.2.3, more closely matched the structural behavior observed in the visual evidence than did analyses using the Case A data set. Therefore, only the Case B impact damage and temperature time history set was used in the final global analyses.


4.2.5 Simulatation of WTC 2 Collapse


The global model of WTC 2, as described in Sections 4.1.1 to 4.2.3, was used to simulate the response of the building to aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fire environment. Studies performed on the isolated exterior wall and core models and on the full floor subsystem models indicated that the calculated response of these models to the Case D damage and temperature time history set more closely matched the structural behavior observable in photographic and video evidence than did analyses using Case C. Therefore, in this global analysis only the Case D damage and temperature time history set were used. Section 2.2 of this report provides a description of the Case D structural impact damage set.




NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the World Trade Center Towers

Chapter 9


The impact analyses are subject to uncertainties in the input parameters, such as initial impact conditions, material properties and failure criteria, aircraft mass and stiffness properties, mass distribution inside the towers, the jet fuel distribution and dispersion, connections behavior, the presence of nonstructural building contents, etc. (see Chapter 8 for further details). The global analyses presented in this chapter not only provide a "base case" based on a best estimate of all input parameters (based on photographic and video evidence, material testing, and data in the open literature), but also provide more and less severe damage estimates based on variations of the most influential parameters, identified in the sensitivity analyses (Chapter 8). The more and less severe damage scenarios provide a range of damage estimates of the towers due to aircraft impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #132
133. No, your understanding isn't correct.
You miss the whole point of what the NIST did. You seem to think they arbitrarily chose the more severe case, and that's where you misunderstand the whole concept of modeling an event that has already occurred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. Yes, my understanding is correct.
Edited on Wed Oct-28-09 09:06 PM by eomer
Most likely you are saying that when you're modeling an event that has already occurred then it is justifiable to fudge the model until you get it to duplicate the results of the real event. Agreed, but only up to a point and only if you're using the resulting model only in a certain way.

Ideally you should not fudge parameters that physics tells you are one thing but you need to be another just to get the model to work. If you have to do that then your model is internally wrong somehow. To take an obvious example, if one of the parameters in the model is the force of gravity then you could possibly get the model to do what you need it to do (to tilt or to collapse) by increasing the force of gravity from 1G to 1.5G. You're arguing, effectively, that that would be justifiable because, after all, it did collapse. But if you're needing to fudge the force of gravity then you really should instead go back to your model to figure out what's wrong with it. The factors that NIST fudged were not as obvious as the force of gravity but they were similar in that the values they got by modeling the physics of the components were one thing but then they had to arbitrarily change them to something else in order to get the model to do what they wanted.

That said, I do agree that in some cases fudging the model is exactly what you want to do anyway because you are only interested in getting the model to deliver behavior that resembles the behavior you see in the real world and you don't care whether the internals of the model are all individually true versus delivering a behavior that in the aggregate predicts the behavior that you see in the real world. In such a situation you might be willing to fudge the force of gravity to 1.5G because you know you're approximating some other un-modeled factor in the process and aren't concerned about the distinction between the force of gravity and the un-modeled factor.

But a model that delivers the right external results but has internal components that are only accurate in the aggregate rather than accurate individually is then a model that you can count on only in terms of the external results. You can't use such a model as proof that the internals are each individually a true representation of reality.

In other words, such a model could not tell you that columns weren't weakened by the use of explosives. For all you know, the weakening of columns by explosives (a piece of the model that is missing) is what is causing you to have to fudge other factors to get the model to tilt. For all you know, the real-life towers would never have tilted if it weren't for the explosives. If you just fudge the plane impact damage until you get the tower to tilt then you may well be fudging the plane impact damage until the extra amount is enough to act as a proxy for the damage that was in reality done by explosives.

I've done quite a lot of modeling (in my few decades of actuarial consulting) where we intentionally lumped several forces together because we didn't care about the distinction between them. This would have been factors such as the force of mortality, turnover, disability, salary scale, and investment earnings. We understood that the internal components were not truly represented individually but that the external results in the aggregate were all we cared about anyway (in those particular cases).

So the NIST model might be useful for some purposes even if it had to fudge certain factors beyond their reasonable range under the laws of physics. But proving that each internal factor is individually true isn't one of the things you can do with such a fudged model. In other words, you can't prove the towers collapsed just due to impact and fire. If you have to fudge the effect of impact then you may well be pushing it up because you need to account for the un-modeled force of explosives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #134
135. Yes, except...
the behavior of the towers is not the only thing we have to go on. There is no evidence explosives were used, contrary to the ravings of Steven Jones and Niles Harrit. Given this, it was reasonable for the NIST to modify their simulation so the results compared favorably with the actual event.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. Ah... in other words, you agree with me.
The NIST report, then, tells us nothing about whether explosives were used. It took the proposition that explosives were not used as such a given that it was willing to fudge other factors to whatever extent was necessary to bridge over the force of explosives that was missing from the model.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-29-09 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #136
137. No.
You keep claiming there were explosives and that's the reason NIST had to change the model in the way they did, yet you have no evidence of exposives. You might as well hypothesize "God did it", because that's just as rational.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-29-09 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #137
139. Those were meant as hypotheticals, not claims.
Sorry if that wasn't clear in the way I worded it.

