9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

[Scott G]

I'm sorry, and no offense intended, but you've undermined your own credibility by not only the ambiguity of your training/education but also by the downright nastiness in which you've assaulted the character, knowledge, and capacity of other people who have presented opposing views to you.

I don't know if I can take you seriously at this point. Is there some way to overcome this?

I've known Little Fish for quite some time. As such, I have some recollection (though a little bit hazy) as to what he does. Since I think he may not want me to get too specific, I'll just say that I think it would be more of a technical field rather then one where you're making scientific discoveries. To me, that's rather irrelevant; I'm currently a student, but I think I defend myself pretty well when discussing issues related to 9/11. What we should focus the most on is the amount of knowledge a person has regarding 9/11, not what their day job is. Ofcourse, if you're an engineer with structural engineering knowledge, or an architect with same, that would certainly be a bonus. Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer with a good understanding of structural engineering, once discussed extensively in a forum called sciforums with me and Little Fish, and it was truly wonderful to see him talk about why the WTC collapses couldn't have occurred without explosives. He's also done some

, a well known official story supporter, and with the help of an activist who lost someone during 9/11, even

. Until recently, he was posting in a forum dedicated to 9/11 research called The 9/11 Forum, but it appears he's stopped posting there a few months ago as well. Nevertheless, for anyone who really wants to get into technical engineering details on that, I recommend that forum.

I haven't been reading the issue of nanothermite as much as I have been one's where I'm more involved; as I've mentioned here in the past, my knowledge of nanothermite just doesn't compare to Little Fish's, so I let him do his thing and just pop in now and again to commend him for his work. Because I haven't been here all the time, I can't say if there's been some nastiness or assaults on character, etc. I certainly know that truthers have been bashed in this forum, and while it's not condoned by the administration, an administrator said that it was allowed to call people "nutjobs". So if you've suffered something like that, I can feel for you.

I think that by and large, truthers in this forum may come to feel some burnout; we've got to find information that's buried; the mass media clearly tends to follow the official story line. Then we're at times ridiculed for not being perfect researchers. I mean, it's not like we're being paid here. Anyway, I'm glad you guys discussed things, as -I- learned things from it, as I virtually always do when Little Fish is discussing things, especially nanothermite. Here's to hoping that you guys can overcome your differences and continue the discussion.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Scott G

[TSS]

I've known Little Fish for quite some time. As such, I have some recollection (though a little bit hazy) as to what he does. Since I think he may not want me to get too specific, I'll just say that I think it would be more of a technical field rather then one where you're making scientific discoveries. To me, that's rather irrelevant; I'm currently a student, but I think I defend myself pretty well when discussing issues related to 9/11. What we should focus the most on is the amount of knowledge a person has regarding 9/11, not what their day job is.

Normally I would agree with this, however, if you are going to criticise someone for only being a journalist, and therefore not vetting their sources (simply because they differ from your stance), then proceed to post your own sources, but lack the expertise in that field to ascertain whether the sources you are posting are correct or not...you are in exactly the same position as the person you criticised. That is exactly what Little Fish did, which is hypocritical to say the least (if he/she is not qualified in that field).

[Scott G]

Normally I would agree with this, however, if you are going to criticise someone for only being a journalist, and therefore not vetting their sources (simply because they differ from your stance), then proceed to post your own sources, but lack the expertise in that field to ascertain whether the sources you are posting are correct or not...you are in exactly the same position as the person you criticised. That is exactly what Little Fish did, which is hypocritical to say the least (if he/she is not qualified in that field).

Well, if you could point me to the posts where you think this hypocrisy is evident, I could look. If you're not interested, hopefully the discussion on nanothermite will continue; I, atleast, was learning a fair amount.

[TSS]

Well, if you could point me to the posts where you think this hypocrisy is evident, I could look. If you're not interested, hopefully the discussion on nanothermite will continue; I, atleast, was learning a fair amount.

You was learning a lot was you! What was you learning then, since Mohr's contribution was being dismissed on the grounds he wasn't a scientist. Did you miss that part?

[Scott G]

You was learning a lot was you!

I was, laugh :-)

What was you learning then, since Mohr's contribution was being dismissed on the grounds he wasn't a scientist. Did you miss that part?

