To those who believe the 911 official story

[Godsnmbr1]

Barring some sort of deathbed confession backed up by stacks of evidence, no one will ever be able to prove that 9/11 was an inside job. At least not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why bother arguing about it? Any person with half a brain can already look at the evidence and see all the questions that are there. Any person that refuses to believe 9/11 could have been done by the government is so deep into the whitewash that they're a lost cause anyway. 100 pages of discussion on the topic will never unearth new evidence and it will never convince anyone that already doesn't believe.

[aquatus1]

Why bother arguing about it? Any person with half a brain can already look at the evidence and see all the questions that are there. Any person that refuses to believe 9/11 could have been done by the government is so deep into the whitewash that they're a lost cause anyway.

If one is indeed so close-minded that one cannot conceive of the possibility that one may be wrong, then it is indeed pointless to argue with others.

[Godsnmbr1]

If one is indeed so close-minded that one cannot conceive of the possibility that one may be wrong, then it is indeed pointless to argue with others.

Welcome to America!

[turbonium]

Indeed.

However, there is no such confirmation yet.

True. But it may be confirmed in the near future, I hope.

Jones' analysis so far just shows common elements that appear to be in different proportions to those of thermite.

No, the elements were found to be in acceptable proportions (for thermite).

Lots of metals in everyday use come with a coated surface layer.

But very few of them have an explosive reaction, as well. The chips are going to be tested for such a reaction.

Pretty well every statement Jones makes in the video is equally true if you replace the word "thermite" with the word "rust".

No. If you looked at the stills I posted (or watched the video) then you should realize that the chips contain traces of elements not found in rust, such as potassium (K) and Silicon (Si).

[flyingswan]

No, the elements were found to be in acceptable proportions (for thermite).

According to the comparison between the chip and commercial thermite shown, the difference was considerable. Seeing that thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminium, and the building contained plenty of steel and aluminium components, you'll need to get a very good match to thermite to convince anybody.

But very few of them have an explosive reaction, as well. The chips are going to be tested for such a reaction.

Heat any small chip of metal enough and it will burn pretty rapidly. It's a matter of surface area to volume ratio.

No. If you looked at the stills I posted (or watched the video) then you should realize that the chips contain traces of elements not found in rust, such as potassium (K) and Silicon (Si).

And are potassium and silicon found in more than trace proportions in thermite, either? These samples were found in dust from the WTC site, and a lot of that dust comes from concrete. Potassium and especially silicon are present in concrete in significant quantities, so could easily contaminate anything else from the dust.

[turbonium]

Heat any small chip of metal enough and it will burn pretty rapidly. It's a matter of surface area to volume ratio.

It may burn, but it certainly won't explode.

And if it's confirmed that the chips do explode, then we have our smoking gun for CD.

[flyingswan]

It may burn, but it certainly won't explode.

And if it's confirmed that the chips do explode, then we have our smoking gun for CD.

Where exactly do you draw the line between "burn rapidly" and "explode"? What side of that line is a normal thermite reaction? Here's what Wikipedia gives:

"It is not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small target for a short period of time."

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

You are going to have a lot of trouble trying to prove this.

[turbonium]

Where exactly do you draw the line between "burn rapidly" and "explode"? What side of that line is a normal thermite reaction? Here's what Wikipedia gives:

"It is not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small target for a short period of time."

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

You are going to have a lot of trouble trying to prove this.

It's nano-thermite (or superthermite). Nano-thermite is thermite, in an ultrafine form, and can be applied to a carrier (such as the red/grey chips). It is very explosive. Standard thermite is not an explosive, it is an incendiary.

It's easy to prove - if it explodes in tests, then it's nano-thermite.

[flyingswan]

It's nano-thermite (or superthermite). Nano-thermite is thermite, in an ultrafine form, and can be applied to a carrier (such as the red/grey chips). It is very explosive. Standard thermite is not an explosive, it is an incendiary.

It's easy to prove - if it explodes in tests, then it's nano-thermite.

You still haven't specified where "burn rapidly" ends and "explodes" begins. This is a goalpost that is obviously in serious danger of being shifted after the results come in unless firmly fixed beforehand.

[flyingswan]

It occurs to me to add this comment:

The whole reason for suggesting thermite was used is the absence of the sound associated with high explosive. There were several explosion-type noises heard prior to the building collapses, not unusual in a burning building, but the characteristic sounds that occur immediately before collapse in a normal controlled demolition were absent. Thermite is proposed as a quiet alternative to HE. If you now propose that explosive nano-thermite was used instead of conventional thermite, you are back with the problem of the lack of noise.

[turbonium]

It occurs to me to add this comment:

The whole reason for suggesting thermite was used is the absence of the sound associated with high explosive. There were several explosion-type noises heard prior to the building collapses, not unusual in a burning building, but the characteristic sounds that occur immediately before collapse in a normal controlled demolition were absent. Thermite is proposed as a quiet alternative to HE. If you now propose that explosive nano-thermite was used instead of conventional thermite, you are back with the problem of the lack of noise.

Explosions were heard before and during the collapses. Is this comment familiar to you?....

"Floor by floor it started popping out... -- It was as if they had detonated -- as if they were planning to take down a building, boom boom boom boom boom... all the way down."

- NYFD member in the Naudet video.

[flyingswan]

Explosions were heard before and during the collapses. Is this comment familiar to you?....

"Floor by floor it started popping out... -- It was as if they had detonated -- as if they were planning to take down a building, boom boom boom boom boom... all the way down."

- NYFD member in the Naudet video.

So how is that in any way unexpected? Of course once the building starts to collapse there are going to be such sounds. The whole point about a controlled demolition, however, is that the explosions come first and the collapse comes immediately afterwards. There was nothing like this on 911. Your quote is vaguely similar to one I've seen from former cop and current conspiracist Craig Bartmer. He says

"It was that moment, you know, "Get away", and I looked up... and... it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. And all the things started peeling in on itself and... I mean, there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at. Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running and the [explitive]'s hitting the ground behind me and the whole time you're hearing "thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom." So. I think I know an explosion when I hear it."

In other words, just a shout, no bombs, as warning of the collapse. The booms came after the collapse started.