763 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 18 September 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:

Airliners are generally constructed of aluminum, so when an aircraft strikes a steel building where rust oxide reside and does so under high temperatures, you can expect to find thermite dust in all cases under identical conditiions.

You can create thermite in the lab using aluminum and rust oxide and igniting them under high temps.

hi,
the operative word is unreacted nanothermite.
what you suggest has been ruled out. the nanothermite has been analysed and found to contain iron oxide and elemental aluminium organised uniformly at the nanoscale which means it is engineered to be that way. sorry, but under entropy laws it is an absurdity to suggest that chaotic collisions produces unreacted nanothermite.

"You left out the significant presence of organic material found in the red chips – where did that come from? Not so easy. You also need to explain how the aluminum can end up on 40-nanometer thin platelets as observed in our electron-microscope studies of the material from the WTC dust. Get serious. The observed mix has nano-components which do not organize themselves into a highly active form (including organics) from larger objects in violation of the laws of physics"
- Niels Harrit

[Little Fish]

aquatus1, on 18 September 2011 - 11:46 PM, said:

My question is this:  Instead of testing for thermitic ingredients which can be regularly found in major office fires, why are they not testing for thermitic materials that are only found when live thermite is used?

perhaps you should read the paper first, it is not as simple as that.
http://www.benthamsc...V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Edited by Little Fish, 19 September 2011 - 12:11 AM.

[Little Fish]

booNyzarC, on 18 September 2011 - 11:16 PM, said:

It is quite clear that materials have been found in the dust that would be consistent with thermitic materials, but each of these materials were abundantly present between the towers' construction, materials inside the towers, and the planes which struck the buildings.

the substance Harrit found was a solid composed of elemental aluminium and iron oxide, the molecules were intimately mixed together at the nanoscale. this is vastly different from just finding small bits of metal and rust mixed up in fine powder. the molecular structure of the substance is mixed at the nanometer scale which means it is engineered to be that way. the debunkers pretend using sophistry that what Harrit et al found was just chips of metals created through collisons of beams, such aluminium and iron oxide chunks mixed together in a powder would be trillions of times bigger than the aluminium and iron oxide particles in the nanothermite substance that Harrit found, so the debunkers are using a strawman by misrepresenting Harrits findings. do you see that?
1 nanometer = 1 millionth of a millimeter, this is the molecular/ atomic scale.

Edited by Little Fish, 19 September 2011 - 12:15 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Little Fish, on 18 September 2011 - 11:35 PM, said:

the PXD syncrotron method as suggested by Mohr in his presentation is equivalent to a particle accelerator. it is not reasonable to expect Harrt et al. to have access to such equipment, seems the bar is being raised for Harrit to a height which he cannot possibly jump.

Then what is stopping Harrit and others from using independent testing?  According to Mohr the testing could cost as little as $2000.  That isn't a ton of money for someone interested in uncovering the truth right?  Surely someone with a thick wallet who is entrenched in the 911 truth movement can foot this bill?

Little Fish, on 18 September 2011 - 11:35 PM, said:

I echo a previous poster's comment - why are people asking Harrit to do these tests and not asking the authorities charged with the investigation to do them. The researchers have been lobbying NIST for years to look into this matter, they would easily have the resources, but NIST are not interested in looking at the findings,

Why should NIST look into this at this point?  Everything else points away from controlled demolition.  It is entirely possible that these chips are not at all what Harrit and Jones claim that they are.  There is no way to be certain without appropriate testing.  When you look at the following considerable list of reasons which point to the extremely unlikely thermite/thermate conclusion it is hard to argue the point don't you think?

• If 4500 degree nanothermites were used to pulverize almost every inch of every concrete floor, then how could there have been millions of sheets of paper with an ignition temperature of only 451° raining down on the sidewalks?
  
• If 4500 degree nanothermites were used extensively even at the top to cause a supposed upward explosion, then why were first responders able to walk over the wreckage less than an hour after the Tower collapses?
  
• If there were 2800 degree rivers of molten steel in the debris, then why do NASA thermal images show maximum temperatures in the rubble of only 1400°?
  