I may have. Could you link to it?

[bubs49]

**EDIT**

**If you see a post you believe to be in violation of the forum rules, please use the REPORT function to bring it to the attention of the moderators.**

No, I don't think that post was in violation of the forum rules, so I had no reason to escalate the issue to the moderators. Nor it contained insults or offense.

I only think it is an improper way of debating trying to delegitimate the poster when you can't win fairly with arguments. That's what I thought when I wrote the post you deleted and that's what I think now.

Also, please note that my post did not contain offenses or any personal attack at all, since it was a stright quote from Wikipedia.

Therefore I am really surprised about your decision. However, since you are the moderator, of course I accept it. This does not mean that I found your decision reasonable.

Regards

Edited September 21, 2011 by bubs49

[Little Fish]

You was learning a lot was you! What was you learning then, since Mohr's contribution was being dismissed on the grounds he wasn't a scientist. Did you miss that part?

Mohrs contribution was not being dismissed on the grounds he is not a scientist at all!

Mohrs contribution is dismissed on the grounds of logic and evidence:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=214226&st=60&p=4059882entry4059882

what is there to say about someone especialy a journalist that uses logical fallacies as arguments. sad.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Little Fish

[skyeagle409]

It is refreshing to be on the same side of an argument with you skyeagle. I agree with you completely on this.

Cheers.

I heard that!! It is a refreshing change of pace.

[skyeagle409]

So do you agree there was thermite then? Or is this a new type of debunk, where you agree there was thermite but not planted and caused by some phenomenon?

I don't see how there could not have been thermite found. Aluminum aircraft came in contact with steel buildings under high temperatures, so there will be thermite found within the wreckage.

And how high a temperature is needed for this to happen? You don't stipulate, that would suggest that it's at a much high temperature than a hydrocarbon fire.

Look at the photos of the twin towers as they are burning and note the direction of the smoke, which indicates a strong wind blowing through the buildings. An influx of air will greatly increase the temperature of a fire. Just remember what blacksmith bellows are used for.

Additionally:

Steel loses strength when heated sufficiently. The critical temperature of a steel member is the temperature at which it cannot safely support its load.

My link

The time it took for the buildings to collapse was just enough time for the fires to heat-soak structural beams to failure status and where they could no longer support the weight of the upper floors. The impact of the aircraft were enough to bend and damage.the support beams to where they were stressed almost to the limit in supporting the weight of the upper floors, but heat-soak conditions from the fires soften the structural beams to where they could no longer support the weight of the upper floors and the buckliing seen seconds before the collapse of both buildings confirmed the building collapses were the result of structural failure, and nothing to do with explosives.

And please feel free to postulate and expand on how this occured, I'm no expert but I'm all ears.

I didn't know the WTC was a lab??

They weren't, but you can produce thermite in your garage with some aluminum scraps and iron oxide. Just mix and throw in a torch for heating purposes and you will have thermite in your garage. Just don't claim that the thermite you produced came from explosives, unless you light your torch near a gas leak from the water heater, then you can make the claim.

No doubt this is one of those magical air pressure expulsions known as debunkair© that happened during the collapse of both WTC, which travelled up and down the building and even a while before the collapse intiated.

Look at the videos and you will see no explosions prior to the buckling of the WTC buidlings where seconds later, both buildings collapsed. The way the buildings fell, you next thing at is going to happen is compressed air blasting out the sides like pumping air from an air pump. The air has to so somewhere and the least path of resistence will be out the sides of the building, which people saw as the buildings collapsed..

So in the case of the WTC1, the fires weakened all 90 odd floors below it, yet somehow the upper portions of 17 odd floor were not weakened by the heat of the fires (even though heat as this habit of rising!) but some how actually become stronger than the 90 odd floors below it.

Only the structural beams at the point of impact were weaken, not those below nor the floors above. That is evident by the fact that is where the buckling of both buildings occurred just before their collapse. The structures failed at that point which is why the upper floors fell straight down, and you will note that at the time of the collapse, the lower floors remained undamaged until the upper levels pancaked toward the lower levels. Look at the videos in slow motion and note the way the buiidings collapse and a closer look will reveal the buckling seconds before the buildings collapsed.