I'm agnostic on CD. My point is just that the NIST WTC study doesn't particularly shed any light on the question, one way or the other.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. Dude....
why don't you announce a press conference and announce tonthe world that the engineering and science communities are wrong and see if anyone takes yo seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #68
76. Dude...
call that press conference! You owe it to the world!

Besides, you couldn't embarrass liberalism and the Democratic Party any more than you already have, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #76
103. Sorry, the opinions of NIST
does not represent that of the world's engineering community.

you have an active imagination, in presuming that it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. Dude....
apparently NIST has misinformed the engineering community and YOU can set the record straight. Just think how famous you'll be. You can educate engineers about their profession! After all, you seem to think you know more than the engineering community.

Let us know how that goes, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HannibalCards Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. Truthers
don't actually take action on anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. "Truther Logic"...
Loizeaux could not have possibly been talking about nanothermite technology for controlled demolition on a BBC documentary featuring Richard Gage and Steven Jones. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #59
72. you should watch the clip again
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 09:54 AM by reinvestigate911
"dude", i believe your contention might be with the BBC, as they're responsible for the edits which make it appear that loizeaux is responding to professor jones' argument for nanothermite.

after jones makes his point about the possibility of a nanoscale, hi-tech incindiary-explosive used in the destruction of the towers, loizeaux says, and i quote:

"i suppose you can keep saying 'but what if... what if... what if' and you could go to fantasy land and make up whatever you wanted... it's just not real; it's not real. the materials and the technologies just arent there -- if they were, i'd know."

and so perhaps this term "truther logic" -- which you bandy about with glee -- is better applied to the BBC's characterization of the argument for nanothermite, as it does in fact appear (in the point/counterpoint editing style used by the BBC) that mr. loizeaux is dismissing claims of nanothermite out-of-hand, in an arguing-from-authority attack against the evidence for nanothermite. rolling rock is responding to this presentation of the argument by showing that the technology is quite real and has been used for CD purposes... and quite possibly used in the 9/11 attacks.

if you watch the clip a second time this should be apparent; and if it's not apparent to you, then either your judgement is clouded, or you simply are not arguing honestly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. Dude...
you and RollingRock are straining to make it sound like Loizeaux is denying the existence of nano-thermites, when it's clear to everyone else that he isn't. Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. "showing that the technology is quite real and has been used for CD purposes"
Hmmm. I've reviewed the thread, and I can't figure out what you're referring to here. If rollingrock actually demonstrated that nanothermite has been used in CD, I can't imagine why that wasn't the highlight of the OP, unless it emerged later.

Otherwise, I think you're all but conceding that Loizeaux was referring to CD materials, not to nanothermite in general. But since you're not conceding that, I can't tell what you are trying to argue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #75
79. right you are
RR never actually demonstrated that nanothermite has been used in CD... so let's just dismiss this as nonsense and pretend that a high tech, nanoscale incindiary-explosive could (or would?) NEVER be used for such purposes.

we'll all sleep better with that in mind...
thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. You forgot to mention that leading experts in controlled demolition...
that no technology using nanothermite in controlled demolition currently exists. I guess I'm just funny in that way...I regard the word of actual industry experts as having more weight than random "9/11 was an inside job" blowhards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #80
84. simple question
if "leading experts" deny the use of nanothermite in CD, is this 'a priori' proof that it's impossible to use next-generation technologies in a clandestine operation to destroy buildings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #84
87. Show me where I said it's impossible...
we're talking about whether it happened or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #79
85. gee, that's a graceful way to concede a mistake
Extra points for a prodigious goalpost shift.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HannibalCards Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #44
66. You are moving the goalposts
What I said was - no one heard explosions at the time of collapse. Especially not the kind that would sever the columns of a building. (Think Loud)

So - what exactly does Nano-thermite do? Is it an incendiary? explosive? propellant?

Explain in your own words how nano-thermite was applied and used to demolish any of the WTC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #66
77. no one heard explosions?
i'm sorry, but the first responder testimonial evidence contradicts your claim:

CRAIG CARLSEN, FIREFIGHTER, F.D.N.Y.:
It seemed like it took forever, but there were about 10 explosionsWe then realized the building started to come down.

F.D.N.Y. PARAMEDIC KEVIN DARNOWSKI:
At that time I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard 3 explosions. And then we heard like groaning and grinding, and Tower 2 started to come down.

F.D.N.Y. FIREFIGHTER THOMAS TURILLI:
The officer actually said for me to give my radio to a senior guy there, Louie Cacchioli, and he took the radio off of me and he went up. We were waiting in, I guess like a little, almost like a cutout area of the lobby, an elevator bank. One elevator was only working out of like four elevators in that bank.

The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden you just heard like it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off. Like Boom-boom-boom. Like 7 or 8

LOUIE CACCHIOLI, FIREFIGHTER, F.D.N.Y.:
There was a huge amount of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools and no sooner did the elevators close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.
I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although its hard to tell, but Im thinking, Oh, my God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!

F.D.N.Y. FIREFIGHTER EDWARD CACHIA:
As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

F.D.N.Y. FIREFIGHTER FRANK CAMPAGNA:
There was nobody in the intersection, nobody in the streets in general, everyone just saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming. Thats when (the North Tower) went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was scattering.