• If the debris pile had 2800 degree temperatures, then why were firefighters able to pour millions of gallons of water all over it and not trigger the deadly thermal explosions that are caused when water comes in contact with molten steel or iron?
  
• If nanothermites pulverized everything, then why did the debris pile include a 13-story high facade?
  
• If classic controlled demolitions create minimal damage to adjacent structures, then why did the Verizon Building suffer $1.4 billion in damages?
  
• If the lateral ejection of beams were caused by explosive nanothermites, then there would have been deafening 140 db sounds that can’t be muffled by more than a few db or you lose the explosive force of the shock wave itself.
  
• If the South Tower tilted 22° at first, then controlled demolition experts could not have righted it mid-collapse.
  
• If nanothermites were used, then they would have spontaneously detonated at well under 1000° F. and would not have been controllable; no signal receiving device could have survived the fires and continued to receive the destruct command.
  
• If there had been large explosions prior to the collapse, then they would have been a part of the seismic record, and they were not.

If the only evidence for controlled demolition appears to come from a potentially flawed chemical analysis performed under inconclusive conditions, I don't see it outweighing this list of reasons to doubt the results.

So yes, it is the responsibility of the truth movement to adequately test these materials under conditions that only thermite could perform under.  You might consider that unreasonable, and I have no control over that reaction on your part, but it is what it is when the overall body of evidence supports a natural collapse.

Little Fish, on 18 September 2011 - 11:35 PM, said:

instead we have a "rebuttal" from Mohr who is not a scientist, and what is clear is that Mohr is just parroting debunker soundbites. his presentation is full of fallacious arguments, inaccuracies and absurdities that he himself probably doesn't even realise, As an obvious example that he has not even read or understood the Harrit paper he gets a critical finding wrong by stating "found that their chips ignited at around 150° C" - where is Mohr getting his information from? it certainly isn't the Harrit paper which states 420° C. I can go over these issues if you would like, but for now I want to stay on topic with the nanothermite, the candles and carnations were a nice touch though.

By all means continue with your character attacks against Mohr and show how extremely shallow and biased your line of argument can become.  I'm glad that you corrected your mistake at the end of your post.  Considering the impeccable job you displayed here in showing an obvious example of Mohr getting his information wrong, I'd love to see which other of his points you can equally prove incorrect...

Little Fish, on 18 September 2011 - 11:35 PM, said:

I disagree with your assertion that an inert atmosphere test is critical to determine whether a thermite reaction has occurred, you are just proposing a different experiment to show the same thing.

here are findings and results for the red chips found in the dust:
** the pre-ignition material is shown to contain iron-oxide and elemental aluminium, but not contain elemental iron.
++ the post ignition material is shown to contain molten elemental iron.
this is enough to demonstrate the thermite reaction has occurred - the iron oxide has given up its oxygen atoms after ignition, and the energy released was enough to melt steel/iron.
nowhere can I find Mohr talking about the molten elemental iron produced after ignition, not telling the whole truth is still fibbing.

** from the paper
"Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not."

++from the paper
"After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very hightemperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the
oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction."

Well, I remain unconvinced.  Don't get me wrong, I do think that it is worthy of appropriate controlled testing to either validate or disprove these initial assumptions.

Little Fish, on 18 September 2011 - 11:35 PM, said:

EDIT - OOPS my mistake here, I thought he said 150C ignition temperature, it seems he meant 150c lower than.., the full stop after 150C and speed reading confused me.

It happens to all of us, don't sweat it.  But if you do have other points that you think you can refute, by all means I'm all ears.

[chainsawcam]

Erix, on 16 September 2011 - 02:34 PM, said:

So do you by the looks of it...

Yeh that's right mate, I've looked at all the evidence and I totally believe a plane hit the pentagin, and that what we are told is the 93 crash site is indeed such.

F F S

[Little Fish]

booNyzarC, on 19 September 2011 - 05:39 AM, said:

Then what is stopping Harrit and others from using independent testing?  According to Mohr the testing could cost as little as $2000.  That isn't a ton of money for someone interested in uncovering the truth right?  Surely someone with a thick wallet who is entrenched in the 911 truth movement can foot this bill?