To recap, only the structural beams at the point of impacts are where the bucklings occurred in both buildings seconds before the collapse. No prior explosions evident seconds before the collapse.

Edited September 23, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Little Fish]

I don't see how there could not have been thermite found. Aluminum aircraft came in contact with steel buildings under high temperatures, so there will be thermite found within the wreckage.

....

They weren't, but you can produce thermite in your garage with some aluminum scraps and iron oxide. Just mix and throw in a torch for heating purposes and you will have thermite in your garage

you can make a fried egg in your kitchen, but how do you make the egg?

try making unreacted thermite in your garage by hammering iron oxide and aluminium on an anvil- the friction will ignite it.

the aluminium particles in the nanothermite material were uniform in shape and uniformly mixed through the material.

the aluminium was in the form of uniform platelet rhomboid shapes 40nanometer thickness, this is nigh on at the molecular level.

the aluminium platelets were embedded uniformly in a carbon matrix with nanosized iron oxide.

the material has an ignition temperature of 420C

it is not credible to suggest this could have been created by an airplane impact into rusty steel because the structure is so uniform at the nanoscale and any collision with an aircraft would have ignited the material into its post ignition state - molten iron.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Little Fish

[booNyzarC]

--

try making unreacted thermite in your garage by hammering iron oxide and aluminium on an anvil- the friction will ignite it.

--

Question for you Little Fish... if merely hammering will generate enough friction to ignite this material, what would you say the friction from the collapse of the towers should have done to the materials?

Does this reduce the plausibility that the unreacted thermitic material was wholly present in the towers at all? And suggest that the thermitic properties of the combined materials weren't fully realized until well after the collapse, most likely due to normal oxidation which happened after the samples were collected?

[skyeagle409]

you can make a fried egg in your kitchen, but how do you make the egg?

You don't make an egg, you buy or steal a chicken that does.

...try making unreacted thermite in your garage by hammering iron oxide and aluminium on an anvil- the friction will ignite it. the aluminium particles in the nanothermite material were uniform in shape and uniformly mixed through the material. the aluminium was in the form of uniform platelet rhomboid shapes 40nanometer thickness, this is nigh on at the molecular level.

the aluminium platelets were embedded uniformly in a carbon matrix with nanosized iron oxide. the material has an ignition temperature of 420C it is not credible to suggest this could have been created by an airplane impact into rusty steel because the structure is so uniform at the nanoscale and any collision with an aircraft would have ignited the material into its post ignition state - molten iron.

On the contrary, there were no explosive planted in the WTC buildings. Looking at the videos, any explosives would have been detonated at the time of impact, not many minutes after the fact, and once again, no one in their right mind is going to walk thousands of pound of explosives and detonation wires and equipment all the way up to the point of impact, which is where structural failure occurred in both buildings. Look at the videos. Over a thousand pounds of explosive was used in the 1993 attack on one of the WTC buildings and the building remained standing.

Look at the damage of the 1993 WTC and note the condition of the structural beams.

Those facts right there debunk the conspiracy theory of planted explosvies. Note that structural failure occurred only of the point of those aircraft impacts, and no where else because those impacts is where structural damage occurred and where fires further weaken the structural support beams to failure after heat-soaking for a length of time. The heat was not enough to melt the beams, but were sufficient enough to weaken them to the point of failure.

Edited September 23, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Looking at the videos, any explosives would have been detonated at the time of impact, not many minutes after the fact, and once again, no one in their right mind is going to walk thousands of pound of explosives and detonation wires and equipment all the way up to the point of impact, which is where structural failure occurred in both buildings.

This, “thousands of pounds of explosives and detonation wires” is a nonsense claim - one made expressly by followers of the official theory it should be noted. Those who propose demolition of the WTC buildings have always logically maintained a less conventional method was employed.

Regarding premature detonation of demolition materials, this would only potentially occur in the direct impact path and fire region. The limited number of impacted columns were severed or severely damaged at that point anyhow, so it did not matter if early detonation occurred in those locations. Please note, the large majority of columns were not impacted and temperatures at the core were relatively low - there is no reason detonation should occur there.

The heat was not enough to melt the beams, but were sufficient enough to weaken them to the point of failure.

So you presume.

