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

booNyzarC

Thanks, very interesting stuff. I would really like to see what other people in the field have to say about this, though. It would really go a long way to substantiate the findings of the report.

As a layperson, I cannot go through all of the technical details and understand the methodology used sufficiently to say whether the analysis was done 100% correct.

I'm going to see if I can find some kind of response from other experts through my search engine of peer-reviewed journals. I'll post my findings, if there are any.

Hi H.H. Holmes, I agree that it is very interesting and worthy of continued analysis. I think that the best rebuttal to this study I've seen was the one offered by Chris Mohr. I talked a bit about this in another thread with the following:

But thank you for encouraging me to look into that in more depth because I found a potential rebuttal to this nanothermite claim as well...

Mohr points out the problems with the conclusion that thermitic material was found in the dust here.

7
WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE UNIGNITED NANOTHERMITES THEY FOUND IN THE DUST SAMPLES IN THAT EXPERIMENT?

Niels Harritt, Steven Jones and other 9/11 controlled demolition theorists claim to have found nanothermite particles in dust samples from the World Trade Center. They made sure the dust samples were untainted, and used advanced instruments to measure what happened when these tiny red-grey chips were heated up.

Thermites reach temperatures of around 4500° and have their own oxygen supply when they burn, so they can burn underwater. Harritt, Jones, et. al. therefore should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were burning. They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product burning in oxygen. They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nanothermite!

Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal. Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released. A chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did
and didn’t find thermitic material.

Do you consider his criticism of the testing conditions employed by Harritt, Jones, et. al. to be valid? If not, why not?

And if they are so confident in their initial conclusions, why not perform the tests under the conditions suggested here by Mohr?

In addition to this I have since had the opportunity to review a longer and more detailed rebuttal in two of Mohr's videos. First part 11a:

And the second part of this in 11b:

I share Mohr's view that the particles are worthy of investigation which can absolutely determine whether it truly is thermitic material. The primary question I have is why the testing performed by Harritt and others was not done in such a way that could determine this without question. They argue that they were trying to mimic the conditions of the 9/11 event itself, which is all well and good, but it isn't the way to test this material if your intention is to truly identify whether it is thermite.

I've raised these questions in the other thread and I haven't seen an explanation for why this testing wasn't done appropriately. Perhaps someone will be able to address these questions here in this thread.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

why do official story believers ignore the unreacted nanothermite found in the dust?

why doesn't NIST investigate the dust, the main NIST people are experts in nanothermite. why are NIST so quiet on this?

nanothermite in the dust means the official story is wrong.

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.

I might also add that I recently reviewed videos of the collapes and noticed that just before the buildings fell, they buckled, (no explosion) and the rest became history when they fell. They fell as would be expected when damaged support structures were fighting to hold the upper sections of the building before the heat from the fires weakened the structures even further.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stundie
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.
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?

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.

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

You can create thermite in the lab using aluminum and rust oxide and igniting them under high temps.
I didn't know the WTC was a lab??

In other words, I can make cake with butter, flour, eggs and sugar whisked and put in an oven, but I wouldn't expect a cake to magically appear if I just chucked the ingredients directly into the oven.

I might also add that I recently reviewed videos of the collapes and noticed that just before the buildings fell, they buckled, (no explosion) and the rest became history when they fell.
Maybe you should observe this video.

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

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.

They fell as would be expected when damaged support structures were fighting to hold the upper sections of the building before the heat from the fires weakened the structures even further.
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.

Sounds like the Crush Down theory but with heat, maybe we should call it the "Heat Downwards Theory" © which causes heat to rise downwards and weaken a structure, but not bother weakening, or actually strengthen with the higher portions of the structure.

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

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.

I might also add that I recently reviewed videos of the collapes and noticed that just before the buildings fell, they buckled, (no explosion) and the rest became history when they fell. They fell as would be expected when damaged support structures were fighting to hold the upper sections of the building before the heat from the fires weakened the structures even further.

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

Cheers. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

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.