F.D.N.Y. FIREFIGHTER BRIAN BECKER:
So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We were - like, the meltdown was beginning. The collapse hadnt begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like - it was like that - like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.

E.M.T. GREG BRADY:
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard - I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

We were standing in a circle in the middle of West Street. They were talking about what was going on. At that time, when I heard the 3 loud explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street towards the water. At that time, I couldnt run fast enough. The debris caught up with me, knocked my helmet off.

FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH MEOLA:
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops.

F.D.N.Y. FIREFIGHTER STEPHEN VIOLA:
You heard like loud booms

FIREFIGHTER JAMES CURRAN:
When I got underneath the north bridge, I looked back and you heard it. I heard, like, every floor went Chu-chu-chu. Looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed.

E.M.T. JASON CHARLES
I grabbed her and the Lieutenant picked her up by the legs and we start walking over slowly to the curb, and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, shit, Im dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it. Then everybody stops and looks at the building and they take off. The Lieutenant dropped her legs and ran. The triage center, everybody who was sitting there hurt and, oh, you know, help me, they got up and everybody together got up and ran. I looked at them like why are they running? I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, shit, and then I turned around and looked up and thats when I saw the tower coming down.

We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and Im like holy shit, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said shit and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.

E.M.T. JAMES McKINLEY
After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is coming at us, so were running.

KEITH MURPHY, F.D.N.Y.:
I was standing kind of on the edge of where our elevator bank met the big elevator bank. That was when the - I determined thats when the north tower collapses. We are standing there and the first thing that happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out. Completely pitch black. Since we are in that core little area of the building, there is no natural light. No nothing, I didnt see a thing. I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom-boom-boom, sounded like three explosions. I dont know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom-boom-boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, shit, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

E.M.T. MICHAEL OBER:
Then we heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and to be totally honest, at first, I dont know exactly - but it looked to me just like an explosion. It didnt look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. I was sitting there looking at it.

MARK STEFFENS, DIVISION CHIEF, E.M.S.:
Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white powder, papers, flying everywhere. We sat put there for a few minutes. It kind of dissipated.

Thats when we heard this massive explosion and I saw this thing rolling towards us. It looked like a fireball and then thick, thick black smoke.

E.M.S. PARAMEDIC NEIL SWEETING:
You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one.

CAPTAIN JAY SWITHERS, E.M.S.
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didnt see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.

JOHN SCHROEDER, FIREFIGHTER:
The elevators just blew right out. We couldnt believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.
We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building. People were making there way down the stairwells burnt like you couldnt believe. We were all shocked because it seemed as if there was fire everywhere, on so many floors. It just didnt make sense.

F.D.N.Y. FIREFIGHTER ANGEL RIVERA:
When we hit the 19th floor, something horrendous happened. It was like a bomb went off. We thought we were dead. The whole building shook.

It was like a huge, enormous explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook. Everything went black.

POLICE OFFICER SUE KEANE:
There just seemed to be one explosion after another.

POLICE OFFICER A. MIDDLETON:
As I continued to wave them back periodically you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one. As the building continued to burn and emergency equipment kept on responding stirring up the dust and debris in the streets. After approximately 15 minutes suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors. And another loud earth-shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad Street.

FIRE CAPTAIN DENNIS TARDIO:
I hear an explosion and I look up (at the South Tower). It is as if the building is being imploded from the top floor down, one after another: Boom, boom, boom.

Dozens of eyewitness reports confirm multiple explosions far below the impact zones of either tower. The following are representative examples:

Edmund McNally was in Tower 2 and phoned his wife twice after the aircraft impact, telling her:
I can hear explosions below me.

Statement of Eyewitness present prior to collapse:
I saw it as it was happening and it sounded as if you had a hundred of those little Black Cat firecrackers and you lit em all off at once. Thats what it sounded like. It sounded like the finale of the 4th of July over the East River.

Another Eyewitness present prior to collapse:
And then all of a sudden it started like, like, it sounded like gunfire. You know, Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. And then all of a sudden, three big explosions.

Steve Evans, Reporter for BBC:
I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit. There was an explosionthe base of the building shook. I felt it shakethen when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions.

Fox 5 News, New York (Reporting LIVE):
There is an explosion at the base of the buildingwhite smoke from the bottomsomething has happened at the base of the building

Another Eyewitness:
It just went BA-BOOM it was like a bomb went off. And it was like holy hell coming down those stairs, and when we finally got to the bottom and we were coming out, on the mezzanine level there, and another explosion.


source: http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/bro...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #77
78. "Truther Logic"..
explosions only happen in conjunction with controlled demolition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #78
81. "Dude Logic"
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 10:48 AM by reinvestigate911
the city of new york suppressed the first responder oral histories because "release of some of the material would violate the privacy of victims and their families"...

yet upon closer examination of these records we find that the oral histories are in fact rife with testimonial evidence of explosions.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DEFDA...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/nyregion/nyregionspec...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/200...

ps: and we were attacked because the terrorists hate us for freedoms.
pss: have a glass of warm milk and go back to sleep, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. Dude...
if you can find ANYWHERE where I ever claimed that "the city of new york suppressed the first responder oral histories because 'release of some of the material would violate the privacy of victims and their families' ", please provide it. Of course, you know that I never said anything of the sort.