I do not know the cost of hiring a particle accelerator, I suspect it is more than Mohr claims, Harrit has said that such testing is not a trivial matter which suggests it is not just a matter of money.

Quote

Why should NIST look into this at this point?  Everything else points away from controlled demolition.  It is entirely possible that these chips are not at all what Harrit and Jones claim that they are.  There is no way to be certain without appropriate testing.

I disagree, the material has shown to be thermitic-
the pre-ignition material is shown to contain iron-oxide and elemental aluminium, but not contain elemental iron.
the post ignition material is shown to contain molten elemental iron.
this is enough to demonstrate the thermite reaction has occurred - the iron oxide has given up its oxygen atoms after ignition, and the energy released was enough to melt steel/iron.
Mohr does not talk about the molten elemental iron produced after ignition. Mohr is ignoring the most critical part of the analyses.

Quote

When you look at the following considerable list of reasons which point to the extremely unlikely thermite/thermate conclusion it is hard to argue the point don't you think?

the list is considerable in terms of size, but not considerable in terms of substance.

from this article:
http://www.foreignpo...-demolitions/3/

"Mohr ends by asking a bunch of “If … then ….” questions. Most seem directed at the Twin Towers, but addressing those with some relevance also to the collapse of WTC 7:

If 4500 degree nanothermites were used to pulverize almost every inch of every concrete floor, then how could there have been millions of sheets of paper with an ignition temperature of only 451° raining down on the sidewalks?

This is a strawman argument. To my knowledge, nobody has suggested that nano-thermite was used “to pulverize almost every inch of every concrete floor”. To bring the building down, the steel load-bearing columns would have to be cut and gravity would do the rest. No nano-thermite or explosives would be used on the floors at all. Any use of nano-thermite would be targeted at the connections or the columns themselves.

If 4500 degree nanothermites were used extensively even at the top to cause a supposed upward explosion, then why were first responders able to walk over the wreckage less than an hour after the Tower collapses?

This refers to the Twin Towers and not WTC 7, but it should be noted that the debris was so hot in some places that the soles of workers’ boots melted and steel toes would heat up to unbearable temperatures. Doh!

If there were 2800 degree rivers of molten steel in the debris, then why do NASA thermal images show maximum temperatures in the rubble of only 1400°?

NASA’s thermal images only recorded surface temperatures, implying significantly higher temperatures under the debris. Mohr doesn’t mention it, but there are also numerous credible eyewitness reports as well as photographic evidence of molten steel in the debris piles. And, as Mohr already acknowledged, samples of steel that had been melted were in fact recovered from the debris.

If the debris pile had 2800 degree temperatures, then why were firefighters able to pour millions of gallons of water all over it and not trigger the deadly thermal explosions that are caused when water comes in contact with molten steel or iron?

In fact, firefighters did have to take care in their efforts because there was indeed a danger “that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force”, as the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety & Health Administration noted in a report on the dangers of the Ground Zero worksite. Doh! The real question is: How, if firefighters poured millions of gallons of water, as well as the chemical fire suppressant Pyrocool, in addition to several rainfalls, did fires continue to burn within the debris piles for months?

If the lateral ejection of beams were caused by explosive nanothermites, then there would have been deafening 140 db sounds that can’t be muffled by more than a few db or you lose the explosive force of the shock wave itself.

This is again with reference to the Twin Towers, but still relevant, if nano-thermite was used in WTC 7. Mohr offers no source for his claim that nano-thermite would create “deafening 140 db sounds” when ignited. But the clue here is his reference to “the explosive force of the shock wave itself”. With conventional explosives used in controlled demolitions, like RDX, it is the pressure of the explosion that cuts through steel columns. With thermitic materials, however, it isn’t a high-pressure “shock wave”, but the exothermic reaction that melts through the steel. One patented device designed to employ thermitic materials for applications including demolition notes that a “primary disadvantage” of conventional demolition charges “is that they generate excessive noise and debris upon detonation”, while “Thermite-based cutting devises which employ a cutting flame produce relatively little over pressure.” While regular thermite is an incendiary, as the Department of Defense points out, nano-thermite has the potential for uses in “high-power, high-energy composite explosives”. But nano-thermite is “explosive” because of the great amount of energy it releases, not via high pressure “shock waves”, but via the even more energetic and more rapid exothermic reaction compared to regular thermite.