Yet when NIST applied the best estimated damage and fire situation to their detailed WTC computer models, no collapse was seen to initiate… what a dilemma. It was only a model with damage and fire estimates increased to the limits of feasibility and with further manual inputs added that achieved the desired result. The further problem now, NIST accept their initial model (non-collapse) was in fact better match to the photographic record of actual WTC damage.

You figure out what those results imply.

Whilst anyone claims damage and fires weakened the columns to the point that global collapse of the structure initiated, do understand that scientific evidence of the case is highly conspicuous by its absence. You see, it did not have to be left that way… if the official theory were provable.

[skyeagle409]

This, "thousands of pounds of explosives and detonation wires" is a nonsense claim - one made expressly by followers of the official theory it should be noted. Those who propose demolition of the WTC buildings have always logically maintained a less conventional method was employed.

Regarding premature detonation of demolition materials, this would only potentially occur in the direct impact path and fire region. The limited number of impacted columns were severed or severely damaged at that point anyhow, so it did not matter if early detonation occurred in those locations. Please note, the large majority of columns were not impacted and temperatures at the core were relatively low - there is no reason detonation should occur there.

There was never a detonation in regards to explosives placed within the WTC. The structural integrity of the buildings were comprimised when the aircraft struck the buildings and heat took care of the rest.

So you presume.

Yet when NIST applied the best estimated damage and fire situation to their detailed WTC computer models, no collapse was seen to initiate… what a dilemma. It was only a model with damage and fire estimates increased to the limits of feasibility and with further manual inputs added that achieved the desired result. The further problem now, NIST accept their initial model (non-collapse) was in fact better match to the photographic record of actual WTC damage.

You figure out what those results imply.

Whilst anyone claims damage and fires weakened the columns to the point that global collapse of the structure initiated, do understand that scientific evidence of the case is highly conspicuous by its absence. You see, it did not have to be left that way… if the official theory were provable.

Looking at the videos, the buildings collapsed at the point of impacts, not below nor above and that supports the fact the structures failed due to overload stress caused by impact damage and heat-soaking.

Do you find it strange in support of planted explosives at the point of impact? I find it very strange that there are those who have claimed that explosives were planted at the point of impact. Those claims should be suspect.

Edited September 23, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Little Fish]

Question for you Little Fish... if merely hammering will generate enough friction to ignite this material, what would you say the friction from the collapse of the towers should have done to the materials?

Does this reduce the plausibility that the unreacted thermitic material was wholly present in the towers at all? And suggest that the thermitic properties of the combined materials weren't fully realized until well after the collapse, most likely due to normal oxidation which happened after the samples were collected?

it seems you are suggesting that molten iron and molten aluminium mix together at the point of impact between an airliner and rusty steel column, then the molten iron rusts over time producing unreacted thermite. you don't explain the symmetrical morphology of the material.

the grains are iron oxide, and the elemental aluminium is contained in the rhomboid 40nm thick platelets.

how do you explain the carbon matrix (the dark areas) with your collision producing nanothermite hypothesis.

[booNyzarC]

it seems you are suggesting that molten iron and molten aluminium mix together at the point of impact between an airliner and rusty steel column, then the molten iron rusts over time producing unreacted thermite. you don't explain the symmetrical morphology of the material.

the grains are iron oxide, and the elemental aluminium is contained in the rhomboid 40nm thick platelets.

how do you explain the carbon matrix (the dark areas) with your collision producing nanothermite hypothesis.

Is this the way that you answer a direct question? I wonder why that might be.

[Scott G]

Question for you Little Fish... if merely hammering will generate enough friction to ignite this material, what would you say the friction from the collapse of the towers should have done to the materials?

Does this reduce the plausibility that the unreacted thermitic material was wholly present in the towers at all? And suggest that the thermitic properties of the combined materials weren't fully realized until well after the collapse, most likely due to normal oxidation which happened after the samples were collected?

it seems you are suggesting that molten iron and molten aluminium mix together at the point of impact between an airliner and rusty steel column, then the molten iron rusts over time producing unreacted thermite. you don't explain the symmetrical morphology of the material.

the grains are iron oxide, and the elemental aluminium is contained in the rhomboid 40nm thick platelets.

how do you explain the carbon matrix (the dark areas) with your collision producing nanothermite hypothesis.