Simple question, dude. Do explosions only happen in conjunction with controlled demolition?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #82
83. simple answer, dude
of course not.

however your buddy there, hannibalcards, asserts that "no one heard explosions" and i just proved him wrong.
do you have a problem with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #83
86. Of course, you're clipping what he actually said, dude...
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 11:07 AM by SDuderstadt
He didn't say that "no one heard explosions". What he actually said was:

What I said was - no one heard explosions at the time of collapse. Especially not the kind that would sever the columns of a building. (Think Loud)


It's funny how you keep leaving the context out. You could argue that it's not clear what he meant by "at the time of collapse" but, by adding "Especially not the kind that would sever the columns of a building. (Think Loud)", I think it's clear to everyone except someone deliberately trying to misrepresent what he said (like, well, YOU!)what he was getting at.

In the meantime, wouldn't it be a better use of your time to try to get Brent Blanchard and Mark Loizeaux on your side? Then people might actually start paying attention to you guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #86
88. did you read the first responder oral histories?
they reported LOUD explosions at the time of COLLAPSE.
seriously dude, how can you ignore their testimonies?
how do their testimonies get glossed over so easily?

do you really think that firefighters and EMTs are unqualified in determining what a loud explosion is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #88
89. Dude...
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 11:40 AM by SDuderstadt
lots of explosions are loud. It's not surprising that some of them occurred at the "time of the collapse" (but what does that mean? Prior? During? After?).

I'm hoping, at least, that you recognize that going down this path essentially contradicts whatever you're claiming about nano-thermites (hint: they don't explode). So, if you're conceding that a "controlled demolition" would have involved conventional explosives, then you'll have to address the timing and the pattern of the explosions, not to mention the number of blasts necessary to sever enough structural members to guarantee the collapse of the buildings.

As I mentioned before, wouldn't your time be better spent getting Brent Blanchard and Mark Loizeaux on your side? As it stands now, their disavowal of your goofy claims is what renders them non-starters.

And, for the record, I've read all the oral h8stories. Have you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. why is everything so black and white with you?
debating with you guys and your circular, bullshit arguments is tiring.

no explosions, no loud explosions, no loud explosions as a result of CD, no nanothermite, no nanothermite used in CD, no nano technologies in combination with conventional technologies... no wonder the official narrative is so easy for you all to believe.

sleep well, friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. Simple question:
Why should we "reinvestigate" 9/11, when it's plain that you haven't really taken the time to study the first ones?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HannibalCards Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #88
94. That is incorrect
Also, there is no audio recording of such explosions, nor seismic evidence. (at the time of collapse, get it right)

If you have a link to these "first responder oral histories" that "reported LOUD explosions at the time of COLLAPSE" for WTC 1, 2 and 7, please post them.

In addition, I don't think that firefighter and EMTs are unqualified in determining what a loud explosion is, or what may or may not cause it. That's why there are no firefighters or EMTs from the scene claiming controlled demolition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. the links are provided in my previous post: #81
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 02:53 PM by reinvestigate911
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

however, you should check graeme macqueen's investigation into the archives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. Reports of explosions immediately prior to collapse:
It's easier to read in the original pdf due to formatting lost in my copy/paste. Here's the link:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-W...

Reports of Explosions
(Unless otherwise noted, all quotes under this heading are from FDNY transcripts (emphasis added) made available
through a New York Times FOIA request and are available on the NYT website)
There were several reports of explosions. This in itself may not be significant, as collapsing or falling matter can
sound like an explosion and simple flashovers can look like them. The most likely scenario indicating building
collapse as a direct result of explosive detonation would be to see/hear such explosion(s) immediately prior to
collapse, as in the following experiences reported by firemen on the scene:
You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. (F. CAMPAGNA file #9110224 p8)
Then the south towerwe heard an explosion, looked up, and the building started to collapse. (E.
SHEEHEY file #9110226 p3)
we heard the explosion and the building started to come down2 World Trade Center started to
collapse. (J. RAE file #9110294 p3)
You could hear explosions. We didnt know what it was. We thought it was just a small collapse. As I
looked straight ahead of me, I saw total darkness. Everything was coming our way like a wave. (F.
CAMACHO file #9110318 p4)
As we walked through those revolving doors, thats when we felt the rumble. I felt the rumbling, and then I
felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off.
The pressure got so great, I stepped back behind the columns separating the revolving doors. Then the force
just blew past me. It blew past me it seemed for a long time. In my mind I was saying what the hell is this
and when is it going to stop?
Then it finally stopped, that pressure which I thought was a concussion of an explosion. It turns out it was
the down pressure wind of the floors collapsing on top of each other. At that point everything went black,
and then the collapse came. It just rained down on top of us.
There were secondary explosions, I dont know, aerosol cans or whatever. But were in the darkness. We
see basically the glow of a flashlight and still things coming down. The noise, the explosions, whatever it
was. (J. MALLEY file #9110319 p5,6)
we were taking a break on 30, and thats when we heard a rumble, outside explosion, and I think that was
the other building coming down
I heard an explosion and turned around and the building was coming down. (J. IPPOLITO file #9110342
p5,8)
as I was looking at him I heard the explosions, looked up, and saw like three floors explode, saw the
antenna coming down, and turned around and ran north. (K. GORMAN file #9110434 p6)
we heard this huge explosion, and thats when the tower started coming down. (R. CHELSEN file
#9110475 p9)
there was a tremendous boom, explosion, we both turned around, and the top of the building was
coming down at us. (E. KENNEDY 9110502 p7)
Journal of 9/11 Studies 24 December 2006/Volume 6
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It
seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.
We then realized the building started to come down.
Q. When the north tower was coming down, did you have any indication? Did you hear the explosions
again? Did anybody warn you like they heard on the radio of anything like that?
A. You did hear the explosions. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now youre very
familiar with it. (C. CARLSEN file #9110505 p6-10)
First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of
thing, you know, secondary device.
Q. (Chief Art Lakiotes) I was convinced for a week it was secondary devices.
A. You know, and I just heard like an explosion and a then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded
like a freight train. (T. JULIAN file #9110386 p10)
I dont know what time later a loud rumbleit sounded like an explosion. We thought it was a bomb. We
ran under the bridge, me, Joe Cassaliggi and two police officers; I think one police officer and one Secret
Service. We ran under the bridge. Theres a column there, over here, right on the sidewalk, a big six foot
round masonry column.
We get behind that, and number two tower comes down and debris comes right around us. (T. SPINARD
file #9110445 p9)


