Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Persia

9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

764 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Wandering
WTC Towers 1 and 2

A test performed by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center showed that conventional thermite was unable to melt a column much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center

Conventional? As opposed to Nano-thermite which I believe is usually the thermite talked about in reference to 9/11.

If conventional didn't cut the mustard, it wouldn't have been used would it? Yet that is of course, what they test for to 'prove' that it wouldn't work.

Great work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Only

Semi interesting that the

Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.

Far from proof of anything; just found it a little thought provoking. Quote just from the Wiki article.

Edited by Jerry Only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Conventional? As opposed to Nano-thermite which I believe is usually the thermite talked about in reference to 9/11.

If conventional didn't cut the mustard, it wouldn't have been used would it? Yet that is of course, what they test for to 'prove' that it wouldn't work.

Great work.

Nanothermite: If It Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit!

In a paper titled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" (2006), physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones cited thermite to explain the molten metal and first started raising the possibility that nanothermite could explain the additional explosive effects observed. Then four dust samples collected in the aftermath of the towers' collapse by different individuals were sent to Dr. Jones, and upon testing, they were found to contain unreacted red chips of a nanothermitic material. Those results were reported in a later paper titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in the Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" by Niels Harrit, et al. (April, 2009), and because of this many assumed that nanothermite had been definitively identified as the prime candidate destructive agent. The paper, said to have been peer-reviewed, came out in the Open Chemical Physics Journal (Bentham Science Publishers), causing 9/11 Truthers to run with the news that explosive nanothermite blew up the Twin Towers, proclaiming what soon became a form of gospel in the 9/11 community. The Gospel of Nanothermite has given the incendiary properties of thermite a set of new miraculous powers: in its nano-state it becomes "Super Thermite" a high-explosive that pulverized hundreds of thousands of tons of building materials in no more than 10 seconds.

A Literature Search

But what does other peer-reviewed scientific literature actually have to say about nanothermite? "Nanoscale Aluminum-Metal Oxide (Thermite) Reactions for Application in Energetic Materials," Central European Journal of Energetic Materials (2010), authored by Davin G. Piercey and Thomas M. Klapötke, identifies the fastest known combustion velocity for a mixture of metal oxide and aluminum: 2,400 meters per second (m/s), in a type of nanothermite made of copper oxide and aluminum. Remember that what Steven Jones found in the dust was iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite. The authors of this paper make it clear that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite is significantly more reactive than the iron-oxide version, and cite a combustion velocity of 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite aerogel. So 895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock waves.

Not Powerful Enough

Let's examine the reason for that important last statement. The "destructive fragmentation effect" of an explosive is its detonation velocity, or the speed of the shock wave through the substance it is traveling in. To significantly fragment a substance, the detonation velocity of the explosive must equal or exceed the sonic velocity (the speed of sound) in the material. For example, the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s. In steel, the speed of sound is 6,100 m/s. Conventional high explosives such as TNT and RDX have detonation velocities of 6,900 and 8,750 m/s respectively, and are therefore capable of fragmenting concrete and steel, because both 6,900 and 8,750 exceed the sonic velocities of 3,200 m/s required to shatter concrete and 6,100 m/s required to shatter steel. As Dwain Deets has diagrammed, at only 895 m/s, iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite does not come close to TNT and RDX.

My link

Once again, no evidence that explosives were used in the 9/11 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Once again, no evidence that explosives were used in the 9/11 attacks.

That link is a bunch of garbage. So you're trusting a government website to tell you that the government is open and honest about its own technologies?

Uggggg noone really believes the official 9/11 story anymore do they? I mean I know it was patriotic to play along for a while and quite un-PC to discuss possible alternatives, but comeon 10 years later most adults I know have been able to distance themselves emotionally from the event enough to recognize the official story is absolute crap and full of holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

That link is a bunch of garbage. So you're trusting a government website to tell you that the government is open and honest about its own technologies?

Uggggg noone really believes the official 9/11 story anymore do they? I mean I know it was patriotic to play along for a while and quite un-PC to discuss possible alternatives, but comeon 10 years later most adults I know have been able to distance themselves emotionally from the event enough to recognize the official story is absolute crap and full of holes.

Absolutely!

For those who cannot think critically, and who don't have the rational sensibilities to understand investigative results, and who refused to accept something so horrendous as that which terrorists brought to this nation on 9-11-01, and...

...for those who have complete, non-discriminating distrust of any authority; governmental, technical,or scientific, and just take everything, no matter how well settled, and make an issue out of it--

--a decade is a reasonable period, allowing a nation to cope, and 3000 families to accept and hopefully move on, before they decide to vigorously pursue *snip*.

Yea...that works.

Look, let's be politically incorrect.

This nonsense comes from people without technical knowledge.

...from people who distrust everything authority does.

...from people who refuse to believe that America could've been caught so asleep that they allowed some mastermind in the middle east to arrange a hijacking of aircraft and the greatest homeland attack in American history.

It HAD to be an inside job, controlled demolition, and the Government HAD to have been involved, right?