Is this the way that you answer a direct question? I wonder why that might be.

I think he misunderstood your question; I think he thought you were suggesting that nanothermite was created by the building collapsing, when you were asking why the unreacted nanothermite didn't react (aka explode) during the collapse of the building. I imagine that much of the nanothermite -did- react, but clearly some was left over to be discovered. I admit I don't personally know the answer, but I bet Little Fish does.

[booNyzarC]

I think he misunderstood your question; I think he thought you were suggesting that nanothermite was created by the building collapsing, when you were asking why the unreacted nanothermite didn't react (aka explode) during the collapse of the building. I imagine that much of the nanothermite -did- react, but clearly some was left over to be discovered. I admit I don't personally know the answer, but I bet Little Fish does.

You may be right that he misunderstood my question. After all, I've described that the mechanisms for this kind of thing were definitely present during the collapse in

. There is no doubt that many materials did merge on a nanoscale after reading the R.J. Lee Company's 2003 study of the dust.

The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize. Vapor phase components with high boiling point and high melting point would have, as they cooled, tended to form precipitated particles or thin film deposits on available surfaces through condensation mechanisms.

The results of this process would be the presence of a thin layer of deposited material on the surfaces of the dust particulate matter.

[...]

The coatings vary in thickness from nanometers (monolayer) to finely dispersed submicron particles.

And this is exactly what we see in the red/gray chips. The gray portion appears to be the dust particulate matter and the red portion appears to be iron and aluminum coatings on a nanoscale with other non-uniform elements present which Harrit posits are likely to be contaminates from the rest of the dust.

All that aside, you are correct about the question I've currently posed to Little Fish. There was so much friction involved in the collapse that it stands to reason that any remaining unreacted thermite should have been fully consumed as the buildings came down. That is if his earlier statement regarding a hammer is accurate.

[Stundie]

I don't see how there could not have been thermite found.

Oh really! I love debunker logic. If there is thermite, then it wasn't planted but occurred naturally.

Aluminum aircraft came in contact with steel buildings under high temperatures, so there will be thermite found within the wreckage.

As I said, if I chuck flour, eggs, butter and sugar in my oven, I don't get a sponge cake.

You need a method and at what temperature does this miraculous reaction happen at??

Look at the photos of the twin towers as they are burning and note the direction of the smoke, which indicates a strong wind blowing through the buildings. An influx of air will greatly increase the temperature of a fire. Just remember what blacksmith bellows are used for.

I'm sorry but I find this argument highly amusing. At what temperature does this reaction where lumps of steel and aluminium turn into thermite?

The time it took for the buildings to collapse was just enough time for the fires to heat-soak structural beams to failure status and where they could no longer support the weight of the upper floors. The impact of the aircraft were enough to bend and damage.the support beams to where they were stressed almost to the limit in supporting the weight of the upper floors, but heat-soak conditions from the fires soften the structural beams to where they could no longer support the weight of the upper floors and the buckliing seen seconds before the collapse of both buildings confirmed the building collapses were the result of structural failure, and nothing to do with explosives.

So if the fires heated the beams and they failed because they could no longer support the weight of the upper floors, then what about the structure which was not heat weakened that was already holding the weight of what was above it?? Unless you are suggesting that the entire lower portion was heat weakened?

And if a beam or beams are heat weakened, does that mean the building automatically collapses?? Because in every multi floored structure before the WTC where a fire as heat weakened the beams, the building only partially collapses?

They weren't, but you can produce thermite in your garage with some aluminum scraps and iron oxide. Just mix and throw in a torch for heating purposes and you will have thermite in your garage. Just don't claim that the thermite you produced came from explosives, unless you light your torch near a gas leak from the water heater, then you can make the claim.

So how does a plane and a steel beam turn into scraps of aluminium and iron oxide.

Why do you need a torch?? The heat in the WTC were not comparable to that of a torch, so you should be able to do this from a fire from office materials and maybe wafting a bit of cardboard to recreate the wind from the fires being so high up.