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. Does any of this sound like "controlled demolition"?
Simple question: How many of the first responders whose accounts are being given believe the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
reinvestigate911 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. shifting goalposts: testimonial evidence is provided; whether they believe it's CD is irrelevant n/t
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 04:19 PM by reinvestigate911
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. Of explosions, dude....
I never said there weren't explosions. But it's clear they are not talking about explosions that accompany controlled demolition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. Interesting analysis suggesting seismic event prior to and during collapse.
You asked for evidence of seismic events and/or witness reports. This paper provides both. I don't claim it is bullet-proof (and neither does the author) but it should at least disabuse you of your belief that there is nothing at all of this sort that can be found. Apply your own interpretation, but at least be aware of the facts.

Here is just a small bit of the paper; please go to the link for all of the witness reports and analysis.


We can now make a few observations.

(1) The camera movement at 9:58:56 a.m. EDT, which shows up as a jiggle of the camera,
is extremely sudden and brief, and it occurs about three seconds before collapse initiation.

On close inspection, it appears likely that the movement at 9:58:56 is part of a series of
less dramatic disruptions beginning several seconds earlier still:

(graph omitted - see link)

(2) The prolonged bout of camera-shaking begins after the brief event just discussed and
directly before collapse initiation as visually determined.


-snip-

Conclusions:

If we simply checked time-stamps and exercised appropriate scepticism toward NISTs
revised seismic estimates we would find good reason to reject NISTs position that a
significant seismic signal began only when debris hit the earth. Innovation in the use of
video cameras would not be necessary. But we have gone further and used video evidence,
especially that embodied in the NY1 video, and we have been able put together an
intriguing profile of the shaking of the earth and to suggest that:
  • The shaking of the earth seems to have reached an early peak at approximately
    9:59:04 a.m. This helps us make sense of LDEOs original findings.
  • A second and higher peak came much later. Representing the moment when debris
    hit the ground, it has been mistakenly represented by NIST as corresponding to the
    start of the LDEO seismic signal.
  • The seismic event actually began before both of these points in time and, indeed,
    before any visible sign of collapse.

Seeking to corroborate the NY1 video evidence, we have looked at witness testimony
from the FDNY oral histories and PAPD accounts, and we have found two kinds of
corroborating evidence, direct and indirect. The direct evidence has confirmed that a quite
intense shaking of the earth began well before debris impact and that some degree of earth
shaking took place before collapse initiation. The indirect (auditory) evidence suggests
that the distinct sounds associated with shaking of the earth began well before debris
impact. Some of these accounts confirm that the sounds, and by implication the vibrations,
began before visible collapse of the South Tower.


I do not pretend to have resolved all the anomalies relating to the shaking of the earth at
the time of the South Towers destruction. I do not expect to see these anomalies resolved
until seismologists study the WTC events closely. But I believe it is clear that several of
NISTs key claims are untenable.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/MacQueen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #81
101. also known as Pretzel logic
trying to make sense of SD's incoherent, circular psycho-babble is an exercise in futility.

'dude' logic, hahahahaha.








Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. Oh, really, dude?
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 07:13 PM by SDuderstadt
Why don't you point to a specific example of my supposed "incoherence" and especially any "circular, psycho-babble"? And, while you're at it, perhaps you could explain why it's actually you that people mock, dude.

On top of that, why don't you write Loizeaux a letter and tell him what a "liar" he is? Make sure you include your return address, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #44
91. The I in HEI
consists of phosphorous not thermite, and is used commonly in tracer ammunition. And the explosive element is separate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
39. Aluminum facades
ordinary, everyday aluminum can't be compared to its nanoscale-engineered aluminum counterpart. the two are radically different in every way, shape and form especially when viewed under a high power microscope; it's impossible to confuse the two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. No more slippery slope
than the arguing process of AE911Truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. dupe
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 01:27 AM by rollingrock
sorry
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. A lack of a precedent wouldn't mean it was impossible, would it?
(I'm asking as a firm agnostic on the overall question, which I usually think to be secondary or distracting.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Lack of precedence?
I wonder if they could name one time a building has been brought down by fire, outside 9/11?
just one?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. One wonders why we even fight fires in buildings. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Or why they demolish buildings? Just set them ablaze and watch em fall!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. lol
why spend millions on demolition work?
when the do it yourself method works just as well and cost nothing?