If there had been large explosions prior to the collapse, then they would have been a part of the seismic record, and they were not.

This is a non-sequitur. Mohr repeats the same fallacy, apparently assuming thermitic materials would “explode” in the sense that they would create a high-pressure “shock wave”. If conventional explosives were also used in conjunction with thermite, fewer would be required. And the fact is that there were explosions taking place that were documented on video. Many eyewitnesses reported explosions, explosions were captured on the audio of a number of videos, news reporters talked about explosions taking place well after the collapse of the Twin Towers, and there was speculation by some reporters live on air that these were cars exploding after having caught fire as a result of the collapses. It may be that there was some other such source of the explosions, but one can hardly deny that they took place. Two distinct explosions can be heard in the audio track of one video of WTC 7 immediately prior to the observable collapse of the east penthouse."

Quote

If the only evidence for controlled demolition appears to come from a potentially flawed chemical analysis performed under inconclusive conditions, I don't see it outweighing this list of reasons to doubt the results.

a list of fallacious arguments does not trump a conclusive foresic analysis. your claim of "potentially flawed chemical analysis" is not supported by anything.

Quote

So yes, it is the responsibility of the truth movement to adequately test these materials under conditions that only thermite could perform under.  

it has not been demonstrated that the tests performed are inadequate to the conclusisons drawn by Harrit et al.

Quote

By all means continue with your character attacks against Mohr and show how extremely shallow and biased your line of argument can become.

do you understand that attacking someone's argument is not character assasination?

Quote

I'm glad that you corrected your mistake at the end of your post.

A typo mistake in the skeptic magazine article is not my mistake.

[Swamptick]

There are too many idiots who will believe this crap because they are not smart enough to understand the real science behind it.

[Little Fish]

Swamptick, on 19 September 2011 - 02:58 PM, said:

There are too many idiots who will believe this crap because they are not smart enough to understand the real science behind it.

appealing to both sides of the argument.

[Missile Punch]

Silverbane81, on 18 September 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

ahhh so i made a mistake and instead of saying you mean whitewater? u tell me i have no clue what im talking about! that makes sense

You are absolutely right. I apologize.

[Warrior777]

i think the question should be, will the conspiracies ever stop?

[omerta]

Skeptics are just as bad. They could have the evidence smack them in the face and still dispute it.
I bet if aliens ever visited this planet or we find conclusive evidence confirming something paranormal/cryptid they'll cover their ears, close their eyes, and claim that it's photoshopped.
But you know, you have to be right because governments never ever lie to their people. I mean, they're the good guys right? They can't be greedy, selfish, or immoral like the rest of us.
Just look at what the US government was doing during the cold war. More specifically Operation Northwoods. They were planning on using false-flag attacks to go to war against Cuba.
Operation Northwoods

I don't really expect any of you skeptics to read that, you'll most likely just call it fake then go back to watching the latest sitcom. It's okay, you can go back to sleep now. The government will take care off all the "bad guys" and keep you safe.

Edited by omerta, 20 September 2011 - 02:50 AM.

[mrbusdriver]

omerta, on 20 September 2011 - 02:46 AM, said:

Just look at what the US government was doing during the cold war. More specifically Operation Northwoods. They were planning on using false-flag attacks to go to war against Cuba.
Operation Northwoods

Where do folks get the notion that this Northwoods was an operational, approved, ready-to-fly OPLAN? Best as I can tell, it was a brainstorm by a general and his staff, written, presented, and summarily rejected by the Administration. The General who "sponsored" it didn't fare too well, career-wise.
What am I missing here?