Look at the videos and you will see no explosions prior to the buckling of the WTC buidlings where seconds later, both buildings collapsed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTx20dzVMtE&feature=related

The way the buildings fell, you next thing at is going to happen is compressed air blasting out the sides like pumping air from an air pump. The air has to so somewhere and the least path of resistence will be out the sides of the building, which people saw as the buildings collapsed..

It can't be air, some of these air pressures happened many floors below the collapse zone and the air doesn't continue to escape as the building collapses.

If it was air pressure, then we would see the air pressure being continuously released until the collapse zone reached it, but we don't.

Only the structural beams at the point of impact were weaken, not those below nor the floors above. That is evident by the fact that is where the buckling of both buildings occurred just before their collapse. The structures failed at that point which is why the upper floors fell straight down, and you will note that at the time of the collapse, the lower floors remained undamaged until the upper levels pancaked toward the lower levels. Look at the videos in slow motion and note the way the buiidings collapse and a closer look will reveal the buckling seconds before the buildings collapsed

I'm sorry but in the case of the WTC 1, lets say the initiation was at floor 93, then you have the 17 floors above it verse the 92 floors below it.

And if energy is transferred between portions equally, I can't see how the upper portions have the structural power to over come the lower portions which are over 5 times the structural integrity.

To recap, only the structural beams at the point of impacts are where the bucklings occurred in both buildings seconds before the collapse. No prior explosions evident seconds before the collapse.

Actually I disagree and of course, you would think that but I when I have some more time, I will post some evidence showing you the total opposite.

Like in the video above.

[Little Fish]

You may be right that he misunderstood my question. After all, I've described that the mechanisms for this kind of thing were definitely present during the collapse in

. There is no doubt that many materials did merge on a nanoscale after reading the R.J. Lee Company's 2003 study of the dust.

The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize. Vapor phase components with high boiling point and high melting point would have, as they cooled, tended to form precipitated particles or thin film deposits on available surfaces through condensation mechanisms.

The results of this process would be the presence of a thin layer of deposited material on the surfaces of the dust particulate matter.

[...]

The coatings vary in thickness from nanometers (monolayer) to finely dispersed submicron particles.

And this is exactly what we see in the red/gray chips. The gray portion appears to be the dust particulate matter and the red portion appears to be iron and aluminum coatings on a nanoscale with other non-uniform elements present which Harrit posits are likely to be contaminates from the rest of the dust.

All that aside, you are correct about the question I've currently posed to Little Fish. There was so much friction involved in the collapse that it stands to reason that any remaining unreacted thermite should have been fully consumed as the buildings came down. That is if his earlier statement regarding a hammer is accurate.

this vaporization/condensation hypothesis as an explanation for the creation of the thermitic chips described by Harrit et al is not reasonable on these ground:

1. iron and aluminium vapourisation would need near 3000 celcius temperature.

2. any vapourized aluminium would condense as aluminium oxide, not elemental aluminium. Industrial aluminium deposition requires a vaccum to prevent aluminium oxidizing in air. Aluminium does not exist in nature in its elemental form, as it is highly reactive, it will react and bond with oxygen in picoseconds after exposure to air. The Harrit chips contain elemental aluminium so cannot be explained by vaporization/condensation processess.

3. The red layers of the chips described by Harrit et al are orders of magnitude thicker than the coating described by RJ Lee:

"The coatings vary in thickness from nanometers (monolayer) to finely dispersed submicron particles" -rj lee report

"Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer" - Harrit et al.

4. RJ Lee do not describe aluminium or iron within the coatings they describe.

[Scott G]

this vaporization/condensation hypothesis as an explanation for the creation of the thermitic chips described by Harrit et al is not reasonable on these ground:

1. iron and aluminium vapourisation would need near 3000 celcius temperature.

2. any vapourized aluminium would condense as aluminium oxide, not elemental aluminium. Industrial aluminium deposition requires a vaccum to prevent aluminium oxidizing in air. Aluminium does not exist in nature in its elemental form, as it is highly reactive, it will react and bond with oxygen in picoseconds after exposure to air. The Harrit chips contain elemental aluminium so cannot be explained by vaporization/condensation processess.

3. The red layers of the chips described by Harrit et al are orders of magnitude thicker than the coating described by RJ Lee:

"The coatings vary in thickness from nanometers (monolayer) to finely dispersed submicron particles" -rj lee report

"Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer" - Harrit et al.