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. Those 767's are so damn expensive! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-29-09 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #19
138. None of the buildings would have fallen by fire alone
if two 767s slammed into WTC 1 and 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. To save lives, and save the contents of the building
are the primary reasons for fighting building fires.

...not to stop the building from collapsing into itself.
that's the last thing anyone ever thinks about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. LOL. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. The steel portions of this building did collapse due to fire
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/struc...

don't you think it disingenuous to gloss over the not so minor factor of two fully ladened 767s smashing into the buildings to start the fires?

If you can't name a single building that didn't fall due to the combination of severe structural damage due to aircraft impacts and massive fires shouldn't you be honest and admit that 911 was an unique event?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. And you gloss over the fact the towers were over engineered for just such an occurance!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. And, of course, you have proof of that...
right, dude? Oh, you don't? Hmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. WHAT THE GREAT SD does not know that the towers were engineered to take a jet crashing into it?
LOL! You really are ahoot SD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. I asked you for proof of your claim, dude...
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 12:03 PM by SDuderstadt
repeating it again does not prove it.

Hint: you might want to look at the assumptions made about such a crash, dude. P.S. The post you responded to was also about a plane crash AND massive fires, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. You could ask me to prove the sky is blue and it would not change the color of the sky.
Asking for proof of such a basic 911 FACT is just a waste of my time.
look yourself it's out there dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Why don't you just admit you can't prove it, dude...
Hint: the WTC weren't engineered for large jets with nearly full fuel tanks ramming into them at high rates of speed, dude. Of course, you'd know that if you had any idea what the fuck you're talking about. When I open your "posts", it's like a 9/11 CT website has exploded inside, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Ohhh yeah they were expecting the rubber band wind up jets with NO fuel tanks SD!!
And everyone knows jets do not go very fast.
Your posts are endless sources of amusment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. No, dude...
the assumptions were that it would be a smaller jet, lost in the fog, low on fuel and trying to land at a nearby airport, thus the impact speed would be much lower. Which you know, if you knew what the fuck you're talking about. Simple question: When will you learn to fact-check the CT nonsense you read?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. They had been designed to withstand the impact of a landing 707
That is an airplane low on fuel, lost in the fog and not going very fast.

What had not been taken into account was the structural damage, combined with a massive fire and loss of fire proofing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. lovepg seems intent on embarrassing himself further, despite our attempts to....
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 12:19 PM by SDuderstadt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #37
113. Prove this moronic claim. Quotes from the designeers would be acceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #113
118. Post #38
And as mentioned, there seem to be disparaties between the various claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #118
129. Exactly but people act as if its a proven fact the engineers designed it for a slow
moving jet in the fog scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #29
92. Engineerd to withstand the force
of a 707 crashing into it, and not collapsing, in that regard it was sucessful. The fire was another issue and was assumed to be surpressed by other means. Those means, active and passive, failed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #92
111. Yeah they never expected the jet to have jet fuel on board or for it to cause a fire
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 10:25 PM by lovepg
Prove your moronic claims that the building was only designed to withstand a slow moving jet in the fog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. I already provided that...
dude. Pay attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. No you didn't you linked an article with the same claim but with no quotes from the ..
designers of the building that that was their thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. Last time, dude....
make sure to read it thoroughly

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. He has made many conflicting comments on this subject...
As i am sure you are aware. You take the one you want to believe of course.
I still have seen no direct quote from him on the slow moving jet in the fog as of yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. Well, good, dude....
why don't you join forces with RollingRock and go on a world-wide speaking tour? Make sure you tell everyone it isn't intended to be a comedy act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #117
119. Snark answer instead of discussing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #119
120. discussing what?
As far as I can tell, the evidence is against you. All you're left to do is insist on more evidence. Gee, haven't we been here before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #120
125. You cannot tell very well then. This person has made comments to support both sides...
If ever a situation called for more evidence I would say this situation does.
again more snark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #125
126. Dude...
fucking write to Leslie Robertson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #119
123. What is there to discuss, dude?
Your personal incredulity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #123
124. Snark answer
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #124
127. You catch on quickly....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #127
128. Snark again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #111
130. You obviously didn't read my post
or failed to understand it.