Sounds like the Crush Down theory but with heat, maybe we should call it the "Heat Downwards Theory" © which causes heat to rise downwards and weaken a structure, but not bother weakening, or actually strengthen with the higher portions of the structure.

I don't know how you could know that without applying the same amount of weight to the upper floors as was applied to the lower floors! I don't see how you can compare weakness whilst ignoring weight? Or have you already covered that, apologies if so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike 215

I would like to congratulate the 1500 architects and engineers who have challenged the government conclusions on 911. I regard these people as heroes. They are risking their careers and even their lives by taking such a stand.

If we look back at the critics of the Warren Commision report on the assassination of President Kennedy, we we see how authors and investigators have been harassed and slandered by the media. There are even evidence some of them have been murdered among the hundreds who died who were connected to the assassination. A recent book about the assassination by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor of Charles Manson, denounces anybody who does not agree that Oswald was the sole assassin to be traitors and communists.

When you are willing the challenge the government there is a price to be paid. Architects could be barred from doing any government work and worse. The fact they represent only a small fraction of the total number of architects in this country does not mean that others feel the same but are not willing to take th risk and join them. It takes a real hero to question the government in this day and age.

Edited by Mike 215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
The fact they represent only a small fraction of the total number of architects in this country does not mean that others feel the same but are not willing to take th risk and join them.

I have to wholeheartedly agree with this. That fact that .25% of the over 1 million architects and engineers in the world support the Truthers most certainly does not mean that the others feel the same, to say nothing of not being willing to take the risk and join them.

In fact, I would even go so far to say that the vast, vast majority of the remaining 99.75% of the architects and engineers of the world don't even consider the arguments worthy of their time, and among those 99.75%, there may even be a few who actually disagree!

I never thought I would agree with Mike on anything. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

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?

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.

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??

In other words, I can make cake with butter, flour, eggs and sugar whisked and put in an oven, but I wouldn't expect a cake to magically appear if I just chucked the ingredients directly into the oven.

The evidence for actual live thermite is tenuous at this stage Stundie. The samples haven't yet been appropriately tested to confirm the validity of this claim. But I encourage you to suggest that Niels Harritt, Steven Jones and any other interested parties perform the tests which could confirm this. Or at the very least, request that an independent lab perform the testing with some of the samples.

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.

Maybe you should observe this video.

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

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.

There are many possible causes for that squib. You are jumping to the conclusion that it was caused by explosives but there is no reason to make this assumption.

It could have been a partial ceiling or wall collapse for example. We simply don't know what the exact cause of that particular squib is.

But if we are to assume, as you would apparently have us believe, that it is caused by explosives, one might wonder why it is isolated like this. Why weren't there more in the same general area at the same general time? What time exactly is this footage taken from and how long before the tower collapse precisely?

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.

Sounds like the Crush Down theory but with heat, maybe we should call it the "Heat Downwards Theory" © which causes heat to rise downwards and weaken a structure, but not bother weakening, or actually strengthen with the higher portions of the structure.

I didn't see skyeagle mention anything about fires weakening "all 90 odd floors below it." Why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it just that you are building a strawman here so that you can make your rebuttal falsely appear more convincing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
The primary question I have is why the testing performed by Harritt and others was not done in such a way that could determine this without question.
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. 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, 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.
They argue that they were trying to mimic the conditions of the 9/11 event itself, which is all well and good, but it isn't the way to test this material if your intention is to truly identify whether it is thermite. I've raised these questions in the other thread and I haven't seen an explanation for why this testing wasn't done appropriately. Perhaps someone will be able to address these questions here in this thread.

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."

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.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

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?

It would seem to me the most logical step, one which would definitively show the existence of thermite, and refute the argument of alternate sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

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.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

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?

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.

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... :rolleyes:

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chainsawcam

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

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.
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.

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.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/16/911-and-skeptic-magazines-science-of-controlled-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."

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.
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.
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?
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swamptick

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missile Punch

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warrior777

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. laugh.gif

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. w00t.gif

Edited by omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrbusdriver

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missile Punch

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. w00t.gif

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

Edited by Missile Punch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

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:

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terra 333

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

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.