[Missile Punch]

omerta, on 20 September 2011 - 02:46 AM, said:

I don't really expect any of you skeptics to read that, you'll most likely just call it fake then go back to watching the latest sitcom. It's okay, you can go back to sleep now. The government will take care off all the "bad guys" and keep you safe.

They seem to have done okay so far. As far as keeping the country safe anyways.

Edited by Missile Punch, 20 September 2011 - 04:34 AM.

[Scott G]

Missile Punch, on 20 September 2011 - 04:28 AM, said:

They seem to have done okay so far. As far as keeping the country safe anyways.

Oh, for sure. 3000 dead on a single day, but they're doing top notch, right? But not to fear, everything will do better after all the new "security measures" right? Such as the patriot act, for instance. That act has choice measures such as the following one:

Quote

The University of California passed a resolution condemning (amongst other things) the indefinite detention provisions of the Act,^[237]  while the ACLU has accused the Act of giving the Attorney General  "unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants... Worse,  if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can  be detained indefinitely without trial."^[238]

It also caused this chilling series of events, which, thankfully, certain groups fought:

Quote

Section 215 allows the FBI to apply for an order to produce materials  that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against  international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Among  the "tangible things" that could be targeted, it includes "books,  records, papers, documents, and other items".^[46]  Supporters of the provision point out that these records are held by  third parties, and therefore are exempt from a citizen's reasonable  expectations of privacy and also maintain that the FBI has not abused  the provision.^[226]  As proof, then Attorney General John Ashcroft released information in  2003 that showed that section 215 orders had never been used.^[227] However, despite protestations to the contrary, the American Library Association  strongly objected to the provision, believing that library records are  fundamentally different from ordinary business records, and that the  provision would have a chilling effect on free speech. The association  became so concerned that they formed a resolution condemning the USA  PATRIOT Act, and which urged members to defend free speech and protect  patrons' privacy.^[228]  They urged librarians to seek legal advice before complying with a  search order and advised their members to only keeping records for as  long as was legally needed.^[229] Consequently, reports started filtering in that librarians were shredding records to avoid having to comply with such orders.^{[230][231][232]}

In 2005, Library Connection, a nonprofit consortium of 27 libraries  in Connecticut, received a National Security Letter (NSL) from the FBI,  along with its accompanying perpetual gag order, demanding library  patrons' records. George Christian, executive director of Library  Connection, and three members of the executive committee of the board  engaged the ACLU to file suit to challenge the constitutional validity  of the NSL. Because Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which authorizes  the FBI to demand records without prior court approval, also forbids,  or gags, anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone else about  receiving it, they also challenged the validity of the gag order. For  almost a year the ACLU fought to lift the gag order, challenging the  government's power under Section 505 to silence four citizens who wished  to contribute to public debate on the PATRIOT Act.

In May 2006, the  government finally gave up its legal battle to maintain the gag order.  On June 26, 2006, the ACLU announced that, after dropping its defense of  the gag provision accompanying the NSL request, the FBI abandoned the  lawsuit entirely. The Connecticut Four were honored by the ALA with the  2007 Paul Howard Award for Courage for their challenge to the National  Security Letter and gag order provision of the USA PATRIOT Act.^[233]  The Connecticut Four are: 1. George Christian, executive director of  Library Connection 2. Peter Chase, vice president of Library Connection,  director of the Plainville (CT) Public Library, and chairman of the  Connecticut Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee 3.  Barbara Bailey, president of Library Connection and director of the  Welles- Turner Memorial Library in Glastonbury, Connecticut 4. Jan  Nocek, secretary of Library Connection and director of the Portland (CT)  Library. In a summary of the actions of the Connecticut Four and their  challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, Jones (2009: 223) notes: "Librarians  need to understand their country's legal balance between the protection  of freedom of expression and the protection of national security. Many  librarians believe that the interests of national security, important as  they are, have become an excuse for chilling the freedom to read."^[234]

Source: http://en.wikipedia....USA_PATRIOT_Act

As Benjamin Franklin once wrote:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Edited by Scott G, 20 September 2011 - 12:27 PM.

[Terra 333]

A "Truth" is soon forgotten, where as a lie continues to fester without end .