You engineer fire resistance with active (fire mains, sprinklers) and passive (fireproofing) means. Both failed

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-28-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. Why would you expect lovepg to understand....
your post? Or, for that matter, much of anything. Wouldn't that be an unrealistic expectation, given what we know of him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lovepg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-29-09 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #130
140. Things that failed on 911 according to the official story..
Intelligence leading up to 911
the president after having clear warnings of eminent highjackings refused to take any precautions
The FAA
Radar
Sprinkler systems in building seven
FBI security
CIA security
Pentagon security
firefighter radio
Norad
fireproofing in the towers
the structeral integrity of three steel frame buildings (something that had never occured before or since) including mass systemic collapse
airport security
the laws of physics
Things that did not fail
all the barely competent terrorist pilots flew their planes successfully into there small targets at incredibly high speeds
passports and identification papers of the terrorists survived incredible fireballs and explosions that incinerated much of the plane debris
people were photographed looking out the hole caused by the airplane in the north tower where fires were said to be burning so hot as to cause structural failure of the tower.
I of course could go on and on but I do not have all day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-29-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #140
141. Thank god, you don't have all day because...
Edited on Thu Oct-29-09 12:01 PM by SDuderstadt
you couldn't manage to get more things wrong.

BTW, it's "imminent" not "eminent". How are we supposed to take you seriously when you don't even know the proper use of words?

Your posts are like, as I have said before, a CT website exploded in them. Do you bother to fact-check these goofy claims before you post them as "fact"? Hint: no.


Just a few examples:

The fireproofing didn't "fail", it was knocked off when the planes smashed into the building.

Pentagon security: If you know of a way to prevent an airliner from flying into the Pentagon, I'd love to hear it.

The sprinkler systems in building 7 didn't fail. The water supply to them was cut-off in the damage of that day.

As far as your stupid implication that the fires could not have been that hot because people were observed waving from the impact hole, why did people leap to their deaths then? Can you answer that question?

My problem with you is not that you question or you want to know more. It's that you don't take the time to properly analyze and evaluate the evidence and, thus, ask stupid fucking questions you wouldn't ask if you'd take the time to properly educate yourself.

I'd love to see you talk to the family of a victim from that day and tell them the fires were not that hot and their loved one lept from the building to their death for no good reason. The way you are going about your "investigation" is deeply offensive to those that died that day, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cicorp Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
142. Niels Harrit web site continues to discuss Nanothermite explosives at WTC
Where is the evidence for your assertion?
On his web site, he continues to discuss Nanothermitic explosives and the WTCs.
It also includes an impressive list of other his publications.
www.NielsHarrit.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #142
164. Welcome to DU cicorp. I was just going to start another thread with a
link to an interview with Niels Harrit, a member of a team that did analyse dust samples. He and other team members have very impressive creds, they certainly aren't amateurs. Harrit estimates that 10 tons of nanothermite was laying around in Lower Manhattan after the collapse.





http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/05/24/18597630.ph...










:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #164
165. Harrit is a joke
These days he's claiming that super-/nano-therm*te wasn't used at all, but that 100 tonnes of conventional explosives were used to bring the towers down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #165
167. According to the Russia Today interview Harrit simply states that both nanothermite and conventional
explosives were used. Your attempt to discredit him is very lame. He seems to be credible and you haven't stated anything that would make me think otherwise. Furthermore he didn't work alone on the dust analysis so you are going to have to provide credible and substantial information to discredit each of the team's members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #167
168. Simple question:
How do you know where the dust came from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #168
169. He addresses that question in the interview. He also states that only the military and
Edited on Sat Apr-24-10 11:52 PM by snagglepuss
certain countries have access to nanothermite so it's not something even a scientist can purchase to rig an experiment.

gulli.com: Is it possible for terrorists to get hold of this material? It's such a special material, so that only people from inside the US army could get hold of it. Where can Nano Thermite be bought? Can normal people buy it as well? Or only companies / military?

Dr. Niels Harrit: This stuff has only been prepared under military contracts in the USA and probably in bigger allied countries. This is secret military research. Do your own guess work and read Kevin Ryan's article on this subject. It was not prepared in a cave in Afghanistan.




Harrit's credentials:

gulli.com: Your current profession?

Dr. Niels Harrit: Docent at University of Copenhagen.

gulli.com: Please tell us what exactly you are teaching.

Dr. Niels Harrit: I teach organic chemistry, photochemistry and photophysics to nanoscience students and chemistry students. I supervise master students and Ph.D. students.

gulli.com: Got some references?

Dr. Niels Harrit: I have published close to 60 papers in the best peer-reviewed journals.

gulli.com: Can you please tell us about what you published? Give some examples which might be related? Which journals? Also some examples?

Dr. Niels Harrit: I enclose my list of publications. My latest paper is currently "Hot paper of the month" in Angewandte Chemie, one of the world's most leading journals of chemistry. I am a senior member of a "Centre of Excellence" Molecular Movies where I mostly work with physicists on time resolved X-ray scattering. This centre is a subdivision of the Nano-Science Center at the University of Copenhagen, of which I have been a faculty member since it started in 2001.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #169
170. That's not what I asked you...
I asked how you know where the dust came from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #170
171. I did reply to your question. I informed you that he addresses that question
in the interview.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #171
172. And I ask again...
how do you know where the dust came from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #142
166. That isn't Niels Harrits website..
Edited on Sat Apr-24-10 10:36 PM by KDLarsen
This web site is a gift to Dr. Niels Harrit, from admirers of his work. As a scientist, he allows us to
post his impressive credentials and publications, as long as this site focuses on his work, not himself.

EDIT: But of course, you'd already know that, given that you're apparently the owner of it.

I've already backed my assertions up further up the thread, complete with a video of Niels Harrit himself claiming that it was 100 tonnes of conventional explosives that fell the WTC towers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-26-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
28. Did you notice the references are to "research"?