Edited by Saru
Removed inflammatory reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

*snip* The story doesn't add up, from the eyewitnesses in the WTC's to the flight instructors in Fla to the unbelievable luck that WTC's 1 2 and 7 all were owned by the same guy.....its just shady

Edited by Saru
Removed requote of deleted comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

It was all very simple. The heat from the fires weakened the support stuctures and the floors pancaked upon themselves. Another way to look at this is that WTC 1 was struck first, but the last to fall. Why?! Because the weakened support structures had more weight to support overhead than WTC 1 and that is why WTC 2 fell first. The United 175 struck WTC 2 at a lower point than WTC 1. The heat did not need to be high enough to melt steel, but just high enough to weaken the already damaged support structures to a point of failure.

And once again, I'm asking you...

Why would they - the demolition experts - need to go to all the trouble of precisely placing charges throughout a building, in a sequential order timed to the millisecond?

You think there's any reason why it's still being done this way?

Maybe, because they aren't stupid, and would know the 'amazing 9/11 method of controlled demolition' is nonsense.

Which is quite true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

And once again, I'm asking you...

Why would they - the demolition experts - need to go to all the trouble of precisely placing charges throughout a building, in a sequential order timed to the millisecond?

You think there's any reason why it's still being done this way?

Maybe, because they aren't stupid, and would know the 'amazing 9/11 method of controlled demolition' is nonsense.

Which is quite true.

Some are apparently fooled anyway. The power of the mass media is amazing for convincing even experts that the T.V. must be right. However, when the mass media -doesn't- cover something and an expert is only told the official story -afterwards-, atleast one such expert found it impossible to go back on his word; I'm speaking of Danny Jowenko, who was a demolition expert. He knew that the official story posited that the Twin towers were brought down by planes and the ensuing fires and somehow didn't question this. But when he saw a video of WTC 7 fall in classic demolition style, he said it had to be a demolition. Even when confronted with the fact that the official story said that it collapsed due to fires alone, he wouldn't back down. Perhaps that's why he died in an alleged car accident in 2006:

He wouldn't be the first person to die shortly after messing with the official story concerning 9/11 either:

Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
A test performed by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center showed that conventional thermite was unable to melt a column much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center
so they setup a test that is obviously going to fail, which proves absolutely nothing.

here is proof that ordinary thermite can destroy steel beams, and proof that the above statement is a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

so they setup a test that is obviously going to fail, which proves absolutely nothing.

here is proof that ordinary thermite can destroy steel beams, and proof that the above statement is a lie.

Awesome video :-). Three cheers for the continuing 9/11 investigation; not from the government or the mass media, but from independent investigators who frequently volunteer their time to find out what really happened on 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

so they setup a test that is obviously going to fail, which proves absolutely nothing.

here is proof that ordinary thermite can destroy steel beams, and proof that the above statement is a lie.

Do you really think that such preparation could have been done before or after the aircraft struck? Of course not. Experiments were conducted which proved that thermite could not have brought down the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

so they setup a test that is obviously going to fail, which proves absolutely nothing.

here is proof that ordinary thermite can destroy steel beams, and proof that the above statement is a lie.

You need to do a review because no explosives were used. Experiements were conducted which proved that thermite could not have brought down the WTC buildings.

WTC Demolition Errors

That the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed through controlled demolition is indicated by the fact that all three buildings fell straight down, maintaining symmetry about their vertical axes as they plunged at nearly free-fall rates. These and other features of the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers are the basis for numerous persuasive arguments for controlled demolition. Unfortunately, many have seized on erroneous or dubious assertions as evidence of demolition, diverting attention from the most persuasive and irrefutable evidence. Seven such assertions about the Twin Towers are:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

And once again, I'm asking you...

Why would they - the demolition experts - need to go to all the trouble of precisely placing charges throughout a building, in a sequential order timed to the millisecond?

If you don't place the proper amount of explosives and do the proper preparation in the right places, then you are not gong to get the desired results, otherwise, you are going to get something like this.

Trade_Center_Explosion.jpg

Maybe, because they aren't stupid, and would know the 'amazing 9/11 method of controlled demolition' is nonsense.

The notion that controlled demolitions brought down the buildings is nonsense. After all, did the explosions from each aircraft result of the instant collapes of the WTC 1 and 2 buildings? No, and once again, review the photo to understand that if explosives are not properly placed nor proper preparation is done before explosives are placed, then you are not going to get the WTC buidlings to collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

That link is a bunch of garbage. So you're trusting a government website to tell you that the government is open and honest about its own technologies?

In some cases, Yes, but I am on the side of the government, and additionally, there are investigators with no ties to the government who have concurred with the official explanation as well, and they have done so based on the collected evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
Experiements were conducted which proved that thermite could not have brought down the WTC buildings.
no, you just completely made that up that statement.

I just showed you experiments which show that a few pounds of ordinary thermite can cut through steel beams. why didn't you watch the video, you are making a complete fool out of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

no, you just completely made that up that statement.

I just showed you experiments which show that a few pounds of ordinary thermite can cut through steel beams. why didn't you watch the video, you are making a complete fool out of yourself.

!

That video is weak, and doesn't prove in any way that exlosives were used in the 9/11 attacks.Check out these photos where the beams had to be cut during cleanup operations.

One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.

<p align="center">angcut.jpg

There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.

They claim that the angle of the
cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.
The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.

cut.jpg

Note the yellow smoke and residue that is being generated by the ironworker, which the 9/11 conspiracist claimed was the result of a thermite explosion.

cut3.jpg

anglecut2.jpg

No evidence of explosives were found at the WTC sites and the angled cuts on the beams were done by iron workers and the residue on the beams was generated by the ironworkers during the course of their work.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G
No evidence of explosives were found at the WTC sites...

Actually, explosive residues and unignited fragments
 of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics were found at Ground Zero; just not by NIST, which admits it never bothered to test for explosives of any kind. Quoting from NIST's FAQ on the World Trade Center:

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

Source: http://911research.w..._FAQ_reply.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt121

I'll never forget September 1st 2001....the day I threw that putter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Actually, explosive residues and unignited fragments
 of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics were found at Ground Zero; just not by NIST, which admits it never bothered to test for explosives of any kind. Quoting from NIST's FAQ on the World Trade Center:

Source: http://911research.w..._FAQ_reply.html

Given the fact the WTC buildings collapsed only at the impact points, why would investigators feel compelled to check for planted explosives?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

That video is weak, and doesn't prove in any way that exlosives were used in the 9/11 attacks. <snip incoherence>

the video shows ordinary thermite cutting a steel beam, and yet you maintain that thermite cannot cut steel beams.

do you accept that thermite can cut a steel beam?

here is a tip to help you decide - the video shows a steel beam being cut with thermite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Given the fact the WTC buildings collapsed only at the impact points, why would investigators feel compelled to check for planted explosives?

I think the main page of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth gives a good helping of reasons as to why NIST should have looked into the possibility of explosives:

********

explo2.jpg

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

  1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at
  2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
  3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
  4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
  5. Multi-ton steel sections
  6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
  7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
  8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
  9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
  10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
  11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
  12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
  13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed

********

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I think the main page of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth gives a good helping of reasons as to why NIST should have looked into the possibility of explosives:

********

explo2.jpg

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

  1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at
  2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
  3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
  4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
  5. Multi-ton steel sections
  6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
  7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
  8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
  9. Isolated explosive ejections 2040 stories below demolition front
  10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
  11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
  12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
  13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed

********

Scott, you overlooked the facts and evidence that addressed the collapse of the WTC buildings. May I suggest that you go back and review the videos and other evidence that have been presented?You need to stay clear of those conspiracist websites because their imaginations tend to run wild. How many times have one of those sites, "Loose Change," changed its stories? They do not know what they are talking about and I will give you hint that you overlooked.

In regards to #11, the molten metal was determined to be tons of aluminum that made up the construction of the B-767, not molten iron as conspiracist incorrectly had thought.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

the video shows ordinary thermite cutting a steel beam, and yet you maintain that thermite cannot cut steel beams.

do you accept that thermite can cut a steel beam?

Not in the WTC buidlings.

cut2.jpg

BTW, how loud was the explosion in the demonstration?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Not in the WTC buidlings.

so you do accept that ordinary thermite can cut through a steel beam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

I think the main page of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth gives a good helping of reasons as to why NIST should have looked into the possibility of explosives:

********

explo2.jpg

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

  1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at
  2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
  3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
  4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
  5. Multi-ton steel sections
  6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
  7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
  8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
  9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
  10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
  11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
  12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
  13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed

********

Scott, you overlooked the facts and evidence that addressed the collapse of the WTC buildings.

I disagree. In fact, I think the one who's overlooked the facts is you; it's all there in the above quote from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Of all the points put forward, you only argued against one of them, which I will deal below. As Morpheus said to Neo in the Matrix:

" I'm trying to free your mind... But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it."

May I suggest that you go back and review the videos and other evidence that have been presented?

If you want me to look at something, present it to me, or at the very least link it; to do otherwise is to expect your opponent to present your own evidence for you.

You need to stay clear of those conspiracist websites because their imaginations tend to run wild.

I'd say that this happens most with the official theory types; I've seen them work themselves into a lather trying to make sense of all the contradictions in the official story. One need go no further then listen to the official story experts to see what I mean:

How many times have one of those sites, "Loose Change," changed its stories?

Not sure which loose change site you mean. I wasn't around in the first incarnation of the Loose Change forum. I -was- around for its second incarnation and participated there for a while. Unfortunately, a moderator there didn't like me and I was banned. It's not the most active of forums anyway, so it wasn't the end of the world for me. I definitely thought that the loose change videos were quite good.

They do not know what they are talking about and I will give you hint that you overlooked.

In regards to #11, the molten metal was determined to be tons of aluminum that made up the construction of the B-767, not molten iron as conspiracist incorrectly had thought.

That theory's been debunked. Here's a good video debunking it:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.