4. RJ Lee do not describe aluminium or iron within the coatings they describe.

Thanks for the information Little Fish. I was wondering if you knew why not all of the nanothermite exploded?

[booNyzarC]

this vaporization/condensation hypothesis as an explanation for the creation of the thermitic chips described by Harrit et al is not reasonable on these ground:

1. iron and aluminium vapourisation would need near 3000 celcius temperature.

2. any vapourized aluminium would condense as aluminium oxide, not elemental aluminium. Industrial aluminium deposition requires a vaccum to prevent aluminium oxidizing in air. Aluminium does not exist in nature in its elemental form, as it is highly reactive, it will react and bond with oxygen in picoseconds after exposure to air. The Harrit chips contain elemental aluminium so cannot be explained by vaporization/condensation processess.

3. The red layers of the chips described by Harrit et al are orders of magnitude thicker than the coating described by RJ Lee:

"The coatings vary in thickness from nanometers (monolayer) to finely dispersed submicron particles" -rj lee report

"Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer" - Harrit et al.

4. RJ Lee do not describe aluminium or iron within the coatings they describe.

A thought occurred to me...

How many CDs and DVDs do you suppose were in those buildings? Look at the list of tenants at the WTC. I'd bet that every one of those businesses had high volumes of CD media, especially the Computer/Data Processing businesses.

Could these red/gray dust chips be the result of CDs and DVDs being pulverized with all of the other debris from the towers? With CDs we already have a manufactured item with nearly pure aluminum nanolayers atop a polycarbonate plastic. Pulverize this material with everything else in the towers and you could end up chips that have iron or iron oxide and other contaminates embedded with the acrylic coating and the plastic. Further oxidation could occur over the years between dust collection and Harrit's analysis.

Just thought I'd throw that out and see what people think of it.

[booNyzarC]

--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTx20dzVMtE&feature=related

It can't be air, some of these air pressures happened many floors below the collapse zone and the air doesn't continue to escape as the building collapses.

If it was air pressure, then we would see the air pressure being continuously released until the collapse zone reached it, but we don't.

--

What do you mean it can't be air? The expulsion of debris from the squib starts out very slow and then accelerates, just like air pressure from collapsing walls/ceilings would cause. As for the object that was ejected, it looks like a jacket to me, very much like the jacket that the poor guy at the beginning of the clip is waving around.

[Little Fish]

Thanks for the information Little Fish. I was wondering if you knew why not all of the nanothermite exploded?

the material ignites at 420C, all it means is that any unreacted material did not come into contact with a heat source above 420C. to suggest that everything in the building would have been subjected to temperatures above 420C is an absurdity.

[Little Fish]

A thought occurred to me...

How many CDs and DVDs do you suppose were in those buildings? Look at the list of tenants at the WTC. I'd bet that every one of those businesses had high volumes of CD media, especially the Computer/Data Processing businesses.

Could these red/gray dust chips be the result of CDs and DVDs being pulverized with all of the other debris from the towers? With CDs we already have a manufactured item with nearly pure aluminum nanolayers atop a polycarbonate plastic. Pulverize this material with everything else in the towers and you could end up chips that have iron or iron oxide and other contaminates embedded with the acrylic coating and the plastic. Further oxidation could occur over the years between dust collection and Harrit's analysis.

Just thought I'd throw that out and see what people think of it.

Based on a simple calculation for an estimate, a typical thermitic chip 3 millimeters x 3 millimeters would contain on the order of 100's millions of seperate particles of elemental aluminium and iron oxide intimately and uniformly mixed. do you think it sensible to suggest that a three millimeter fragment of a DVD could be further fragmented into 100 million particles just by force of collisons?

and then those 100 million particles come together to form a solid material uniformly embedded alongside a quantity of nano sized iron oxide particulate in an accidental ratio quantity that matches the required ratio quantities of those materials to form a thermite?

And for that to happen over and over again such that of many samples of the dust taken miles apart, contained the same material in each sample.

I think this is as likely as random particles generated in a collision coming together randomly to form a set of table and chairs, not once but many times over. Perhaps in Douglas Adam's universe, but not this one.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Edited September 25, 2011 by Little Fish