When you cite articles along the lines of scientists at various institutions "are researching" a class of materials for a variety of purposes, and you compare that to someone who works in the field of commercial building demolition on the subject of what is available in the field, don't you immediately see the real issue here?

For example, there is a lot of research in the area of non-human primate communication. That fact would not change the observation of a zoo keeper that the chimps are not talking to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. Define irony...
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 12:23 AM by SDuderstadt
that would be you mischaracterizing/misrepresenting what Loizeaux actually said to call him a liar. Seems it's quite the other way around to me, dude.

Of course, there is a way to resolve this:

1) If we can find the full transcript, it should be apparent what Loiseaux actually said and how he said it.

2) By your own admission, Loizeaux is one of the pre-eminent controlled demolition experts, so I'd be inclined to take his word over yours, Gage AND Jones, dude. Hell, I'll even throw in Harrit. Since Loizeaux's word is far more definitive as far as a nano-thermite controlled demolition application (he didn't deny the existence of nano-thermites, dude, unlike what you claim). All you have to do is find one example of a controlled demolition that utilized nano-thermite, dude. Just one single one. I'm predicting failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aldo Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
143. Mr. Loizeaux is a lying POS and probably an accessory after the fact
Moreover they have found the particles.

Moreover something powderized the buildings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #143
144. Moreover, you have not a shred of proof for three of your amazing assertions, and as for the last
one in that dubious bunch, we know what "powderized" those buildings: their collapse, after being hit by two airliners piloted by terrorists.

Please try again, but shock us all and this time post some actual evidence backing up your claims.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Red Dwarf Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
145. Of course, he is lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. Did you even bother reading the thread?
I pointed out quite early that Mark Loizeaux was referring to the use of Nano-thermite in controlled demolitions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
147. mr. loizeaux couldnt find his ass with both hands..
just another no brainer puppet
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
148. There are many things....
....that certain segments of our government are developing that those who "think" they know everything is not aware, strike that, are ignorant of.

"He says 'the materials and the technology' for nanothermite doesn't exist...if it did he would know about it, in his words. He calls it a fantasy and accuses Jones of making it up."

I would be surprised if those segments of our govenment responsible for research and development of weapons technology would feel obligated to inform this guy of any new developments. The technology may or may not exist, but because he doesn't "know about it", doesn't mean it does not exist. Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #148
149. No, he doesn't...
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 10:50 PM by SDuderstadt
if you bother to actually read what he said, he is hardly denying the existence of nano-thermites...he's saying that there is no application developed for use in controlled demolition.

"9/11 was an inside job" adherents are particularly deficient when it comes to reading comprehension.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #149
154. uh-um......
"He says 'the materials and the technology' for nanothermite doesn't exist..."

"if you bother to actually read what he said, he is hardly denying the existence of nano-thermites...he's saying that there is no application developed for use in controlled demolition."

It's just me but "doesn't exist" just doesn't traslate into "hardly denying the existence". Just the way I read and interpret English I suppose. Thanks.
quickesst


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #154
155. Listen to what he's saying....
Edited on Mon Apr-19-10 10:19 PM by SDuderstadt
and listen to the conversation right before it cuts to Loiseaux. He's not "denyng the existence of nano-thermite". He's responding the specific use Jones is alleging and saying he would know about it if it existed. Not "nano-thermite". Nano-thermite being used in controlled demolition. Jesus.

This is as stupid as the "pull it" controversy about Silverstein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #155
156. My apologies....
"Not "nano-thermite". Nano-thermite being used in controlled demolition. Jesus."

I didn't realize who I was addressing. ;) Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jschurchin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #148
150. How true quick.
In the mid 1940's many scientists said that nuclear fusion only existed on the sun. Then in August of '45 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki found out it also existed in Alamogordo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #150
151. Incorrect.
Fusion was observed in the lab in the 1930's, but wasn't successfully adopted for military purposes until 1952. The bombs dropped on Japan were fission, not fusion devices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jschurchin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. FYI
Twist_U_Up Apr-17-10 03:28 PM #147
There are many things.... quickesst Apr-17-10 10:15 PM #148
Ignored Ignored Apr-17-10 11:39 PM #149
How true quick. jschurchin Apr-19-10 09:01 AM #150
Ignored

Just thought you would want to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #152
153. Your loss. Keep repeating mistakes, then. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #152
157. Ever notice...
...that things that cannot be proven by truthers through direct evidence is a false claim, but things that cannot be proven through direct evidence by the so-called oct is absolute proof that the claims of the truth movement are false? :) Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #157
158. Name one.....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #158
159. "Name one....."
OCT. Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. That's kinda broad, isn't it?
It's more like a dodge of the question. Nevermind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #160
161. Not really........
...but please clarify something for me. Is it Jesus, Nevermind, or Jesus Nevermind SDuderstadt? :P Thanks.
quickesst

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #161
162. How about "I'm tired of your silly games? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #162
163. Jesus Nevermind Sduderstadt.......
...(deep breath)...I'm Tired Of Your Silly Games, thanks for your reply. OK, I'll quit. Just wanted to see how easy it would be, and wondering how far more informed people than myself can't. I'm more comfortable with the position of observation anyway. Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Aug 22nd 2017, 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC